Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 8, 2016
5:30 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.
[Sounding gavel]
Tampa City Council is now called to order.
Roll call please.
05:33:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
05:33:23 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
05:33:24 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
05:33:26 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
05:33:27 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
05:33:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
Okay.
We have a continued public hearing from our last meeting.
Mrs. Kert, I don't know if you have had contact with the
petitioner.
I believe they want to continue it?
05:33:43 >>REBECCA KERT:
It's actually not a continuance.
The petitioner disagrees with it but everyone is agreeing
that the notice was not -- well, they disagree that the
notice was not perfected but they understand the city's
position is that the notice is not perfected and it needs to
be rescheduled.
And you do have an e-mail from petitioner's representative
requesting that it be scheduled to November 10th at
5:30.
05:34:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So all we need is a motion to continue it
until November 10th.
To reschedule it.
05:34:11 >> So moved.
05:34:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The motion from Mr -- I thinking the second
was from Mr. Cohen or the other way around.
I'm not sure.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Okay.
There's nothing else on our public hearings for 5:30 so we
are adjourned until 6:00 p.m.
05:34:35 >> (City Council recess.)
[Sounding gavel]
Tampa City Council is now called into order.
Roll call, please.
06:05:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
06:05:05 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
06:05:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
06:05:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Here.
06:05:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
Okay.
I need a motion to open up public hearings 2 through 13.
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda, a second from Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
These are public hearings.
Anyone that is going to speak on these public hearings,
please stand up, raise your right hand and be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
06:05:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you so much.
We are on item number 2.
Staff.
06:05:44 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
If I may clear the agenda, specifically item number 9.
The applicant is has requested a continuance.
06:05:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
To what date?
06:05:59 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
We have time available on October
13th hearing.
06:06:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Can I get a motion to continue item number 9 to the October
13th --
06:06:10 >> So moved.
06:06:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second -- first from Mr. Reddick, excuse me, a
second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
the continuance of item number 9 at this time?
Item number 9 on the continuance only.
I see no one.
It is as 6:00 p.m.
Do you have that, clerk?
Thank you.
Mrs. Samaniego, any other items to be cleared up?
06:06:39 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
No, sir.
06:06:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 11 does not need to be cleared
at this time?
06:06:46 >> No, sir.
06:06:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It will be heard at that time?
06:06:56 >> Uh-huh.
06:06:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 2.
06:06:58 >> REZ 1655, property at 45023 west North "A" Street, a
rezoning from RS-50 to RM-18.
06:07:08 >> David Hay with Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
We start in the Westshore planning district for this next
case.
The site is located within the west shore planning district,
the Westshore business center, and it is also located in the
Westshore Palms neighborhood.
It's located approximately four blocks Jefferson high school
is located approximately four blocks north of the
applicant's property.
There is transit within the general area.
Serves that area.
Charles C. Williams park is the closest public recreational
facility.
And the site is within a level "B" evacuation zone.
Onto the aerial.
We have got Kennedy Boulevard.
We have got the commercial which is located along Kennedy
Boulevard.
Here is the subject site.
This neighborhood as you can see has a mix of single-family
detached and attached, and small site family projects.
Onto the future land use map.
As you can see on the map, the subject site and all the
properties to the east, west and north are all that
residential 20.
We have got residential 35 to the east, and then further
west you can see the Westshore mall area, and all that
intense activity in that rezoning 100 future land use
category.
Overall the applicant is requesting that residential
multifamily 18 zoning district.
The site, there are some existing trees on-site and the comp
plan promotes preservation.
The plan also development and retention variety of housing
options within the city, and the proposed rezoning does
further that component of the comprehensive plan.
Based on those considerations, the Planning Commission staff
finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the provisions
of the Tampa comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
06:09:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
06:09:25 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Thank you, David.
Here is an aerial photograph of the subject property.
This is North "A" Street.
The intersection with his per he hades and just north of
Kennedy Boulevard.
North "A," the commercial uses of Kennedy through the
residential service to the north, and town home and
apartment development.
Here is the zoning map.
The subject property is in green.
Again, RS-50.
You can see there is a myriad of developments throughout
this area.
The area had traditionally been single-family houses to
higher density to allow for recommended with the
comprehensive plan R-20 land use category to single-family
detached, attached, town home development.
Here is the subject property.
Single-family detached house.
The property to the east.
Now going to the west.
Single-family detached unit.
And then across the street, behind the PVC fence the back of
the commercial properties along Kennedy.
And the site of the commercial building that is along
Kennedy.
This property is currently 8055 square feet.
If it were to be approved as a rezoning tonight, they would
be required to comply with all the applicable standards
under the RM-18 zoning district.
Generally, those are a 25-foot front yard setback, 7-foot
side yard setback and 15 feet rear and 35 maximum height.
And this property is not in an overlay district.
And given the size of the property, maximum number of
dwelling units for this site would be 37 provided again they
could get through zoning tonight.
Other than that, again, Euclidean rezoning, there's no
waivers requested or appropriate.
There's no site plan to review.
And the development staff found it consistent with Land
Development Code.
Do you have any questions?
06:12:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council?
Thank you.
Petitioner.
06:12:22 >> Good evening.
Steve Michelini here on behalf of the owner.
Basically, it's a straightforward rezoning.
We are requesting the RM 18 which would allow the
development of three semi-detached units.
We are planning through the permit process, meet all of the
codes, and as Mary has stated, there are no waivers to pull
out so we have to meet parking code, solid waste,
stormwater, and it will also improve the infrastructure and
develop as part of the redevelopment effort will be required
to replace the water and sewer line.
It's in a transition area between commercial and multifamily
residential.
It's surrounded for the most part by multifamily townhouses,
and a few remaining single-family dwellings.
It's in the redevelopment kind of stage, in the whole area,
and it's very close to the transit area which is immediately
to the east.
It's one block north of Kennedy Boulevard.
And as I said it's a transition between the existing
commercial along Kennedy and the redevelopment of the
multifamily to the north.
We certainly believe this is a good in-fill development, and
we respectfully request your approval.
06:13:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions from council at this time?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 2, REZ 16-55?
06:13:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
06:13:51 >> Second.
06:13:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take item number 2?
06:14:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move file REZ 16-55, an ordinance
presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance
rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4503 North "A"
street, in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
described in section 1 from zoning district classifications
RS-50 residential single-family to RM-18 residential
multifamily providing an effective date.
06:14:22 >> Second.
06:14:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda, second
from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
06:14:30 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
06:14:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 3.
06:14:39 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Item number 3 on your agenda is REZ
16-56.
This is a rezoning request for the property at 3911 West
Cleveland Street, and a request to rezone the property from
RS-60 to RS-50.
06:14:55 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
We move down to the South Tampa for this next case, it is
located within an area of transit.
There is Hart route 30 and 36 located within the general
area.
The closest public recreational facility is Robles Park and
the subject site falls within a level D evacuation.
Onto the aerial.
You see the subject site.
Cleveland to the south.
Kennedy to the north.
This is cool automotive to the north.
Then the Melrose apartments to the east.
You can see the property backs up against the very intensive
development pattern along Kennedy Boulevard, and then it
transitions downward into homes single-family detached to
the south of the subject site.
Onto the future land use map.
You can see the subject site and the property to the west
and south and farther to the north are all that residential
10 future land use category.
We then get to a residential 35, real rose place apartments
are, and actually UMU 60 to the north of Kennedy Boulevard.
The applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned from
residential single-family 60 to that residential
single-family 50.
The city's comprehensive plan encourages the use of its
limited land resources in a more efficient way by supporting
in-fill development and higher density.
Proposed development is employing an underutilized site
based on the underlying land use category, and it helps to
continue that development pattern that is evolving for that
Swann estates neighborhood.
Approval of the applicant's quarterback will increase the
single-family detached housing supply which a variety of
housing is always encouraged by the comprehensive plan.
Based on those considerations, the Planning Commission staff
finds the proposed rezoning consistent with be the
provisions of the Tampa comprehensive plan.
06:17:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
06:17:09 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Again this is a rezoning request from
RS-60 to RS-50.
Here is an aerial photograph of the subject property, much
as David pointed out, existing homes.
It's really kind of at the corner of the subdivision or
neighborhood, rather, a large car dealership to the north,
and a little bit the west there is an apartment complex, and
then on the south side at Cleveland street is single-family
neighborhood.
Here is the property for the zoning map.
Again, commercial intensive along Kennedy.
This is expansion for that car dealership. This planned
development is an apartment complex.
There's a series, all these other PDs are all different,
either apartment complexes or town home developments.
Here is the subject property.
Let me show you, I am going to start up here on Gandy and
then come down Cleveland.
06:18:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Kennedy.
06:18:39 >> This is the subject property on Cleveland.
Here is the car dealership from Grady.
This is south on Grady.
A series of single-family houses.
Turn the corner to Cleveland, west of the application site
is a vacant lot.
To the east is the apartments as David indicated.
Melrose court apartments.
Then across still on Cleveland but across Church Street is
another apartment complex.
And then at the other intersection a town home development.
Now coming back across Cleveland, across the street, a
series of single-family homes.
Because this is a request for a change from RS-60 to RS-50,
we did the proverbial REZ map.
We analyzed the residential single-family lots.
Everything that's in red are commercial properties.
Everything that's in yellow are apartments or townhomes.
And then the gray is a cemetery.
Based own Tampa red and the blue of the single-family
development, 82% is already conforming with the RS-50.
And then within the block face itself, 100% is RS-50.
So that in and of itself does not support this application.
However, if you look at the broader area, you will see that
the subject property is really at the corner of the existing
single-family neighborhood, and the transition to higher
density, as well as all of the multifamily higher median
density residential development.
Given the context of the surrounding area, particularly the
position of the subject property, at the corner, we felt
that the RS-50 was an appropriate zoning as a transition
from RS-50 to the higher density as it moves to north
The subject property is 15,560 square feet.
Any development that would occur on the property would be
required to comply with all of the RS-50 zoning district
standards.
It shows a 50-foot wide lot by 70 square foot lot area, set
back 20 feet, side yards 7 feet and the rear 20 feet.
There is an informational comment from natural resources
regarding the tree survey and tree protections that would be
required.
When and if this property is developed at the permitting
stage, but other than that, staff found the application
consistent with the Land Development Code.
Do you have any questions?
06:21:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council?
Thank you.
Petitioner?
06:22:02 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
Again I'm here on behalf of the owner.
We believe that this is an appropriate use for this
location, providing single-family residences, and in
particular, it's adjacent to the back of the garage, the
parking garage, and service area for the auto dealership
across on Kennedy, and it's immediately adjacent on the east
side to an apartment complex.
There are only six houses on this side of the street that
are residential in nature, and this basically will stop any
commercial encroachment further to the south, which could in
fact begin to he rode the single-family and rest of the
townhouses that exist there.
It is compatible.
It's because it's a straightforward rezoning, it will have
to meet all of the codes with no waivers, and we'll have to
meet all the standards and technical standards regarding
stormwater, solid waste, transportation, and all of the
utilities, water, sewer, and stormwater.
We believe it's compatible, and as the staff has pointed
out, both the Planning Commission and the zoning staff, it
found it consistent with the plans.
So we respectfully request your approval.
06:23:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions of council?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 3, REZ 16-56?
06:23:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
06:23:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Reddick, would you kindly take item 3, sir?
06:23:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 3911 West Cleveland Street in the
city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60
residential single-family to RS-50 residential
single-family, providing an effective date.
06:24:03 >> Second.
06:24:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Reddick.
I have a second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
06:24:10 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
06:24:18 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
Thank you, council.
06:24:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 467.
06:24:22 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Item 4 is REZ 16-57, property at 84740
North Florida Avenue from RS-50 to commercial intensive to
commercial intensive.
06:24:36 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
We move up to the university planning district for this next
case.
More specifically the Lowry Park central neighborhood.
Due to the community mixed use 35 future land use
designation, it is located within a mixed use corridor as
defined by the comprehensive plan.
It is a -- Florida Avenue is a transit emphasis corridor,
and transit is provided along the segment of Florida Avenue
by Hart's route 45, and the subject site is not located
within an evacuation zone.
Onto the aerial.
You see the subject site right here is Florida Avenue and
Watters.
This is a Kmart, a Wendy's, a bunch of heavy commercial,
auto oriented type uses, auto sale uses, all along the
segment of Florida Avenue.
Then it abruptly goes to the west.
You get a mixture of single-family detached and some
attached and some older like duplexes, further to the west,
and then there's also some residential offices on Florida
Avenue corridor.
Onto the future land use map, it kind of demonstrates what
the current gist.
Before I forget, this may look familiar. This was recently
a plan amendment.
It was plan amendment 15-09.
It was approved to enlarge the 35 category.
Now they are coming and rezoning for that C I have
reflective of the underlying land use category.
All that red is TC 35.
You have actually done community mixed use 35, and you have
the more extensive density further to the south, south of
waters.
The applicant is requesting that CIU on the .43-acre subject
site. This portion of North Florida Avenue has historically
been auto oriented commercial corridor, proposed expansion
of an existing auto sales and leasing use would be
comparable and compatible with the surrounding commercial
uses if the property complies with all land related code
development standards.
The comprehensive plan supports nonresidential use as long
major corridors, that are sensitive and compatible with
adjacent residential uses.
The applicant should comply with all Land Development Code
requirements especially buffering and screening so as to
ensure the intensity of the proposed uses properly mitigated
for, and to provide consistency with the comprehensive plan.
Based on those considerations, the request for CI, the
Planning Commission staff does find that request consistent
with the provisions of the Tampa comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
06:27:32 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Thank you, David.
Here is an aerial photograph of the specific property.
As David pointed out again, it's an auto dealership along
Florida Avenue, north of waters and south of --
06:28:02 >> Here is a zoning map.
As you can see the majority of the site is already in the CI
commercial sensitive zoning district.
They want to expand the zoning back to the property which is
currently RS-50.
Again family business.
Here is a photograph of the subject property.
I am going to go up Florida and then come down.
Subject property on Florida is a car dealership.
Going south now, through here where the zoning line is, and
specifically the start of the area that the CI zoning.
This is around the corner in the back of the property on
Tampa Street.
This is one lot to the south, Florida Avenue.
Further to the south is Florida Avenue, another vehicle
repair.
Across the street, commercial shopping.
Further, commercial shopping.
A little bit further to the south is a Krispy Kreme.
Now across the street on Wood is another vehicular use.
Going west on wood there's a single family house.
Turn the corner on Tampa Street.
This is the existing house that I just showed you.
Now we are going to go down Tampa Street and you can see
it's all single-family residential.
Vacant lots on both sides.
And this is on the same side.
There are mobile homes and then a than vacant lot.
Directly south of the subject property.
We went through a comprehensive plan amendment, and we have
changed to the 35 land use category that allows
consideration of the CI zoning district.
Given the review of the subject property and the surrounding
areas, staff found it consistent with the Land Development
Code.
Again, as David said, if this property were to be rezoned to
commercial intensive, the property owner or any future
property owner two comply with all of the CI zoning
requirements including buffering up against the residential
uses.
Do you have any questions?
06:30:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council at this time?
Petitioner?
06:31:00 >> Todd Pressman, East Lake Road, Palm Harbor, Florida.
So obviously I am not Steve Michelini, although I am better
looking than Steve Michelini.
(Laughter)
You can vote on that if you like.
The request before you is Tampa land use amendment was
approved to bring this into compliance.
We had no opposition.
I would like with the petition submitted to you that show
you we are in support of the land use amendment.
Nothing has changed but the zoning.
This is an existing business.
It's run very well.
The family business.
Every department in the city that reviewed the request
indicated no open situation or that it was consistent.
Happy to answer any questions you have.
06:31:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council at this time? Is
there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item
number 4, REZ 16-57?
06:32:08 >> Move to close.
06:32:08 >> Second.
06:32:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mrs. Capin, will you kindly take item number 4?
06:32:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An ordinance being presented for first
reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 84740 North Florida Avenue in the city
of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section
1 from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
single-family to CI commercial intensive to CI commercial
intensive, providing an effective date.
I have a motion from Mr. Capin, a second from Mr.
Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion are? Any opposed?
06:32:51 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Montelione being
absent at vote.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
06:33:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 5.
06:33:01 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Number 5 on your agenda is SU-II-16-07.
It's a special use for off-street commercial parking in a
residential zoning district.
For the site located at 100 west Fern Street.
06:33:20 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
We move down into the central Tampa planning district for
this next case.
More particularly the Seminole Heights urban village.
The special use request is located adjacent to that mixed
use corridor, and it is off that portion of Florida Avenue,
transit emphasis corridor served by Hart route 1.
Onto the aerial.
It includes this portion of Florida Avenue, the commercial
uses align Florida Avenue and then most of the uses directly
behind the transition directly to single-family detached
residential uses on both sides of Florida Avenue.
This is Florida.
Fern.
Waters.
Lambright.
That segment right there.
But it's basically a commercial corridor.
Onto the future land use map, and future land use map kind
of demonstrates that this commercial, the subject site and
all the properties located to the south, west, and north,
are all that residential 10, to the east an array of
community residential 35, and then you can also see behind
somewhat the community commercial 35.
We actually have some community mixed use 35 to offer a
transition into the neighborhood, residential 20.
But the majority of the site, the whole site of the
surrounding Sawyer residential 10.
The applicant is requesting approval through this special
use petition to allow for off-street commercial parking lot
on a parcel designated by residential and zoned
single-family detached for Seminole Heights.
Vehicular access to the parking area will be provided from
the adjacent commercial parcel to the east.
So the commercial traffic will actually come to designated
35 and go in the parking lot that way, internally.
It doesn't create an accent point deeper into the
residential neighborhood.
The comprehensive plan does promote a mixed use development
pat earn long the city's major corridors in our urban
villages.
The proposed parking lot would serve a proposed cafe and
pharmacy development adjacent to the subject site at the
southwest corner much Fern Street and Florida Avenue.
The proposed site provides for appropriate buffering and
screening to residential uses located to the north and west
of the subject site.
Overall Planning Commission staff found the requested
special use is comparable and compatible with the
surrounding development pattern and would further promote
for the redevelopment of that Florida Avenue corridor.
Based on those considerations, the Planning Commission staff
finds the proposed special use request consistent with the
provisions of the Tampa comprehensive plan.
06:36:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
06:36:31 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Thank you, David.
Here is an aerial photograph of the subject property.
Specifically we are looking at this vacant lot.
Again, this is in the Seminole Heights RS zoning district.
This is within the code saying that whenever one asks for
commercial parking for any commercial use, instead of
residential zoning district, it requires a special use here,
which is a public hearing, so homeowners are notified, and
that's why the case is provided before you today.
Again, going north.
The CR portion, construction for a restaurant, as you can
see.
Directly to the south along Florida, the subject property,
single-family house.
I believe it's used for commercial use.
And further again to the south is another auto sale yard.
Across the street, some commercial and office uses.
And some retail uses.
Directly across fern is a vacant lot that serves as parking
for the restaurant further to the north.
And once we get back to here is when you begin the
single-family detached on either side of the road.
Here is a site plan.
Again, for the record, you are specifically approving the
parking lot in this area.
The Seminole Heights commercial, they already have the right
to use the lot from that zoning district.
However, finance City Council remembers a couple years back
staff required a special use for parking lot and didn't show
what the commercial use it was serving, so at that time,
council ... for how the approved parking lot would fit in
the commercial site.
As David said, the vehicular access will be basically two
rows of parking, that connect right here.
I will note that there are no waivers being requested, so
they are completely complying with all of the Seminole
Heights design standards for a parking lot.
This is for overflow parking for the facility.
It's not required parking, that the applicants are wanting
to install to ensure again adequate parking for the
facilities, so it doesn't necessarily start spilling over
into the neighborhood.
This went before the Development Review Committee, urban
design review.
They have a couple of small comments about things to be
changed between first and second reading.
Again, on the site plan and some informational comments
about things that will be required for land spacing at the
permitting process.
Natural resources again has another informational comment
about requirements would be required on the permit plan.
Other than that, they are compliant with all of the special
use criteria, specifically, they are adjacent to commercial
use.
The commercial uses are conforming in the current zoning
district.
And there will be noon allowed outdoor storage in the
parking lot.
Other than that, staff found it consistent with the Land
Development Code provided those changes are made between
first and second reading.
Do you have any questions for me at this time?
06:40:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council?
Thank you.
Petitioner?
06:41:07 >> Ujwal Patel, owner of the property.
As presented we are requesting special use for property
located for our restaurant for the commercial parking
supporting 6308 North Florida Avenue which is a pharmacy,
and 6310 North Florida Avenue, which is a cafe.
We have spoken with the neighbors and we have spoken with
neighbors directly north of us, directly west of us, and
south, and they are all in full support of the parking.
Our goal is to keep our customers, our customers coming to
the cafe and pharmacy off the street, you know, and keep the
street clear and not park in front of anybody's houses.
Any questions?
06:42:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions of council at this time?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 5, SU-II-16-07?
If you have -- if you are going to speak, come forward.
Come along the side here.
But before we go, there are several people that have come
in, in and out.
Who has not been sworn?
Please stand up and be sworn in if you are going to speak to
any agenda on the item.
Anyone who has not already been sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
06:42:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Sir, you are the first one.
Get to the microphone first.
06:42:44 >> My name is George Hinds, 103 west Fern street.
And I think they would be a great neighbor, an asset to the
neighborhood.
As long as they keep their customers out of the residential
area.
I have been living in the same place for about almost 40
years.
About six different owners, you can imagine.
Actually, I think probably you are familiar with Donald
Miller, Tampa Police Department.
06:43:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have heard of him.
06:43:20 >> Oh yeah, I think you have. Anyway, we were standing on
my front door one day talking about parking problems from
the bar that exists, and he was sitting out, and, hey,
George, you got a busy street.
I said, yeah.
I said, and it's always
Yeah?
06:43:39 >> But we do have young kid on the street, you know.
And we like to maybe have some no-parking signs from west
fern all the way up to Florida Avenue, because, now, to keep
people from parking on the street.
It would be a help if there was nothing there, they'll park
there.
We have had the police department down there, cars park down
two blocks long before when there were special events.
But I think they will be a nice asset to the neighborhood.
In a-parking signs, we are happy.
06:44:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate it.
Next, please.
06:44:24 >> Good evening.
My name is --
06:44:30 >> You can stand up straight.
The microphone is going to pick it up.
That type of microphone you are speaking into.
It's everywhere.
Go ahead, sir.
06:44:38 >> On behalf of the Old Seminole Heights neighborhood
association speaking on behalf of them, we also welcome the
parking lot and feel it would be a good addition, and
preventing street parking, but do have a couple of requests
in relation to the parking lot.
If you look at the design as it is laid out now, there is
really no sound barrier being put up between that and the
residents directly to its west. We would like to request
that some sort of cement wall be put in to help block the
noise going into the neighborhood, and the other request
that we had is that if they can possibly be constructed to
be a right-turn only so that the traffic doesn't flow into
the neighborhood but is directed out towards Florida Avenue.
Preventing unnecessary traffic of the folks, the business
from flowing in and causing more traffic.
Other than that, we are in full support of the parking lot
proposed.
It would help prevent parking along the street.
06:45:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else from the public that would like to
speak on item number 5?
Rebuttal from our petitioner?
I apologize, I didn't realize you were coming on up.
Is there anyone else that's going to speak on this item,
please stand up so we can figure out who is going to be
coming up, if anyone speaks on item number 5.
Go ahead, sir.
06:46:17 >> I have been sworn in.
Colis Monlar, 308 East Jean Street, also the architect on
the project, also a neighbor, and we are thrilled to see
this street evolve into such a beautiful neighborhood.
Where once we had used car dealerships up and down.
Speaking on behalf of my client as well as a neighbor, we
are in full support of this project.
Thank you.
06:46:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
And you say you are the architect on this project?
06:46:47 >> That is correct.
06:46:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Anyone else in the public like to speak on this item?
If the petitioner could come forward at this time, do you
have a question?
I was just going to ask.
Come on up.
Just sit right there.
Don't gone anywhere. Staff, come on up, she has a question.
06:47:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Mrs. Samaniego, you said in your
presentation that it meets all of the requirements.
But can you -- can you run through what the buffer
requirements are?
Because this is not use to use, it's commercial to
residential.
06:47:27 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
One moment, please.
06:47:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sure.
06:47:34 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Seminole Heights, it is technically a use
to use buffer.
Let me show you.
The commercial parking, commercial use.
Up against the residential.
06:47:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It's the commercial total residential
that I am asking about.
06:47:54 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Right.
I got you.
One moment, please.
Let me find it in here.
While I am looking for that, I will note that one of the
requests was about the right turn out only for the exit.
Of the property.
And I will remind the City Council that the access part is
not part of the subject property tonight.
It's already on the CI zoning.
And you are really only approving this, so you can't make
any determination on this.
06:48:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Understood.
06:48:46 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Getting back to answer your question, the
front yard along Berns street would require a 15-foot
landscape buffer that they are providing.
The side yard is the property along the west requires a
3-foot buffer with a continuous hedge.
06:49:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's the 3-foot.
06:49:14 >> 3-foot with a continuous hedge as well as a 6-foot high
fence or wall.
They are proposing a 6-foot high wood fence.
And then along the rear of the property there was --
06:49:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That would be the west side that the
neighbors were --
06:49:34 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Yes.
This is an 8-foot landscape buffer with a 3-foot high wood
fence.
06:49:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
You ran through the photographs before.
What is to the south?
So what would be than the property owner's name?
What is that, another residential?
The side with the 3-foot buffer.
06:49:59 >> Yes.
It's a single-family lot.
06:50:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So the single-family residence on the
south.
But on the west, so why is the buffer only 3 feet on the
south and what did you say, 8 feet --
06:50:18 >> On the rear.
Minimum requirement of the Seminole Heights.
06:50:26 >> The commercial site, which is what the parking lot is.
To the residential site to the south.
Only a 3-foot landscape buffer.
06:50:36 >> A 3-foot hedge buffer with a wall or a fence.
06:50:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
With a wall or fence.
And the fence there is higher than the one on the south
side?
06:50:45 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
They are both 6-foot high wood fences
proposed.
06:50:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
Thank you.
06:50:52 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Another additional note.
All required -- is 4-inch minimum.
06:51:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So there will be a 4-inch --
06:51:07 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
So the trees that planted will be ...
06:51:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Gotcha.
Thank you.
06:51:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions at this time of staff?
Petitioner, rebuttal.
06:51:19 >> Yeah, in terms of the area we are trying to make sure
that the properties are surrounded and you can see we have
4-inch caliper trees, we have bushes that go across, all
around the north, the west and the south of the property,
and then wood fence in addition to the bushes, on the west
side and the south side.
6 F.W. Woolworth fence.
06:51:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council at this time
concerning rebuttal?
Is there anything else you would like to add, sir?
Okay.
I am going to ask one more time if there's anyone else in
the public that would like to speak on item number 5.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Maniscalco, a second from
Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take item number 5, sir?
06:52:22 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance approving a
special use permit S-2 approving parking, off-street,
commercial in SH-RS Seminole Heights single-family detached
residential zoning district in the general vicinity of 100
west Fern Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more
particularly described in section 1 hereof providing an
effective date.
06:52:45 >> Second.
06:52:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
06:52:54 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
06:53:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes, ma'am.
06:53:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
To the gentleman who spoke about -- the
first one.
You spoke about the no-parking signs.
We couldn't talk about that during the hearing because it's
not part of the hearing.
But you can request those from the city.
06:53:21 >> From the city?
06:53:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Parking, right-of-way.
Transportation.
06:53:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Don't call officer Miller.
He can't help you on that one.
06:53:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 6.
06:53:47 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Item number 6 on the agenda is REZ 16-44.
It's the Tampa Jewish JCC federation, INC, 522 North Howard
Avenue from planned development to planned development which
allows a daycare, appraise school, recreation facility,
commercial, private, place of assembly, and use of public
cultural facility.
06:54:18 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
We stay in the central Tampa planning district for this next
case.
More specifically the West Tampa urban village.
It should all be -- the site should be familiar to
everybody.
It's the armory.
There are -- there is a community mixed use 35.
It is a mixed use corridor village.
Both Armenia and Howard are designated as transit emphasis
corridor, even though there is not currently any transit on
the site plan.
Some day hopefully there will be.
It is located within the level D evacuation zone.
Onto the aerial, the subject site of course right in the
middle, you should all be familiar, the corridor is mostly
nonresidential.
Specifically the Howard Avenue is mostly nonresidential.
And then the main corridor are the residential uses, the
park to the northwest.
Onto the future land use map.
The subject site is right there in the center.
We have gray to the south, Howard to the east, Armenia to
the west, and there's lemon on the north.
And further north.
That's the subject site.
The subject site and all this pink color is that community
mixed use 35.
It gets more intensive as you go up Howard North Howard
Avenue and the interstate is off the map.
All that red is commercial 35.
And then to the west, we have the residential 20.
And then off of the Howard Avenue going -- the tan color is
the residential 10, except this which has that community
mixed use 35.
The planned development as originally proposed promoted
redevelopment of historic structure which is under
construction, set back to a continued public use.
Planning Commission staff did review those previous two
planned developments and did find them consistent.
However, within the current request, the addition of a
6-foot perimeter fence along the front of Howard Avenue.
Previous proposals included a fence at the face of the
existing building and was not placed along the face of
Howard Avenue.
Howard Avenue is identified as a transit emphasis corridor
and is one of the two major north-west arterials that
traverse through the West Tampa urban village.
As well as serving as the primary pedestrian entrance to the
proposed development.
The fence creates a barrier of entry to the front entrance
of the building which is inconsistent with policy direction
in the comprehensive plan.
There are other design alternatives which can be introduced
along the eastern perimeter of the project that are
important to the city's design standards.
Also, the subject site is located within that West Tampa
urban village.
The comprehensive plan states that the purpose of the you
are balling ban village is cultivating high quality built
environments, character represents Tampa's unique historical
context.
The former for the Homerly Hesterly -- it's going to be a
long night -- armory was a popular venue hosting several
cultural and political events.
It is recognized as an important asset to the West Tampa
urban village.
The introduction of a perimeter fence along Howard Avenue
diminishes the historic character of the building and does
not contribute to the high quality development in the West
Tampa urban village.
Overall Planning Commission staff found that the
introduction of this feature along Howard Avenue
significantly diminishes the original intent and historic
character of the proposed planned development and does not
reflect the sensitive and adaptive reuse of this historic
site due to scale and height of the fence along Howard
Avenue and does not promote the unique characteristic of the
West Tampa urban village.
Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff
finds the be proposed planned development inconsistent with
the provisions of the Imagine 2040 Tampa comprehensive plan.
06:58:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
06:58:55 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
Here is the subject property.
Howard, Armenia.
This is the orientation.
I believe this might have been approved multifamily
development.
Here is the subject property.
I am not going to take you all the way around the subject
properties again.
There has been some recent activity, fencing along the
property.
The exterior has been refurbished.
You can see architectural features, that I am sure the
applicant will go into more detail on.
And it is currently an active project.
This specific request -- has specific detail.
The first is that they are asking to add a use for public
cultural facility.
And the property owners have the opportunity to lease a
small portion of the building to the city to run some public
classes.
So therefore we add quote unquote public facility as a
permitted use to allow that to occur.
The second request as David indicated is for a fence along
this portion of the property.
Again for the record, in the 2014, building assembly, and
then over here.
So now they want a fence -- Howard Avenue.
The property is a local landmark structure.
Any requirements or any reviewer or application, the
Architectural Review Commission for a recommendation.
This has an architectural commission on June 8th and
specifically regarding the fence they recommended denial to
City Council based on the proposed rezoning, the fence
placement does not meet the secretary of interior standards,
and is not appropriate for historic properties for the
reason that existing PD was approved with a fence
terminating at the base of the existing building so as to
not give access to the ceremonial historic part of the
building.
Again, the front of the building facing Howard has been lost
and then direct access off of the sidewalk.
So felt when they made the recommendation they did not meet
the criteria placing the fence there.
The third part of the planned development amendment is for
waivers for signage.
There are three monument signs proposed at the location to
Howard, one on the corner, one at the entrance on Howard,
and the other one off of Armenia.
And then there's also a building sign in this location.
Given that the property is in the West Tampa overlay, and
the basic sign standards, there are a number of waivers that
are required.
First for the building sign.
Let me show you.
This building sign.
Square footage of 25 square feet, and is supposed to be 12
inches, and this is at 40 inches.
Based opt free-standing sign, they label the signs A, B and
C.
Sign A that will be, I believe, an exception.
Sign A, proposed instead of 15 square feet for the sign
property, they are proposing 21-foot square feet.
They want 18-foot high.
For sign C they are wanting a 22-foot sign as with an 8-foot
high as opposed to the 6.
Within staff review of the recommendation of the ARC, and
the West Tampa overlay, staff found it inconsistent.
Land development found it inconsistent.
Urban design found it inconsistent.
As well as like I said the Architectural Review Commission.
The historic and ceremonial sign of the property is along
Howard.
They have all the other property lines.
This area should be kept open with direct access from the
sidewalk into the front of the building.
And then the increase in the square footage of the signage,
given that along the street isn't appropriate scale.
For the project.
Do you have any questions for me at this time?
07:05:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council?
07:05:40 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Actually let me clarify?
07:05:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Clarify if there are any questions or
something else?
07:05:47 >> Something in the report. If city Council chooses to
approve the application, changes would be required to be
made between first and second reading that are found on the
revision sheet.
Now I'm through.
07:05:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions by council?
All right.
Petitioner?
You know, we did have an easel here so you didn't have to
bring your own.
You never want to presume.
Good point.
But that does not hold up.
There is an easel in the back left-hand side, my left
towards the back.
Either that or he's going to make a tent.
I'm not sure.
07:07:00 >> David Singer, Singer & O'Donniley, 712 south Oregon here
in Tampa.
For the record we have submitted the Power Point slides into
the record that you may review during the presentation.
As staff discussed we are here tonight with members of the
JCC to propose a few straightforward changes we would like
to make to the PD that's already been approved by City
Council.
For several years now I have had the opportunity to be a
part of this great public-private partnership that will
bring new life to the historic for the Homer Hesterly
armory.
As you are aware before the JCC together with the armory, a
planned development for approval, by City Council, this site
sat unused for many years.
Since then, we have come before you as a result of site
planning process to make necessary adjustments.
And we are hoping that this will be the final adjustment.
This plan here, as you can see, is a modest revision of the
already approved plan, is substantially the same, but
includes three changes.
First, the introduction of the public cultural facility of
the proposed allowable use.
Second, the inclusion of a new perimeter fence for the
safety of both the structure and its occupants.
And third, the inclusion of several monument signs, and a
building sign to demarcate JCC site.
In addition, I want to note that staff report and natural
resources requested that we adjust the sidewalk in the
southeast corner to accommodate a protected tree radius.
We have made that adjustment and it will be noted between
first and second reading.
To get to where we are today has been a true demonstration
of public-private cooperation and partnership.
Today members of the private communicating including the
Glazer familiar reply have donated millions of dollars to
make this project economically viable.
Florida State representative Dana young who currently
represents district 60 in the Florida legislature and
senator Jeff Brandon worked together with our legislature to
bring funds from our state budget to bring this historic
building back into the community.
The City of Tampa for the revitalization and will be
administering the art program from within the new facility,
and this inclusion, the city's art program is the reason we
are adding public cultural facility and allowable use.
I am joined this evening by jack Ross, Executive Director of
the Tampa Jewish community center as well as Craig Gunte
from the security firm CIF, will be discussing why the fence
is integral for security purposes.
If staff agrees, and I imagine you agree as well, the
inclusion of public cultural facility use is compatible with
the site, and I will not spend time discussing that
addition.
Instead, I will begin with the discussion about the monument
and building signs and why reasonable deviation from the
West Tampa overlay district is appropriate to this unique
site.
After that I will make comments about the location of the
perimeter fence, enhancing -- hand things over to Mr. Ross
and Mr. Gunte to discuss the importance of the location of
the fence for security of the property, it's members and its
visitors.
When we conclude, I will be happy to answer any questions.
On the monument sign, the plans are located here, sign A.
Here sign B.
Here sign C.
Only sign A and C we are asking for a waiver.
The West Tampa overlay district restrict the monument sign
to an area of 15 square feet and height of 6 feet.
Signs A and C are slightly larger than that.
A is 21.87 square feet and 8 feet in height.
The waiver requests a 6.87 square feet in area and 2 feet in
height.
Request for sign at 7 feet in area and 2 feet in height.
The fact is, this is a very large and unique site, and the
West Tampa sign regulations are not intended to be a
one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to what signs
should be allowed.
It makes sense that larger-than-average signs be placed on
our larger-than-average sites.
Allowing larger signs for larger historical sites for the
city is not a precedent.
And you can see the signs from the David Tippin water
facility.
This large site, which is 29 acres, proportionately larger.
The site for the Cuscaden park swim pool, another large sign
for a large site.
The monument signs we are proposing are not back lit and
will be illuminated from lights in the ground, and their
purpose for design to match the aesthetics of the
development.
I think it's also important to note they are not electronic
signs.
Finally, here are some renderings.
And you can see them proportionately depicted.
Slightly larger than normal signs for a larger than normal
site.
We are also requesting a waiver to the building signs, the
sign on the actual building.
This requires a waiver as a result of a minimal increase in
the square footage area.
Only 1.6 square feet.
And an increase in the text height.
The West Tampa overlay district required building sign text
to be limited to 12 inches.
Our building sign text is 40 inches.
Like the monument signs, it's a proportional increase for
the proportional size of the building.
As you can see on the rendering, it is not outlandish.
It's not ostentatious.
It fits the architecture.
And it makes sense.
Again, this is not a one-size-fits-all situation.
It simply doesn't make sense to rein to the scale of the
massive building to have a 12-inch sign on the building.
If it were a one-size-fits-all, we would be talking about
the same size signage on the small law firm as opposed to
the armory.
Different signs for billed different buildings.
Again, large buildings.
Large signs.
This is not a precedent, a matter of exception here, and we
ask that you waive it.
Now the fence.
As staff mentioned, ARC states location of the fence is not
consistent with the historical nature of the building.
They do not say that the fence itself is not consistent.
And that's important.
Only its location they have an issue with.
There's no debate about having a fence or not having a
fence.
We are only talking about where the fence is going to be.
For the reasons we are about to articulate involving safety
and security, the location of the fence needs to be at the
perimeter of the site along Howard.
Perimeter fences that historical structures within the city
again are not unusual.
And at least 22 historical sites within the city feature
perimeter fences.
Some examples include the following.
The Peter knight cottage with a perimeter fence, historical
structure.
Saint Andrews Episcopal church, historical building,
perimeter fence.
The Berriman Morgan cigar factory which is right up the
street from the JCC.
Historic structure perimeter fence.
Nearby Gorrie elementary on the corner of South Boulevard
and DeLeon.
Also note that like Gorrie, there are going to be children
on-site at the JCC with the addition of the preschool.
The example demonstrates perimeter fencing for the historic
site is not an usual request.
And more importantly, as Mr. Roth and Mr. Grande are going
to discuss, the JCCS are unfortunately targets for hate
crimes across the country.
This particular JCC, paired with a historic U.S. military
institution, can unfortunately very well be perceived as a
potential target for violence.
I want you to keep in mind when you hear from Mr. Roth, the
security expert, about the danger.
So I am going to hand the presentation over to them for a
moment, to discuss the importance of the location of the
fence on Howard Avenue.
07:16:00 >> Good evening, members of council.
Jack Ross, 522 Howard Avenue, Executive Director for the
Tampa JCC, now plural.
We come before you on not anesthetic issue but one of great
import to our programmatic purpose of our cultural center.
We were aware from the outset that we will have security
considerations to make in the development of this project.
And we were told that the regulations and guidelines would
not allow a perimeter fence, and as lay people, we moved on
with our architects, and we looked at technologies and other
components, and each set, every coordinated with homeland
defense, Tampa TPD, and convention services, we were told,
you have a problem.
You have a problem.
You have a problem.
At each juncture we said how do we remedy the problem?
Let's talk about the multi-factorial approach.
And without exception our experts said, you have to have a
perimeter fence.
It encompasses the entire property where you have your
programmatic activities.
To articulate a more specific conversation, Craig Gunte of
critical intervention services.
07:17:27 >> Good evening.
I'm the vice president of special projects for critical
interventional services and I also work quite a bit, about
80% of my work based as a security consultant particularly
with regards to mitigation of targeted violence, terrorist
attacks, active shooter, workplace violence, et cetera.
I have been working with the Tampa Jewish federation in
terms of physical security and emergency management planning
as relates to the new facility.
I know it's been expressed by some that this is just simply
a fence, that it really doesn't matter where it's located.
But that is actually quite false for two important reasons.
Number one, in a very large percentage of the attacks
directed against Jewish community and cultural sites
Internationally such as the 2014 attacks at the Overland
Park Jewish Community Center, the attack at Village Shalom
also located there, in 2012, and I could go on for 15
minutes with examples of this.
The attacks against human events located outdoors.
At the site that we are discussing right now we have a
school facility, where large numbers of families, children
and others are expected to be.
We also have an outdoor events area.
We are expecting a large number much people to be present
for special events during the course of the week.
According to some projections, 1500 at a time.
Not to mention visitors and other people coming on a regular
basis, and a future preschool that's going to be located
on-site.
Currently, the only real protective layer that we have to
protect those people outdoors and more effective response
and provide a basis for detection of intrusion is the outer
perimeter fence.
Now, setting that point aside for a minute, there's a number
of other measures that have been put in place at quite a bit
of expense to the JCC in order to provide for this kind of
protection.
For example, we added fencing a long three sides of the
perimeter.
We have vehicle entry control point with specific controls,
and access control that's going to be employed for all
vehicles entering the facility.
However, without this particular fence modification, we have
for all purposes a weak link in the chain.
And right now anybody could simply walk in from the street
directly inside the perimeter and bypass those access
controls at the gate located outside.
So for all purposes for all of the other measures to be
effective, this modification must be made.
Thank you very much.
07:19:48 >> Mr. Gunte will be available to answer questions if you
have them.
In conclusion, this is a very straightforward request.
Add the dwindle use to allow the art program for the City of
Tampa, allow the sign waivers for the signs, allow
construction for the perimeter fence for safety and security
of the members, structure, and public.
We appreciate your time.
We are here to answer any questions.
07:20:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mrs. Capin.
07:20:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
For staff, I want to loop at the three-sided fence.
07:20:26 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Yes, ma'am?
07:20:31 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
And how high is the fence and it closes in
on the building?
I see that.
07:20:39 >> The current proposed approved plan from 2014 has the
fence in the locations and it goes all the way around the
perimeter and the side of the building, with fencing.
So where it would be this area.
So this area would be -- as of right now --
07:21:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
All right.
Thank you.
Leave that up there.
You know, it's very sad to me that when this was proposed,
it was proposed for community.
And now we are fencing it N.it's not very community
friendly.
I understand what you are saying about the security.
However, the way this is even right now is not user friendly
to the community, because of the fences.
But that was what we approved.
I have an issue with that fence.
I have an issue that you knew where you were coming, you
knew that -- this didn't start like, you know -- when this
started there were issues with security.
So I'm just having -- another way of securing which might be
more security or perimeters, I don't know, besides a fence
that would be -- but a fence is just, first of all, our
staff is recommending not to do it.
And secondly, it is just very sad, really to me, it's very
sad, because it was proposed from the beginning.
This is a community center, and this is going to be very
good for the community.
And now it's getting all fenced in, and the community is not
going to get in and out very easily.
07:22:51 >> I appreciate that.
What we have, first I acknowledge --
07:22:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Put your name on the record.
07:23:00 >> Jack Ross, Tampa Jewish community center.
You know, and we all know what happened in San Bernandino,
California.
They had security measures that were more welcoming than
they may have today.
The Orlando nightclub, prior to its massacre, may have had
security measures that were a little different than when and
if it would open again and other clubs.
07:23:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Stop right there.
The only security measure you have available to you is a
fence.
07:23:31 >> So what I would like to say, what I am trying to
articulate, security is -- I used the word earlier
multi-factorial.
Any one component may or may not be effective or mitigate
the danger.
But when properly planned and taken in the aggregate, each
of those components work together.
Each of those components work to raise an alarm.
To slow an intruder so they committee less harm.
And it's the thoroughness of this plan that they think to
take the weakest link and to strengthen it and each of our
security experts, Tampa PD, homeland security, said you have
a weak link.
And here we have had hundreds, I'm sorry, over the course of
the years, tens of thousands of our public come into this
FAP silt.
For regulations that were created in the pre9/11 world, we
are now in the post 9-171, post Orlando, post San
Bernandino, post Tel Aviv world.
07:24:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I'm perfectly aware of that.
Just stop right there.
We right here are exposed.
Just right here.
Anybody that came in here and looked at us for security
would say, you have a problem.
I guarantee you that they still do that.
My issue is, is there any -- is there any other way besides
a fence?
And I'm really, really concerned, because this area, this
community, you know, deserves enough fencing on.
Does not deserve fencing off.
Let me put it that way.
And that's what I am looking at.
07:25:33 >> I understand that.
My name is Craig again.
Can you see the actual diagram?
07:25:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I do.
07:25:41 >> I'm not sure what you can see.
The area that we are discussing right now, one of the areas
why that area specifically is very critical in terms of what
we are discussing is because the core with special event
facility is located in what will be for all purposes
unsecured area if we do not have a fence.
So a thousand, 500 people outside attending events at the
Jewish community center, that will not be provided with
adequate protection as without the barrier.
Really, there is not any other way that we can mitigate that
potential risk.
There has to be some way, number one, to allay and provide
for a response.
Then secondly some kind of way to recognize -- if there is
an open perimeter anybody can literally walk straight
through it and it is anticipated, not just by my judgment
but others, that the south fence, for special events, and
also a lot of activity inside the facility, you are likely
going to have lots of people parking.
They need to be channeled through the designated entry
control point into the facility.
Otherwise if you walk from the streets inside this perimeter
for what -- really to provide for adequate protection in
this circumstance is the measurement, I believe.
07:27:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
There's no other place to put these
thousand people besides here?
You can't put them inside of the fence there?
07:27:21 >> The programming that will go on here of children and
after-school programming, people from the City of Tampa arts
center might recreate there, smoke a cigarette there, other
community members who are meeting inside may go outside and
retreat for a breath of fresh air. This is an area that
will be programmatically used in many ways.
When we had our security people come look they said when we
have large numbers, this is day and night, and weekends and
weekdays.
This is a critical area.
Again, we knew it was programmatic but we were told the
regulations say you can't.
Then every security expert said you had a problem.
We said what do we do?
And they said you seek an exception.
That's why we are here.
07:28:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
So this is the most cost effective way that you can secure
this area?
07:28:18 >> Cost isn't the issue.
07:28:19 >> Well, that's what he said.
07:28:21 >> But using that terminology, the cost and our approach to
the aggregate of our security plan.
This is a component of that plan.
Whether that fence is made out of 8-inch plexiglas or what
we are proposing today, that could be a cost issue.
But the issue here is creating a barrier that distinguishes
the uninvited from the invited.
And maybe that's not the right vernacular especially with
your line of questions.
How do you prevent someone who would do harm from those who
would not do harm?
How do you distinguish and how do you create --
07:29:01 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Tell me how the fence will prevent that.
07:29:03 >> In several different ways.
Number one, Tampa value of any given barrier is
fundamentally if amount of time it delays adversaries
ingress or from accessing the potential risk.
Especially with an asset, two things, number one is slowing
down that adversary from ingressing, to have access, which
also keep in mind when we talk about acts of targeted
violence, shooter events, for example, we need.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the department of homeland
security's education program, but for run to be effective,
for people to be able to escape from the area, we need to be
able to delay that adversary from accessing those people.
So that first of all starts outside of the perimeter access.
Second, you need a basis to identify suspicious behavior.
We need to identify and know what that activity is and
intrusion into the facility.
Without that, there's no way that we can slow that.
07:30:11 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
What is the fence made of?
07:30:15 >> It's still picket fence from what I understand.
07:30:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You feel a picket fence is going to do
that?
07:30:21 >> Yes, ma'am.
It requires delay because it requires an adversary to
physically climb over the fence to access the facility so
the delay time would be delay required to access that
barrier.
07:30:32 >> They could shat over it.
I mean, really?
07:30:34 >> That is possible too, ma'am, but it's also possible to
walk inside the perimeter and have undelayed unfettered
access to everybody inside.
Again, when doing physical security design, if it was in my
control the barrier would be a lot more robust, at least
eight feet high, and barbed wire.
07:30:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Well, that's what I would expect.
07:31:03 >> But the point is that still, within our spectrum of
capability, we would have to be able to create delay, we
have to buy time for people to effectively realize an attack
is underway and take response in that case.
In fact, I don't have a slide here to break it down to you.
But I can show you in previous attacks how this works.
Starting with the time of attacks initiated to the time that
mass killing is underway and in many cases you are talking
about 360 second or less under the circumstances the
circumstances.
It's critical to buy as much time as possible. And believe
it or not, ten to 15 second actually makes a huge
difference.
In fact according to the 2014 mitigating impact shooter
study, one victim is killed within every 15 second, and that
starts almost immediately the time the attack is initially
itself.
This is important.
And it may not sound very important, just 6-foot high
wrought iron fence, but that 15 second of delay time is very
important.
07:32:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
My first thought was, I don't think I want to go to an event
there with what you just said to me.
I'm serious.
I'm looking at it and I'm thinking, why would I open myself
up?
In an area like that when you are talking about -- when you
are talking about really, really serious --
07:32:36 >> May I say had.
07:32:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, please do.
07:32:39 >> Your comments about security of our world today has the
same import.
Every day we walk in public facilities that are in measure
becoming more and more insecure based on the events of day
to day occurrences.
So our reality is more profound.
But the reality that you recognize for tonight, you are
right, I could have walked in here with a gun.
07:33:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Uh-huh.
We are very aware of that.
But thank you.
I think that's got the information I need.
07:33:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I'm afraid the order we are doing right now,
we are going Reddick, Mrs. Montelione, Mr. Miranda, Mr.
Maniscalco.
Mr. Reddick first.
07:33:21 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, chair.
You know, I truly believe that I can go out and find a
security expert and come in and tell me that that fence is
not necessary.
Get one that you are paying come in to say why that's
necessary.
I can go out and do the same thing and say that is not
necessary.
I can recall going to that armory when I was small, and
rassling events and concerts and all these different events
that took place at the armory.
And I never imagined that when we go through the transition
that there would this fence out front.
I can see the backside, and the other side, but you take
away from the beauty of what you are trying to attempt to do
by putting a fence down Howard Avenue.
And I look at the underlying factor.
You can talk about that you are speculating that somebody is
going to drop a bomb or truck is going to run into your
facility as soon as you build it.
But I look at the other factor.
I look at a demographic that just 50 feet away from you, and
those who walk that neighborhood day and night, I think
that's the underlying factor that you are really trying to
bring forward without using that but using the security
measure that you might have with some type of terrorist
threat, and going to hit your facility.
But that's not the case.
Because you can go two blocks east of your facility at
Albany.
That's the underlying factor that you are talking about.
That's who you want to keep out.
And I know it.
And you can go two blocks south, Cass, Albany and Rome.
That's the line you want to keep out.
You can go two blocks north, Cass, Rome, cypress.
Albany, Cass, or Albany, cypress.
That's the underlying factor that you want to keep out.
So when I hear your presentation about a fence, and you want
to put a fence in the middle, and you spend so much time
standing there talking about the door, and that's
speculation, that somehow you are going to have this
terrorist attack, they are going to hit the armory, we talk
about the underlying factor that is going to be 50 feet away
from you every day.
That's what you need to be talking about.
So when I sit up here, that's what I am looking at.
Because I know what I just described.
And I know what's going to be walking down Howard Avenue
from Kennedy Boulevard to north of cypress.
Every day.
That's what you get rid of.
So you can come here and make all of these excuses.
This much terrorist attack, the underlying factor, sir,
because I can go out tomorrow and get a security expert to
come back to you and tell this council, you can do
everything you want to do without having that fence on
Howard Avenue.
Now you want to challenge me on it?
I'll pay for it myself.
07:37:16 >> I'm not sure what to say.
I can't --
07:37:21 >> Well, I didn't pose a question.
I haven't posed a question to you that you can have a
response.
07:37:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Ross, I think that's what Mr. Reddick is
saying, you only have so much time for rebuttal.
He made a statement.
Do you have anything else, sir?
07:37:36 >>FRANK REDDICK:
That will be it.
07:37:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione.
07:37:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
In most other circumstances, you know, keeping with historic
preservation, you know, I would prefer not to see a fence.
But quite frankly, this isn't any other circumstance.
And this isn't, you know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago when we
used to go to concerts, you know, or football games, or any
other big public space where you walk through and you are
getting wandered for security purposes and your purse is
being checked to make sure you are not carrying anything in
that could be of harm to anyone.
We live in a different day and age.
And I think that whether it's ironic or symbolic that
tomorrow at 9:00 we are going to be having a September
11th remembrance at our fire department station one.
I have spent time at a lot of different religious
facilities, and the one I want to particularly bring up are
the mosques in the area, and every mosque I go to has a
fence around the mosque.
And it's unfortunate that we live in this day and age.
The one mosque has an old police car that they bought that,
you know, is beat up, white TORINO type car sitting outside
just as a visual.
Anybody who goes outside on a regular basis knows the thing
doesn't move and knows it's not a real police car, or active
one.
But nonetheless it sits there.
And they are open to the public.
They treat hundreds of people quietly for medical purposes,
free, in the neighborhood.
They have a medical clinic there.
This hasn't been widely publicized because they didn't want
it to be.
But there have been five incidents of arson at three
different facilities.
This is the world we live in.
And all of our aides just sat through one of those videos
for active shooter with bombs that you talked about because
I came in and thought where is everybody?
Nobody was in their offices.
They were all in here watching the active shooter response.
This is the world we live in.
And a short little fence may not seem like much but you
don't want to have something that Busch Gardens has, which
is a facility, a public facility where a lot of people go,
that it's more than an 8-foot wall with spikes at the top,
because as a zoo, they are allowed to have barbed wear.
Along any of their perimeters.
USF just recently, on the Bruce B. Downs side just north of
Fletcher, put in a similar wrought iron fence that used to
be completely open, and you could walk in and out of campus.
But USF is securing their border.
I don't like it.
You know, it closes off the campus from the community.
But it's necessary.
So if it's compromised in our location potentially for the
greater good, then I think it's what we need to approve.
07:41:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda.
07:41:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for not having monument signs that are electronic.
I would have voted against it.
I'm telling you now, I would have voted against it.
I am not too keen on them.
They start looking like Vegas everywhere.
But I do have a concern on the David Tippin facility, staff.
Is this David Tippin in any way violate the city sign
ordinance?
It's not in an overlay district.
It's next to a golf court by a railroad track that ends
dead-end by the river.
The sign here David Tippin that says -- the T sign that was
shown to us as a sign that is comparable to something, and
now I am going to go right to that one to the other sign at
Cuscaden park.
That's not an overlay district, is it?
In other words, has the city violated the sign ordinance
itself?
Because if so I am going to knock it down.
07:42:37 >> I can't spend to that.
I don't know the scale of the sign.
07:42:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And then the Morgan cigar factory there, was
a fence around Morgan cigar factory way back.
I remember this particular item came before council and was
only the front part of the factory that was a waiver on the
height of the fence, if I recall.
I don't know if any of you were here then in 1915.
You don't remember that?
Well, I remember that, and -- (Laughter)
I remember that.
The petitioner was JAMAL engineering.
And they came specifically for the front part of a gate that
they wanted to put a foot, foot and a half higher than what
was required.
And that was granted.
I just want to put in my own record and my own mind all the
statements that were made at that point.
And yes, fences do happen around what you suggested here, in
the Gorrie elementary, but also fences in high schools and
other schools that have a fence.
Jefferson high school has no fence.
Plant High School has some level of a fence.
Wilson has somewhat of a fence.
But most schools have fences, especially when elementary
kids so they don't run out -- from the property into a car.
I understand what you are saying.
But I look at your beautiful building, and I see this
picture here, and believe me, I am not trying to make fun of
it.
It's a wonderful investment.
What you all are doing is great for everybody, all religion,
all cultures, all ages, all races, but this here, it looks
like a prison with that fence.
I understand the fence is already on the backside and the
sides.
I understand that.
But to the point of the fence, really I am not an expert.
Let me say that for the record.
I am not an expert in terrorism, but I dodged a few bullets
in my life when I was young.
No fence of this type is going to stop anybody from getting
shot at.
None.
You are drive by with one or two vehicles, just spray the
hell with whatever you want.
It's not going to stop that.
I agree with than what was said here earlier.
Only another type fence would stop that.
And even then, when you look at much the guy, 15, 20 years
ago, he blew up a place with dynamite inside his vehicle.
I mean, it's sad, they are crazy people.
But I understand what you are trying to get at.
But the fence is bothersome, because I don't think it stops
what you want to stop.
It doesn't stop it.
Not that type of fence.
You need a fence with ballards that a tank can't go through
and you can't do that.
If you really want to do something that little fence isn't
going to do something.
I can run right through that fence with an MG, with a little
car.
I'm sincerely -- I understand what you are saying.
And I have been with this from the beginning.
I have been supportive and still am supportive.
But that fence, the location that it has, in my opinion,
just doesn't stop what you want to obtain.
In fact what we have done here today is create people's
crazy minds going forward.
And that's just my opinion, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not opposed to the sign change.
Especially the one inside.
The height and the foot and a half or two feet, whatever it
is.
The monument signs outside as long as they are not lit with
real, real bright lights, I can understand that.
But I am just not attuned to everything that we have heard
today.
Thank you.
07:46:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir Mr. Maniscalco.
07:46:37 >> If I could have like one comment?
07:46:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I would suggest that you withhold your
remarks until after it's time to do your rebuttal as opposed
to everything that was said that would just be a suggestion.
You can do what you want.
That's just a suggestion of mine.
And your counsel and everyone else.
07:46:55 >> Councilman Miranda --
07:47:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
They will take time from your rebuttal.
You haven't been asked a question so that is my opinion.
Mr. Maniscalco.
07:47:08 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
With regard to this fence, my family
has a jewelry store and the front door is all glass to
bottom and you have to be buzzed in in order to get in and
out.
Now, I thought of all these scenarios on a daily basis.
Somebody could run a truck through the glass door and come
in.
Somebody could take a baseball bat and smash the door and
come in.
But having said that, that buzzer to buzz the people in, and
what you have said about the delay in time, that gives you
whatever second or minutes that you need, it allows me
should a situation A rise like 20 years ago when we were
held up at gunpoint, it gives me the opportunity to push the
panic alarm, reach for a gun, duck and cover, run to the
back, whatever it is, with you it gives me the opportunity
instead of being ambushed of somebody just opening the door,
walking in because I turned my back on the front door, or
went to the bathroom, I went to the back office, so allows
that opportunity, is it perfect, no, but allows the chance
for that.
And I have had many situations where folks, whatever their
intentions were, that we did not let in, because it is part
of the property, I don't know what could have happened or
what was avoided.
So I can understand the fence is not perfect.
I look at it.
You go north on Howard Avenue.
Somebody with a truck bomb could come up, a car bomb cop
come up, a shatter could run up and start shooting.
But that fence allows -- it doesn't solve much but it allows
the opportunity for folks to run, duck, cover, are in my
situation, would have been as I mentioned push the panic
alarm, call police, reach for a gun, whatever it is.
So I understand the point for the fence, plus the type of
world that we live in.
I had this conversation at lunch today.
I will remember when I was a teenager a pre9-11 world.
I didn't know what al-Qaeda was.
I didn't know wanna shoe bomb was.
You remember going to Europe the summer before September 11
and security was black compared to what it is today.
After 9/11 everything changed.
And this is the post 9/11 world where al-Qaeda and ISIS are
common terms.
I understand the anti-Semitism.
I understand there's hate groups.
I understand towards so many different people.
Ignorant, stupid, but there's people that have this kind of
hatred in their heart.
But you have to protect yourself and the patrons and people
that come to visit this facility.
I can understand why you want this fence.
It's not an ugly fence.
I see it in the cigar factories that you showed, the schools
that you showed my old high school.
When I went to Tampa Catholic high school we didn't have a
fence.
Now they have this beautiful fence.
Jesuit high school they have a fence that wasn't there 15,
20 years ago.
I think it's aesthetically pleasing.
I don't think it's detrimental to the neighborhood.
It's a safety measure.
I can see it from a jewelry store perspective.
Your situation is different but it adds a level of security,
whether good or bad, or whatever level it is, but I see the
benefits of it.
07:50:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mr. Cohen.
07:50:08 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.
You know, in a couple of weeks, I will be going to celebrate
the high Jewish holiday of rush Hashana and Yom Kippur.
My synagogue which is on Bayshore Boulevard.
It has a very ugly chain link fence around the building.
And at every service for the holiday, there is law
enforcement and the express reason for it is because of the
fear in the community of hate crimes and terrorist attacks,
and incidents that will be targeted at the Jewish community
or places of religion assembly or like we were talking about
earlier, places where people gather.
I wish that the lawn in front of this building could be open
and welcoming, and be the kind of gateway into our community
that we want it to be.
But I know from experience, I know from the experience of
going and visiting my grandmother at a Jewish nursing home
here in Tampa, that the security presence is always very,
very high because of the sense of vulnerability that the
community feels to terrorism.
And after the types of incidents in overland park, Dan sass,
and South America and all over the world, that occurred
against Jewish targets, particularly in France, in the past
year, these types of measures have become necessary.
And no one wants to take them.
No one wants to put up a fence when we could have an open
lawn.
But the reality of the situation is that nobody knows what's
going to be next, and who is going to be next.
And I am not an security expert.
I don't know if this could be accomplished in another way.
I wish it could be.
Because I certainly don't like the way it looks toward the
message that it sends.
But I do believe that the threat is real, and I believe
quite frankly that the threat to this chamber and to other
places of public assembly are real.
And I just hope that at some point more sensible people
prevail in this country and we stop seeing a lot of these
types of incidents that we have seen in recent years.
So I unfortunately understand why Tampa fence would be
needed, even though it's very unfortunate if that's the
case.
Thank you.
07:52:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before we go forward, I would suggest that
we go to the public at this time so that -- do you want to
go now before we go to the public?
Mrs. Capin, go ahead and make your point.
07:53:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Someone from staff.
Please refresh my memory here on this.
When this fence was closed in here, do I recall that the
events were going to be inside of that fence? When did the
events start happening on the lawn from the beginning?
07:53:25 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Not that I am aware of.
07:53:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I didn't think so.
07:53:29 >> The existing facility, and it is on the site plan, but
the preschool, playground, and the expansion of the
preschool playground is within the fenced area.
07:53:42 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Right.
07:53:44 >> And the preschool activity, on the lot.
07:53:51 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I want to make that point.
Because I remember -- I started to look at it, and I said, I
remember asking, and I was followed -- and I am trying to
remember.
If I am wrong, please let me know -- that the events were
going to take place, and inside closing up here and here,
along the side, because all it was going to happen in here.
And now all of a sudden we have events happening out on the
lawn.
And to me, the events happening on the lawn from the
beginning, that was not explained.
You know, that is not something I remember.
07:54:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Hang on a second.
I am going to fell you, if you come up -- if she's asking
you the question then you can come up and do it.
If she's not asking you we are going to take time away from
you on rebuttal.
I want to make sure you understand it.
Finance she answers the question I won't take it away from
rebuttal but if she is not asking a question and is asking
staff and you want to say something that will be part of
your rebuttal.
So don't start talking.
I want to explain it.
Are you asking him --
07:55:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I want staff to come back up.
07:55:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I just want to know.
07:55:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Can anyone -- okay.
07:55:11 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
To answer your question, on the site plan
that's before you, and on previous site plan, that area was
never specifically labeled for activity.
07:55:24 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That was my point.
I understand the fence.
I understand the security.
But this did not happen from the beginning.
This came about when it was decided that they wanted to use
the lawn.
And to me, we went ahead and approved the fence closing
because of the activities that were going to be going on
where I am pointing to where the parking is, and the
children's area was going to be, and all the rest of it.
And it came to me then, and so -- I understand the security.
What I don't understand again, this was not presented to us
from the beginning.
This is not presented to us from the beginning.
Because of the way we closed that fence up.
So that's all I wanted to make a point.
I clearly remember but thank you for reminding me.
07:56:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Mrs. Montelione, you have another comment you want to make
or a question?
07:56:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
A question.
Mrs. Samaniego, don't go away.
Do we regulate where property owners can have events on
their property?
07:56:37 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
If I want to have -- if I want to have a
wedding at the Jewish community center, and I want to have
outdoor tents and have my wedding in that location, is there
anything to stop me from doing that?
07:56:55 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Yes, we regulate outdoor activity.
07:56:58 >> And by what process? By what process?
07:57:02 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Physically, by a special use, or fence
permits.
07:57:12 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
So if it's a wedding, if it's a bar
mitzvah, if it's any event, I can have it anywhere, I could
have it in the parking lot, I could have it on the front
lawn, I can have it anywhere on that piece of property as
long as I came to the city and I request a special use
permit to have the fence.
If I am going to have alcohol, we have also a regulation
where I can request a temporary alcoholic beverage permit to
serve champagne at my wedding.
07:57:43 >> But again that has to be within a designated specific
area.
07:57:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Right.
So that happens when you file a special use permit.
07:57:50 >> Right.
07:57:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Not necessarily we don't on every
rezoning, or every application that comes before us, we
don't specify in different areas you can do this here, you
can do this here, you can do this here, unless it's part of
that planned development, or like we -- if they came to us
with be this application and included that.
But for events if I want to have a wedding and I want to put
the tents on the front lawn, I would come to the city, ask
for a special use permit and it would go through review
process, an alcoholic beverage permit temporary to have my
event on that lot.
07:58:31 >> Correct.
07:58:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So whether or not it's designated on the
site plan right now as a special event site, or space, is
that necessary?
07:58:42 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
No, it's not required.
I think she pose add question is it on the site plan, this
property --
07:58:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Right.
07:58:52 >> On the site plan, no one knows the area designated for a
special event.
07:58:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And it doesn't have to be?
It is not required.
Thank you.
07:59:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
I would like to go to the public at this point before
petitioner gets a chance to rebut.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on
item number 6, REZ 16-44?
Are you coming up, sir?
Please come to the podium.
Is there anyone, before you go, is there anyone else in the
audience that wants to speak on any item on the agenda
tonight who has not been sworn in?
Please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
07:59:42 >> I'm Bobby Wilson.
I live in West Tampa.
Old West Tampa neighborhood association.
And I also own the West Tampa CRA, and I stand in support of
the staff's recommendation.
First of all, I work with Bank of America.
And it's a financial institution.
And we do not have our branches or at our towers in the
community.
We have -- our security --
08:00:13 >> Speak to be just us.
That way we can hear you clearly.
08:00:17 >> I apologize.
Our security is layered.
So we want our customers to come into the Bank of America
centers to conduct their business in a comfortable manner.
And I think as I drive up Howard, and I look over and see a
cultural center, an event, I think it closes off from the
neighborhood, and this is the wrong message to the
neighborhood.
And we are talking about 9/11 and terrorist attacks.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks, it hit the financial district of
New York City.
When you go to New York, when you go down to world trade,
you don't see a fence.
Than the security is layered.
The New Yorkers said we will not live in fear.
We will take the proper security protocols, but we will not
have -- I am talk walking down the national mall.
You see the museums.
They are open.
The Capitol is open.
They have a layered security.
You go through security checkpoints.
I can walk up.
Coming into the cultural center, walk by a fence, I think it
takes away the beauty of the building.
It's a gorgeous building.
A fence will take away from it.
Again, my mom is from the low country of South Carolina,
right down the street from where the shooting took place in
Charleston, South Carolina.
They did not build a fence.
We need to respond back, we don't need a fence.
We don't need to operate in fear.
I understand the security.
Security is a concern.
But there are ways to handle the security that this allows
for the welcoming of people into the cultural center.
It's going to be a great asset.
(Bell sounds)
But we don't need a fence.
And as it relates to the signs, I think I'm okay with the
sign interior but the sign on Howard I think would be -- to
adhere to the overlay recommendations.
That was designed by the resident of West Tampa.
08:02:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Next.
08:02:40 >> Rebecca move, Tampa, Florida, vice president of West
Tampa riverfront crime watch group, and also I worked on
that plan for that overlay.
Having a fence would just take away from the beauty of the
whole project.
I met with Mr. Ross before, and I told him I'm all for the
plan, but I'm not all for this fence, taking away from the
neighborhood.
If you are going to do something that's beautiful, then
lathe let it stay beautiful.
So the fence coming out to Howard, I disagree, because
Howard is a busy street.
I have problems trying to cross Howard onto gray as it is.
Now if the fence comes out any further, I think that might
obstruct the view also.
As far as signage, I am not agreeing with the signage that's
up front because it looks like it's toward the fence also.
So I would prefer the fence not being there and going along
with city planning, that because of the overlay that we
worked on so hard, not having that fence or anything to take
away from the beauty, and people being able to walk up to
the area.
Thank you.
08:03:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ma'am.
Anyone else from the public like to speak on item number 6,
please come forward.
If there's anyone else that wants to be speak on this item,
if they are able to, stand on the right-hand side would be
terrific so we know how many more folks want to speak.
Yes, sir.
08:04:12 >>
I didn't come here for this presentation.
I come for something else. But I live in this area.
But since I live in that area, you know, it's good to hear
the people going to bat for the community, people that pass
that area.
In all honesty, I actually, you know, on this development, I
figure it wasn't for me, you know.
And I'm not Jewish.
But when I look at things, when I look at how well this is
going to mesh with the community, with the people, I mean
within the people who pass it, not necessarily the people
who live there, not necessarily people who might want to
gone in or have a way in, but just, you know, the other
witnesses.
I'm kind of, you know, I have my questions.
And when I saw the fencing up there the other day or the
other week, it hurt a little bit, but, you know, so thank
you for those of you honor represent a lot of people, I
believe.
On the other hand, the scripture does say whether you want
to call it the TORAH or call it the Old Testament, the
scripture does say to love your neighbor as yourself.
It doesn't same to require your neighbor to love you.
It's love your neighbor as yourself.
And if I were Jewish, you know, I might feel better, you
know, with a fence, you know, around the area.
I hear you talking about it.
In fact, there's a fence around the other school, the one
down south Rome.
I don't see that fence entirely closed.
It always seems to be open.
But maybe that gives them the option to close it.
When I looked at what Mr. Reddick was saying, in the way you
addressed it, it seemed to be like a tone to the black
people, but it may be economics, like you were speaking to.
You know, if you build something of great value, you would
do something, put up some sort of barrier for that.
I don't like it's going to hurt a lot of people.
08:07:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Next please.
08:07:05 >> My name is Thomas King, and I have been sworn.
I didn't come here tonight to speak on this item.
I came for item 10 and 11. I own a rental property at
Carmen street, which as you know -- I'm 100% supportive of
this.
From anesthetic standpoint and.
My rental properties have been vandalized twice.
I put up a fence two years ago. ^
Had one issue with anything with my tenants.
They are very happy.
I just want to let you know real quickly that I support
this. It's good for the community.
Not going to take away.
It's aesthetically pleasing.
I hope you guys support this.
08:07:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Anyone else on the public like to speak to this item, REZ
16-44?
Okay.
Petitioner, you have rebuttal.
08:07:54 >> Jack Ross, Tampa JCC.
I guess I will just go across.
Councilman Miranda, I just want --
08:08:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Ross, if you could, direct it to council
itself.
Whatever the questions were, just talk to us --
08:08:13 >> Regarding the remark that the fence couldn't stop a
perpetrator.
We are looking to mitigate.
We are looking to create a layered effect.
I would just ask you to consider whether the mitigation of
even one where would be worth the aesthetic value.
I'll let you answer that question.
It was also mentioned that this facility may not be for all.
The facility is open to all.
Let me remained everyone that the City of Tampa runs an art
center open to all.
Our meeting space, Councilman Reddick mentioned that many
times on many times it's open to the Civic Association.
It's open to all.
So we have many aspects of it.
Councilman Capin had mentioned was it ever intended that we
would have events outside?
I can tell you from the outside architectural plans
reflected our application for the wet zoning reflected.
But I would go further than that.
I would tell you that we are in discussions with the
performing arts center in town to have classes and drama
classes and athlete classes, yoga classes outdoors, and they
would be out there.
Staff wouldn't know about that.
So we would have many programs planned from the outset and
programs yet unknown that will be held there that will hold
all of the community, Jewish and non-Jewish alike,
socioeconomic not withstanding because there are programs
there that require no membership, and some have membership
with athletics and aquatics.
There was another point that I wanted to raise.
08:09:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Maybe you have people that could suggest it
to you if you like.
Come up to the podium before you speak.
And your name, please.
08:10:03 >> Craig Gunte, security consultant work.
Several people tonight used the term prevent, a fence
prevent.
First of all, I will tell you that word does not exist.
In physical measures.
All barriers are nothing but delaying measures.
And the performance measure of a physical protection system,
called the PPS, is the probability of interruption.
That should be quantitatively derived.
At the end of the day it is a mathematics problem.
And the mathematics is built around several terms one of
which is delayed time, and the second of which is response
time.
The response time both for response forces to intervene as
well as the response time for people to take action for
their own self-preservation for their own protection when an
event occurs.
From that perspective that fence that we are talking about
right now provides what's called a delayed time value, an
opportunity for recognition of the actual event.
I just want to clarify, I keep hearing the term prevent
quite a bit.
It's actually an erroneous concept in physical security.
08:11:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Mr. Singer?
08:11:15 >> Singer:
I will close.
But I want to reiterate what Mr. Cohen said.
In a one on this team wants this fence.
Everyone would much prefer that this be an open aesthetic
facility.
But as Mrs. Montelione said, Mr. Maniscalco said, that
unfortunately it's not the world we live in.
Believe me, if we could have figured out a way to do this
differently, all of us would have pushed our team torch do
it differently.
This is the best circumstance we could come up with what we
have.
And we are excited about being part of the community, the
entire community.
We are excited about contributing to the culture of this
city.
And for my children to look back and say what a wonderful
asset this was, every time they go and bring their children
there.
Tonight we are asking your approval to help get us there.
And we ask for your approval.
08:12:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Any questions or comments from -- Mrs. Kert, I apologize.
08:12:31 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
I know council knows this but for purposes of the record, I
just want to remained council, your decision must be based
on the record and from the evidence and testimony that is
presented to you from the evidence.
Thank you.
08:12:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from council?
Mrs. Capin?
Of course from Mrs. Capin.
08:12:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
From staff.
We talked about it being wet zoned.
Was that area included?
I need to know.
Because my recollection is asking if there was enough
room -- if you will put that drawing back up.
My recollection is asking, because they wanted to wet zone
the parking lot.
For special occasions.
I'm not clear on that.
And I remember asking, do you have enough room to park the
cars and have special occasions on that parking area?
What I want to know is, is the lawn -- was the lawn also
included in that wet zone or does it have to be a special --
I need to know that.
Because if it was included, that makes a difference to me.
But if it isn't, that also makes a difference to me.
The other thing is, the fence, the aesthetics of the fence
is obscuring the historic building is something that is
bothersome.
I also owned a jewelry store for 25 years.
I didn't have one buzzer, I had two.
They came in one was a totally glass encased area, and the
second button didn't open until the first one closed.
That's the security we had.
We were never, ever even attempted to rob.
So I understand security.
I also understand detectives saying to me never go to the
bank at the same time, never take the same route home,
always be very paranoid.
I remember that.
I did that for 25 years.
So it's not that I don't understand.
It's that I want to know, has this been included, the lawn,
in the first place, would we have approved the fence all the
way around?
So I need to know if that was -- if that part was included
in the permitting for alcoholic beverage like it was in the
parking lot?
08:15:14 >> I cannot answer that question.
I do not know.
08:15:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I think someone can.
So I want to hear it.
I want someone to be really ready to tell me what it is.
It makes a difference to me.
08:15:27 >> Singer:
What you see before you in the shaded area is
what the pending application for wet zoning, which you will
hear at a future meeting; looks like.
08:15:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
What about the parking lot?
08:15:51 >> The parking lot is not included in wet zoning.
08:15:53 >> What events were being held in the parking lot?
08:15:55 >> I am not aware.
08:15:57 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I am going to go back and get the
transcript because that question I remember asking very
succinctly, if there's enough parking to also have an event
there, and the parking spaces.
So that would be something I would want to know.
Go ahead about the --
08:16:14 >> This is the lawn area we are talking about in the shaded
area.
For wet zoning purposes -- and I am not your legal counsel,
and I will defer to your legal counsel -- but the wet zoning
purposes if you want to have an event in a parking lot we
would have to apply for a special permit for special
dispensation, and the city staff would decide at that time
if it was appropriate or not.
That will not be in the pending request that will come
before you.
Does that answer your question?
The lawn is included.
The lawn in the shaded area right here, yes, included.
08:16:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I really need to know about that parking.
I remember asking that question about -- they were going to
have events there, or parts of events.
That was very clear.
So it is not at this time, any of it, permitted for alcohol
beverage?
Not any of the area at all?
None of the building?
08:17:23 >> The wet zoning application is pending.
Nothing has been approved.
08:17:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
08:17:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Who else?
Mr. Reddick?
08:17:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Just a brief comment.
The young lady that spoke earlier, and said something very,
very important that stood out to me, and in the organization
two years with West Tampa overlay, and I looked at the city
recommendation, urban design, and found it inconsistent.
And when you have volunteers who have been working on a
project particularly like the overlay district, and then we
sit up here and try to find justification to overlook that,
for a fence, I mean, we are doing a disservice to these
people who are volunteers.
We got these departments that stood here and told city
staff, told us that this fence is inconsistent, but we find
justification to find it consistent.
And it bothered me when someone said they have been working
for two years to develop this overlay district plan, and
then -- or urban design, and find it inconsistent.
But we can find justification.
So I hope if this passes tonight, these same people who
supported it don't make excuses when these similar parts
come before us again and we have these people who work on
the overlay district and take away and turn out the way it
feels like it's going.
These all I want to say.
08:19:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other comments or questions at this
time?
I have not spoken so I have a couple of questions.
Mr. Singer, if I could have you come forward.
You know, what happens when we are looking at something like
this, when we are having an original application and it
comes back for other changes, it causes a little bit more
anxious than we typically get.
I correct in saying -- and I am basing this based on what
has been said by members of your team and you, that
originally that you did not think that there was going to be
a security issue with the open lawn as originally presented.
Is that correct?
08:19:49 >> No, that is not correct.
As an overview to what I think some of your questions might
be, this is the first time that this group has undertaken
something of this magnitude.
And over time, different things become apparent during the
process.
I can tell you as a lawyer representing developers in many
projects that when you go through a large development such
as this, it's very difficult to anticipate every single
detail.
And so the process afforded to the JCC, the applicant in
this case, is to come back and say, we missed something.
And in this case we are telling you, we missed something.
08:20:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
During the course of the ARC hearing, what
were some of the discussion items dealing with it?
Was it just because of the historical nature of the building
itself?
Did any of the arguments concerning security, was there any
discussion of that during the ARC?
08:20:53 >> There was discussion of it.
The ARC process is different from the process when we come
in front of council.
The ARC's responsibility is to look at the code, look at the
historical guidelines standards and say, does your
application meet the standards?
There's no subjectivity to it.
It either does or it does not.
And in this case, it clearly did not but that's the point of
having the ability to come to council to say, but wait,
there's a reason why we need to look past what is written
down in the code and say, but it fits what we are asking for
and here is why.
08:21:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And some of the discussion concerning the
overlay district portions of this, obviously when they were
doing overlay district, my guess is that Fort Homer Hesterly
has always been different, meaning that not that they did
not include it but, you know, it lay fallow for so long and
empty for so long, I don't think there were many people that
thought about what was going to happen in that location.
There were so many fits and starts.
Are you familiar with what the overlay district says in
terms of development previous to having been engaged to do
the Fort Homer Hesterly project?
Because I know the project has been going on for at least
two years, I think.
And I am not sure if it went -- if both processes were in
conjunction with each other, they were parallel.
So I -- my guess is that probably some of it was already
finished prior to the rest of the design standards being
met, or adhered to after the project had already started.
I'm not sure about that but do you know any of the time
frame?
08:22:43 >> There was some overlap.
The first time we were here in front of you was 2013.
And so things have changed.
Things have changed since that time.
I don't know if that answers your question.
08:23:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It doesn't, but I guess -- I'm not sure that
you can answer that question anyway.
I was going to ask, well, you know, we have got two great
minds in the back of the room right now.
Mike?
Make?
Can you come up?
Do you think you can answer that question that I just posed?
Did you hear the question that I made?
Mr. Callahan, if you could.
Because there is some question as to the process of this
project going forward, and then also the overlay district.
My point is that we are not going to do a chicken or egg
discussion, but there is some question as to whether or not
the overlay district was already in place prior to the
project starting, and was there some overlap?
What was going on?
08:23:46 >> Mike Callahan, urban design.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the overlay came into effect in 05.
08:23:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
05.
08:23:57 >> Yes.
So there has -- there might have been slight code
endments, but nothing substantive.
08:24:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Were you around when the 05 --
08:24:08 >> I was barely born, I think.
(Laughter)
I was not here then.
08:24:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
The reason I am asking is because I think that even in 05,
it had just closed, the armory.
And I don't think anyone had any idea what was going to
happen.
And correct me if I am wrong, whenever you have done these
overlay district, it is not about what might be repurposed
per se, it's about primarily, you know, aesthetics for
either new construction, or repurposed construction on
probably smaller parcels.
Most parcels aren't as large as this one is.
And that would be my guess.
I'm just asking you.
08:24:45 >> I think so.
I think that's a very wise assumption.
I think for us, and referring to Mr. Reddick's assertion
that we found it inconsistent, was really following the
historic preservation.
We agree that aesthetically, it's consistent.
But there's a lot of mitigating issues here.
I realize that.
08:25:08 >> Mrs. Samaniego, you made a comment during your first
presentation, many, many minutes ago about the department of
interior standards.
And I assume that is the U.S. department of interior
standards because it is on a sort of list, is that correct?
08:25:26 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Yes.
The Architectural Review Commission because it's a locally
designated property, they review it based on the criteria
established by the secretary of interior.
08:25:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
In terms of the design standard for the
historic aspect of the building itself, is there something
that is significantly changed because of this?
Because this fence may be asked for or passed?
Is there any danger that the historic nature of the building
or the historic designation of the building changes because
of that?
Do you know?
08:26:05 >> I don't think that it would compromise the designation of
the property.
08:26:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
08:26:10 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
The ARC did find it -- recommended denial
because they felt like it would change the ceremonial
entrance of the property, it would change the character of
the property.
But to the extent of it becoming undesignated because of
that, had I would think not.
Ron villas, historic preservation department, is in
attendance if you want to pose any questions.
08:26:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That is a great way to pass the buck,.
08:26:43 >> Ron Villa, historic in any case.
The landmark would not be in jeopardy with the inclusion of
this fence.
The board reviewed the request that was in front of them in
June prior stating that it was inconsistent with secretary
of interior standards and federal guidelines.
If you look at the historic shot of the building the front
yard, the view corridor was always uninterrupted and the
guidelines state that that view corridor should remain in
place.
And for that reason, they forwarded their recommendation to
deny.
Their scope is very limited in review as Mr. Singer stated,
to review the secretary of interior standard and the request
be that was in front of them.
There was some discussion about security at that time, but
it was very limited, and then our legal counsel advised them
to stay focused on their task at hand.
08:27:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Villa, do you know the history of the
building when it was built and so on?
Wasn't it built in the 1930s?
08:27:53 >> I don't know the correct date.
I believe around '39.
And then there was many great events that happened there
through the years.
And then the building fell in --
08:28:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Well, back to the original use of it which
was as an armory.
08:28:08 >> Correct.
08:28:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The reason they built it was not because we
needed to make Tampa safer for democracy.
It was because they wanted to approximate put people to
work, primarily men at that time, to build a building, and
use some federal dollars so that people were not unemployed,
or I should say underemployed at that time.
And so the ceremonial lawn is a ceremonial lawn because it
happened to be a lawn, not because it necessarily had
ceremony.
It's just the way that it looked at the time.
My point in saying that is that the historical aspect of
what a ceremonial lawn is, is that they train people there.
They train people to march up and down.
They probably trained people behind it, inside of it, and
then eventually became a depot for equipment, primarily as a
place where people went to do their reserve training, and
reserve meet-ups before they went off to do any kind of
maneuvers later on.
So I guess my point is that when it comes to the historical
aspect of what the ceremonial lawn is, there really is no
real discussion of that as to why they designed it the way
they did.
They had the land.
They used it.
They had a lawn because essentially like most installations,
military installation as round the country, had that kind of
lawn available where the entrance is at.
It looks very typical, as most armories across the country
do, and it was not meant for the use that it started to get
after the war when they didn't use it as much for an armory,
they used it more for all Elvis concerts and everything
else.
That's just my suggestion based on the history that I know.
Is there anything that I have said that is contradictory to
what you have seen in your research?
08:29:58 >> No, you are not incorrect in your assessment of the
project in front of you.
But with the initial PD, we did review the site.
We looked at the location of the fencing.
There was some discussion about bringing the fence around to
the front at that time and we had it terminated at the face
of the building, what we are calling the front, which is
Tampa most aesthetically pleasing elevation on the
structure.
So at that time, when the original PD came forward the fence
was brought back and terminated at the body of the building,
and through prior discussions with the team at hand today,
they felt that they needed to come forward with additional
security.
08:30:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
One last question for you.
Have you ever dealt were a historical structure that had the
unique aspects of maybe having more need for security in the
past?
I mean, any other project that you have worked on here in
the City of Tampa that you know of?
08:30:49 >> You know, just down the street, the Argosy university
that Mr. Miranda had made mention to that was denied through
the ARC and then it came to City Council under appeal and
was ultimately approved and 6-foot high fence behind the
perimeter wall that they have there now.
08:31:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So they came forward with the same kind of
security concerns that the folks from the JCC came up, that
there they may be target go ahead because people dislike
Argosy university?
08:31:20 >> No, I don't know finance there's a parallel description
with security issues, but Mr. Jamal at the time said they
had some security issues and that's why ARC was consistent
in their interpretation in bringing the fence to the front
facade, and then it was denied through the process, and then
ultimately came in front of the board.
08:31:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Terrific.
I appreciate your comments.
And before we go on to another second round, let me finish
one of my thoughts on this particular issue.
Just day was listening to National Public Radio and there
was discussion about the writer of the book called the
looming tower which discussed what was September 10th of
2001, and what was interesting is that there was a lot of
discussion about what you were able to do in an airport
previously, which is be able to walk in, say good-bye to
your loved one, go all the way to the terminal, and then say
good-bye, and that now my children and all the other
children that were born after 2001 aren't ever going to see
that because we live in a different society.
This is one of the few things that I know of that has a
unique name and character, and again I know that the JCC did
not invest and did not try and raise money in order to keep
people out of this place that are in the neighborhood.
All the security concerns that I have heard them talk about,
and as Mr. Cohen mentioned, whenever you are in a facility,
in which people who worship, and they are not looked at in a
way that most other people may look at you, it is a
dangerous place sometimes.
I have been to both your temple, I have been to all the
other temples here in Tampa, and there is always a security
presence there.
So there is a real issue with what the security aspects of
this are going to be.
I am like I mentioned earlier, there is angst whenever we
have to change a plan.
We don't like it because we like to have the thing decided
and go forward.
I understand why this probably came up during the
discussions.
People started saying, you know, you might want to have a
fence around it because it's going to be a little bit
dangerous.
And I looked at the fence and I thought to myself, you know,
that looks very similar to a fence that I know of is pretty
famous which is in front of the white house.
Now, you are not going to have snipers on the roof that I
know of and you are not going to have bomb squad, but the
fence does have a deterrent factor in there be that it does
take time to climb that fence and get through to it.
And your security expert made some mention of that, and I
tend to agree that there is something that's a little bit
different begun this location than other locations in the
City of Tampa.
So I think that as we go forward, we have to think about
these things a little bit deeper before we have -- and I
would suggest this to those members of the land use
community -- think more about what may be significant
questions that come up prior to bringing these things
forward, because I think we could have talked about this a
lot.
Behind the scenes before and maybe come up with a design
that would have fit in from the first time out as opposed to
coming up a second time.
So any other questions before we go forward?
I think Mrs. Montelione high pressure her hand up first.
Mrs. Montelione.
08:34:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Mr. Callahan?
You work with all of our districts across the city?
08:34:58 >> Every single one of them.
08:35:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And has this body granted exceptions to
the overlay district in other cases?
08:35:08 >> Yes. They.
08:35:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I know one that comes to mind is right
down the street, on Kennedy, where the primrose day school
where they were required by the overlay to underground
utility lines.
And we allowed them to not have to do that.
But there are many instances.
I know I myself have heard complaints from the volunteers
who spent time on creating these overlay plans that people
come here and we overturn them, so I know it happens.
And it's all on a case-by-case basis.
And some overlay districts never contemplated like this one,
maybe never contemplated this particular use of the armory,
and maybe thought that it would go back to being a concert
venue at some point.
So certain circumstances require different decisions.
But I just wanted to put on the record that this is not the
only time we have --
08:36:12 >> That's correct.
08:36:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay, thank you.
08:36:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Capin?
08:36:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay, here we go.
I want to ask, why does the fence go all the way to the
sidewalk?
Why isn't it set back?
Why does it go all the way to the sidewalk?
If it's for security, it could be set back four feet, or
just so that it does not have -- I understand the security.
I'm following your train of thought here.
But that it has to go to the sidewalk.
I'm not sure.
Wouldn't the fence do the same thing four feet in, or three
feet in?
Wouldn't it provide the same thing?
And yet you still have an open area to the community.
08:36:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Go ahead.
08:36:58 >> Jack Ross, Tampa JCC.
One of the tasks over the last four years, and with amazing
collaborative process, to maximize the envelope that has
been sort of bestowed upon us, maximize it in ways that
other Jcc's around the country are taking note.
Other communities centers are taking note, whether they are
entrepreneurial, cultural, athletic, et cetera.
I mentioned the arts and it's going on and on and on.
We want to maximize this area.
So whether it's dramatic movement, after-school children,
whether it's a reception for a wedding, whatever it is, we
want to maximize the envelope for the communal purposes.
So I think that the technical answer is, the fence serves a
purpose if it were one foot off of the building, perhaps
less, and perhaps more when it's further away, and
maximizing its effectiveness in terms of time, response, and
our ability to use the envelope of the property in the best
way.
It makes the most sense.
08:38:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Mrs. Samaniego,
She has a great name.
08:38:19 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Samaniego.
08:38:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
You have to say that anyway. So here we go.
This was first approved when, that fence?
Do you have it there?
Was it 2013?
The one that's on there now?
I should have asked that earlier because my aide would have
looked up the transcript.
I'm sorry I didn't.
08:38:39 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Yes, the PD was approved on 2013 and the
endment in 2014.
08:38:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
2013, exactly what date?
08:38:53 >> I don't have the exact date.
08:38:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You don't have the date.
Okay.
08:38:57 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
No.
I don't know the exact date of the 2013 hearing.
08:39:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
The other thing is, one of the things that
was brought up, it was 9/11 and pre9/11, we traveled to
Europe for 40 years.
Where in 1970, 69.
At least 20 years prior to 9/11, could you not go airside in
Europe.
You could not go airside.
It was not lax.
I orphan thought coming into the U.S., how comfortable we
were and how easy it was to come in and out.
In Europe you could not do that.
So when they bring up the 9/11, it just -- anyway, I'm
having a very difficult time with this.
Very difficult.
I must say.
But, anyway, thank you.
These it for me.
08:39:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any more questions or comments from council
members at this time?
Okay.
Mr. Singer, if you want, we have a minute left for you to
rebut.
Any other things that you would like?
Or you can stand pat.
This is where the poker game starts.
08:40:16 >> I think you have heard enough from us.
We will waive our rebuttal.
08:40:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, terrific.
If there's no more questions or comments, can I get a motion
to close at this time?
I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
I have a second from Mrs. Manatee Montelione.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, will you kindly take item number 6, please.
08:40:39 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 522 north Howard Avenue in the
city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications PD planned
development, daycare, appraise school, recreational
facility, commercial, private, and place of assembly, to PD,
planned development, daycare, appraise school, recreational
facility, commercial private place of assembly, and public
cultural facility, providing an effective date with any
revisions made between now and the second reading.
08:41:09 >> Second.
08:41:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
08:41:17 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Miranda, Reddick and
Capin voting no.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
08:41:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
All right.
Item number 7.
08:41:32 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Item number 7 on your agenda is REZ
16-59.
Rezoning required for the property at 800 south Harbour
Island Boulevard, from planned development to planned
development, to allow bank and business professional office
uses.
08:41:56 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
This site is located within the central planning district,
more specifically right on Harbour Island.
It is located, since it is on Harbour Island, it is a level
A evacuation zone, and there is transit on the island, the
trolley.
And bus.
We have the subject site right here in the middle.
It runs east-west.
Harbour Island Boulevard runs north-south.
We have the Harbour Island athletic club back to the east
and south of the subject site.
It's residential multifamily, condominiums to the southwest.
And then we have Tampa office and hotel uses to the north.
One harbour place and two harbour place.
Onto the future land use map.
The subject site is the entire Harbour Island, mixed use
100, intensive land use categories on the west coast of
Florida.
The Planning Commission staff reviewed the request for the
additional uses and found them comparable and compatible to
the surrounding development pattern and overall found the
request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
08:43:27 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Here is the subject property on Harbour
Island at the corner of Harbour Island Boulevard.
In the zoning map you can see the property is, the majority,
surrounding property is all zoned prime development.
Here is the subject -- planned development.
Here is the subject property as it currently exists, found
the existing planned development was approved in 2004, only
allowed for one use.
There's. An existing bank on the approved site.
There's the parking lot.
Across is harbour place.
And then further down, the plaza, and residential towers.
Currently under construction.
The current Harbour Island Boulevard is a parking garage.
Further, towards the security house, the retention pond
right here.
Security.
South.
The athletic club is directly to the south of the specific
property.
And this is the parking lot.
Down here.
Here is the site plan.
Proposed.
It is pretty much the exact same site plan from 2004.
The applicant is not proposing any site improvements or site
changes.
They are just asking for one additional use of business
professional office with consideration of that additional
use, there is no requirement for increased parking or other
improvements to this site.
So really the site will remain as S.however, the applicant
and the property owner, and at their discretion -- that's
currently allowed.
And there were no existing waivers, no other proposed
waivers to the site plan.
So everything meets the current requirements.
There's one informational comment.
For when they go to permitting for any changes, they would
have to provide tree changes for natural resources.
There are no required changes between first and second
reading if this is approved.
So staff found it consistent with the Tampa Land Development
Code.
Thank you.
08:46:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Petitioner?
08:46:56 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
305 South Boulevard here on behalf of the
applicant.
As Mary just indicated, we have an existing building.
The site ironically was originally zoned for office back in
the 80s.
I handled the rezoning application then.
At some point, a subsequent owner changed the zoning to only
a bank.
So we are now simply asking that office be again permitted
as a use, and we are not proposing any changes to the
building whatsoever.
So we are just simply adding office as a permitted use.
With that I will be happy to answer any questions and
request your favorable consideration.
08:47:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions from council at this time?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 7, REZ 16-59?
I see no one.
08:47:53 >> Move to close.
08:47:54 >> Second.
08:47:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mrs. Montelione, will you please take item number 7?
08:48:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 800 south Harbour Island
Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
classification PD planned development, bank, to PD, planned
development, bank and office, business/professional,
providing an effective date.
08:48:29 >> Second.
08:48:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
08:48:37 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent at
vote.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
08:48:46 >> Good catch, Mr. Crew, that you saw that he came in under
the wire.
Item number 8.
Before we go on, hang on a second.
Mr. Crew, did you need a break?
Okay.
Mrs. Samaniego, why don't we take a quick three-minute res?
We are in recess for three minutes.
[Sounding gavel]
08:49:14 >> (Brief Recess.)
[Sounding gavel]
Tampa City Council is called back into order.
Roll call, please.
08:56:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
08:56:12 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
08:56:13 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
08:56:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Here.
08:56:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
We are back on item number 8.
We will start that.
08:56:21 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Number 8 is REZ 16-60, for property at
1300 south Dale Mabry from CG to PD, restaurant with
drive-in facility.
08:56:38 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
We move down to the South Tampa planning district for this
next case.
The subject site is located on Dale Mabry Highway.
Which is designated mixed use corridor and a transit
emphasis corridor within the comprehensive plan.
There is transit on that section of South Dale Mabry
Highway.
And the subject site is located within a level D evacuation
zone.
Onto the aerial you see the subject site here, Dale Mabry,
Neptune, of course we are all familiar with this section of
Dale Mabry.
We have the Publix right across the street.
And there is a lot of commercial activity occurring at that
intersection of Henderson and south Dale Mabry.
Immediately to the east, it transitions very quickly down
into larger-lot single-family detached residential uses.
Onto the future land use map, here is the subject site right
here.
It's within this large community 35.
Immediately to the west is residential 6.
Then we do have some pockets of residential 20 scattered
throughout.
The applicant is proposing to develop a 2,200 square foot
restaurant with drive-through located on south Dale Mabry in
the South Tampa planning district.
The surrounding uses along that portion are south Dale
Mabry.
Directly to the east, we have single-family detached,
residential.
The proposed floor area ratio is well below the maximum of
2.0 that can be considered under the community mixed use 35
future land use category.
Before staff gets into our report we would like to bring to
your attention that one file, there was an error in our
description of the alternative that the applicant had
provided.
Hopefully I can clarify and correct for the record, under
the staff analysis section, the second paragraph, it should
read: The organizational tern tiff development number 1 has
the drive-through queuing Lane within 15 feet of the
property line adjacent to a residential lot but preserves
the grand tree on-site.
Alternative development 2 provided in late July moved the
queuing Lane away from the adjacent residential uses with
the removal of the grand tree.
Planning Commission staff would like to apologize for any
confusion this error in wording within the staff report has
caused but the overall facts remain the same.
Neither site plan is consistent with the goals, objectives
and policies of the comprehensive plan.
The subject site is located within a mixed use corridor and
along a transit emphasis corridor.
Looking at the overall intent of the mixed use corridor,
objective 6.1 of the comprehensive plan is to promote the
transformation of major corridors to include a broader mix
of uses, both horizontal and vertical, that provides
opportunities for medium and higher density housing, also
addressing local and city-wide demand for retail and
services.
Another objective of the city's comprehensive plan is to be
promote the use of public transit on those mixed use
corridors.
The protection of single-family neighborhoods is a current
component of the City of Tampa's comprehensive plan.
The organizational tern tiff development scenario 1 place it
is drive-through queuing Lane within proximity to
single-family detached residential uses within that
residential 6 future land use category.
Planning Commission staff originally advised the applicant
in late June of the Planning Commission staff's concerns
regarding the potential negative impacts to adjacent
residential uses that the organizational tern tiff design
number 17 proposed.
Planning Commission staff also advised the applicant in June
that policies within the comprehensive plan promote the
protection of the city's tree canopy, especially when it
comes to trees being grand.
In response to Planning Commission staff and other staff
concerns, on August 11, the applicant provided alternative
design 2 which moved the drive-through queuing Lane further
away from the adjacent residential uses but now required the
removal of the grand tree.
No significant changes were provided to the organization
alternative design 1.
Now, Planning Commission staff has what staff would consider
two inconsistent options.
One option potentially impacting adjacent residential,
alternative design number one, and another calling for the
removal of a grand tree, which is alternative design two.
Both the protection of trees and the protection of
residential homes are important components of the
comprehensive plan.
Planning Commission staff based on policy language could not
pin a higher value on saving a tree over potentially
impacting residential homes or vice versa.
That decision is better suited for an elective body.
(Laughter).
09:02:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you for throwing us under the bus.
Go ahead.
09:02:21 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff would have preferred
a potential third option that would have probably provided a
shorter queuing Lane but put the queuing Lane in front of
the tree.
There is policy language within the comprehensive plan that
does promote parking reductions when you are saving a tree.
So staff would have -- that would have potentially been an
option that the applicant could have thought.
That third option was never provided or never submitted into
the record for any review.
Therefore, based on those considerations, the Planning
Commission staff finds both proposed options under the
planned development inconsistent with the provisions of the
Tampa comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
That is the longest one you ever had.
Pretty good.
09:03:15 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
Here is an aerial photograph of the subject property.
It's currently a strip commercial center that is actually
part of one large building, and this specific property, as
you can see.
The remaining portion, we zoom, this building will remain.
And then in the back is a yard for a storage.
Are you saying that those are two buildings there? A second
building?
09:04:06 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
No.
09:04:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I apologize.
09:04:09 >> It's okay.
It's one building.
Okay.
But the property line and the application site is this
portion of the site.
This portion is a different lot here that will remain.
Then the existing building thusly.
09:04:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's what I wanted to figure out.
Because what was stated, I thought they are not going to cut
the building in half.
And obviously they are going to cut the building in half.
Thank you.
I am apologize for interrupting.
09:04:42 >> Here is the subject property again no large area of
commercial general.
This is the front of the building. This is the subject
property.
The portion of the strip commercial center that would be
removed if constructed.
This is north.
This portion of the building will remain.
This is the rear of the subject property again, kind of a
storage area, the parking, solid waste refuge.
This is to the rear of the property.
Existing 8-foot-tall, high, rather, masonry wall up against
residential.
This is another shot of the same wall.
Again the second house which will I will go through in more
detail in one moment.
Here are cars parked along this back wall, and then parked
at the very back here. This is all residential.
Currently cars parked back there.
This is the large grand tree that is proposed to be
retained, protected under option one.
Property to the north is another strip commercial center,
with facilities, an office.
Further to the north on the corner, this is currently under
remodeling.
On the corners is another shot on Watrous. Across the
street is a Publix with various uses in the strip center as
well as a bank.
Now I am going to be taking you, show you the adjoining
properties.
You go down Dale Mabry, down Watrous, Sterling.
Here is a cul-de-sac and a little dead-end, and specifically
looking at these two houses that are within close proximity
of the subject property.
This is one house.
Which is located here.
And then here is the second house.
Which is located in this general area.
This is a view from the cul-de-sac looking back towards the
subject property.
You can see there's a small landscape island, a cul-de-sac,
and then this is the other side of that large 6-foot high
masonry wall.
Now, they are proposing again the restaurant with a drive-in
facility.
Here is the restaurant as proposed, the square footage of
the restaurant is approximately 2200 square feet, on the
western portion of the property, up against Dale Mabry
Highway, the queuing, and the parking.
Here are some parking spaces as well as here.
And then some angled parking here.
The drive-through.
You come up and go around the tree.
Let me zoom in a little better.
You can see the drive-through.
Go around the protected tree.
Here is the menu board.
Here is the order window.
Or order box.
Where you give your order into.
Here is the pickup window.
So you would come here, you would go all the way around,
order, pick up, and exit.
And then this is parking.
And then here is your solid waste dumpster.
Here are several additional parking spaces.
Because of the proximity to the grand tree, protection there
required to be pervious pavers.
Prosecute as David requested the proposed two alternatives,
with plan development.
With Development Review Committee, we review what the
requirements are for their specific use.
One of the requirements is that a drive-in facility becomes
the queuing Lane shall be at least 50 feet from any
residential property.
As proposed, here is the edge of the property line shared
with residential properties that I showed you the picture
of.
This is the cul-de-sac.
It's only 15 feet.
Staff acknowledges the applicant's intent to preserve the
tree, which staff supports.
So at the Development Review Committee we encouraged the
applicant to try to find an alternative to meet all code
requirements, 50-foot distance from the residential
property, as well as the to protect the tree and have the
drive-through Lane come in this way, which would reduce the
ount of queuing that they have, but again it one meet all
the code requirements, retain the tree and meat the 50-foot
setback buffer from the residential property.
We did ask that they complete a queuing study from other
facilities that they have in town, which they did complete.
Staff was concerned that if they reduce queuing the Lane
with backup traffic off of Dale Mabry which obviously would
be detrimental.
After reviewing the two alternatives, the Land Development
Coordination staff recommendations alternative one, on pages
1 and 2, and is requesting finance this were to be approved,
the complete removal of option 2, pages 3 and 4.
So if the planned development would be approved it would be
the first two within the additional setback.
Staff is recommending option one, and not supporting option
two, pages 3 and 4.
The justification for staff's recommending approval, again
land development staff, the houses are located at either end
of the cul-de-sac as opposed to the backyard directly
abutting the residential commercial property.
There is an existing 8-foot high masonry wall as I showed
you on the site plan -- I'm sorry -- in the pictures.
There is an existing well established tree line along the
perimeter wall, as you can see, which will be retained
within this application.
They are providing a 15-foot landscape buffer as well, and
then the than queuing Lane begins, as well as protecting the
tree.
We are putting a condition that between first and second
reading the setback be moved to require that the call box or
the order box rather can move no closer than 75 feet which
is in the general location that it currently exists.
Because I think part of our professional opinion, the
requirement for the queuing Lane and the call box separation
is to make sure that it's not a noise issue for properties.
And again the call box and the menu box is approximately 130
feet from the wall of the residential property.
So with all those elements combined, we feel that those
offset any adverse impact that the drive-through lane might
have on the residential property.
And so staff recommends approval of option one.
There are a couple waivers for option one.
Again, the first would be to reduce the drive-in queuing
distance from any property in which a residential use is
located from 50 feet to 15.
And then the applicant is also requesting to allow building
design on the southern elevation not fronting a street.
The current code only allows you to have building signs on
your building face that addresses the street so they would
be normally allowed one sign.
They are asking to allow for a maximum of a 37 square foot
wall sign on the southern elevation, which staff supports
those two waivers.
There are some changes between first and second reading
mainly to again correct the call box to be no closer than 75
feet to the far eastern property line shared with the
residential uses.
The third by the front setback has to be 10 feet or 45 feet
from the center line of Dale Mabry Highway, whichever is
more.
And a couple of things in the site plan. Natural resources
found it consistent with they found option one consistent,
they found option two with removal was inconsistent.
There are just a couple of things that need cleaned up.
On the site plan for option one if it's approved,
specifically making sure Tampa adequate protected res radius
provided for a couple of trees with impervious pavement
And other than that had weep reviewed all the special use
criteria designed with than the criteria, mainly being that
they have direct access to an arterial collector, Dale Mabry
Highway is an arterial, has adequate space for queuing for
the drive-in window.
Again they established a queuing study, and based on the
design in option one, they should have more than enough
queuing provided to eliminate any backing up of traffic on
Dale Mabry Highway during the peak hours.
And then the waivers they are requesting for the 50-foot
setback.
I think that completes my presentation.
The development review compliance staff found option one
consistent provided the changes are made between first and
second reading.
09:15:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council?
Okay.
Before you start your presentation, during the presentation
by staff, I was informed that Mrs. Capin had to leave.
She will not be here for the rest of our hearing.
So I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that before
you started your presentation, Mrs. Grimes.
09:15:55 >>GINA GRIMES:
Thank you. Law firm of Hill, Ward,
Henderson, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard.
And I have been sworn.
I represent J. Square Developers tonight.
They are the contract purchasers for this parcel.
Jay is in the audience.
He will address you late later on tonight.
I wanted to first start off by acknowledging the fact that
this part of Dale Mabry highway over the last 10 to 12 years
has really been under a revitalization, started with the
Publix.
You also had the south shore commons, buildings were
demolished and rebuilt.
You also had the Chase Bank on the corner here.
Lykes as you know is undergoing renovation.
And you recently approved further to the south.
This parcel that is the subject parcel is also requesting
the ability to revitalize.
What you have right now is an older lot, strip center.
This had several tenants in and out.
It doesn't comply with parking.
It doesn't comply with current design requirements.
Doesn't comply with current signage requirements.
It doesn't have any neighborhood protections in it.
So we believe what we are proposing is a vast improvement
over all of that.
In fact, our proposal does meet the code, with the exception
of two areas.
And you heard Mary's review than the two waivers that we are
requesting.
One is the signage.
The other waiver depends on which option is selected.
Under option one, the grand tree in the rear is preserved.
Then we need a waiver to reduce the 50-foot setback from the
residential.
If option two is selected, and we provide the 50-foot
setback from the residential property, then we need a waiver
to remove the grand tree.
So it's not an easy choice and we recognize that.
We ask you to keep in mind that if we could meet the 50-foot
setback, and preserve the grand tree as staff has requested,
we wouldn't need a PD.
You wouldn't be here tonight.
What we need and what we are reason is the reason that you
have PDss and that's to recognize unique conditions an
provide flexibility.
Otherwise we wouldn't be in front of you.
But in designing this site we have to deal request several
different competing factors.
The first factor are the design requirements in the comp
plan which require the building to be pushed closer to the
street.
The second requirement is a parking requirement.
We are not asking for a waiver of the parking requirements
because of the concern that you heard in one of the earlier
petitions, and that is that if you don't have sufficient
parking on-site for certain restaurants, then you are going
to have to spill over into the neighborhood, and it's not
just into the residential area but onto the other commercial
properties as well.
And we didn't want to have that kind of impact.
The third competing interest that we have to deal with is
the queue requirements.
H heard from Mary we had the DOC meetings and had special
requests that we evaluate two other Starbuck's sites to
determine whether or not the city's requirement for the
queue lanes was sufficient.
We have a transportation engineer.
She's going to address you later on that point.
On the other issue we had to deal with is the tree
retention.
We also had the special use requirement with the 50-foot
setbacks.
And last but not least, is Starbuck's itself.
As you can imagine Starbuck's has its own prototype for its
building.
They have their own standards for just like the city does.
So parking and for queuing and for hours of operation,
et cetera.
So we have had to, in designing this project, balance all of
those different mitigating factors.
And we came up with two options.
The only reason that we had a second option was to address
the DRC comments from the Planning Commission and also from
city staff.
To be honest with you, this is just a judgment call.
We didn't want to present two options but we didn't want to
select one option over the other.
And what I thought was most important is staff before we
came here tonight was able to review both options, and to
give you feedback about which one they preferred the most.
I didn't want it to be -- we present one option and then
staffer preferred a different option.
We wanted everybody to be all aware of all the intricacies
of each different option.
In making this decision, there are certain other facts that
we would like for City Council to consider.
And one of those is the fact that the lot is three quarters
of an acre.
We are talking about three quarters of an acre on Dale Mabry
Highway.
You can't often find that.
And while some have said this is a small site it's really
not.
Three quarters of an acre on Dale Mabry Highway and we are
asking for a 2200 square foot restaurant. If we can't fit a
2200 square foot restaurant to comply with code on a three
acre site then there's a problem somewhere.
And it isn't the intensity of the development.
It has to be all these design regulations and code
requirements that I talked to you about that present all
these competing interests.
Dale Mabry Highway.
Whenever you build anything on Dale Mabry Highway you are
always going to have commercial abutting residential.
We think can't get away from it.
All we can really do is mitigate.
The other thing that complicates the situation is the
building location design requirements.
As you heard, they want you to build closer to the street.
Well, when you do that, all the parking has to either be on
the side or in the rear.
It can't be up front.
So on Dale Mabry if you push the parking lot inside or in
the rear you are pushing it up right against the
residential.
Is also want to point out that we have an existing tree
spleen in the back of the property.
I know Mary showed you some pictures.
Quickly, I would like to show you some different viewpoints
of it.
As you can see, this is the wall that runs along the back of
the property.
You already have cars parking along there.
Those are employees that park there.
They have an easement to park there.
Also there's a driveway that runs along this wall and
services all the different commercial businesses that front
along Dale Mabry.
And here is just another shot of that tree screen.
So when you evaluate all these different requirements, I
think most people agree that option number one is the
preferred option.
And that's the one that saves the tree.
However, with that we have to ask for a setback reduction to
the 50-foot requirement for the tree Lane.
As you can see on this drawing, this is option one.
The queue Lane would come around in here.
And there would be the landscaping in the rear.
And the one thing that we are doing in order to mitigate for
that impact that it might have to the residential area is we
are willing to plant in that 15-foot area, so it's this area
in here, we are willing to plant an bamboo screen.
That's generally the size of the bamboo plants they would be
at the time of planting.
They would be 25-gallon 10-foot high planted five feet
apart.
What we did was we overlaid the bamboo screen in the back,
in the rear, around the tree.
You can see it covers the 8-foot fence.
That's at the time of planting.
3 to 5 years later that bamboo screen will be probably 15
feet high.
The other thing I want to point out is bamboo grows not only
vertically but grows horizontally, so what you are going to
have is basically a 15-foot high and 15-foot wide hedge that
runs along the entire back of the property.
And again the purpose of that is to mitigate for any
potential site or sound impact to the property.
The other thing that's really significant to point out, and
that is the increase in the distance that we have presented
to the menu board, and to the actual drive-through window
itself.
Those are topples be 50-foot away.
This is the 50-foot line.
This is the 50-foot line right here.
The order board is 130 feet away.
That's two and a half times the distance required.
The drive-through window itself where you pick up the food
is 230 feet away.
That's four New Hampshire times the required distance from
the residentially zoned property.
We think those go a long way to mitigating for any impact
that the reduction to the buffer might have on the adjacent
residential area.
I know we have a couple residents here, most important of
which is Mr. Sheridan.
He has been very willing to sit down and work with us and I
know that he has some special requests of you.
And I will let him make his own presentation.
At this point I would like to call on Jane Calavera, our
transportation engineer.
She's the one that conducted the queue study.
And I want her to just explain to you why we were required
to have a longer-than-normal queue Lane.
Jane.
09:26:32 >> Thank you.
For the record, Jane Calavera, a professional traffic
engineer, 25 years of experience, and I have been sworn.
Within a question by the FDOT personnel, the city and the
review meeting that they one like some validation of what
type of queuing goes on in a coffee shop with the
condition, the queuing requirement of the city we clearly
can meet but they wanted to go out and actually do some
field verification to make sure what the city's requirement
are will be adequate.
So just so you understand what we did is we went to two very
similar sites, one on West Kennedy Boulevard, a free
standing Starbuck's, and the other one on North Dale Mabry,
a free standing Starbuck's.
We were out there over the course of four mornings from
7 a.m. to 11 a.m. to monitor the queue.
So the information that you are seeing on our queue exhibit
which is part 6 B of the handout reflects actual measured
data over four days over four-hour period.
So 16 hours worth of data.
And what we found at the site, the cue experienced from
where the menu board begins to where the queue would send
end, was ten vehicles.
And that was the max.
And that probably occurred twice over the four-hour period.
The average was 3.7 or you could say four vehicles.
So the planning that you see on this site for alternative
one shows that we can start at the menu board, if we can go
to the -- when you start at the menu board here, you can go
all the way around and get your ten cars to that point, and
you wouldn't have any interference with your traffic
circulation or your pedestrian on-site.
So for that reason I think alternative one is the best plan
to accommodate a max queuing position.
Alternative 2001 Also accommodate ten cars in the --
09:28:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Could I interrupt you for a second? Do you
want her to finish first? I apologize.
Continue.
09:28:45 >> Alternative could two can also accommodate ten cars but
the last five cars would be in the edge of the parking field
on the south end and could have been some competing for the
parking spacings.
Other than that I am here for questions.
09:29:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione.
09:29:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Mrs. Calavera, when you say maximum of ten and then the
average worked out to 3.7 or 4, that was the location on
West Kennedy Boulevard.
09:29:14 >> Actually, I think that was the North Dale Mabry location.
09:29:19 >> The North Dale Mabry location is the second one?
And that's the total vehicle max is 13.
09:29:26 >> Well, we are looking at the columns.
Those are the totals when you add the 2001 together.
But they don't occur at the same time.
We probably shouldn't have those added.
It should really be the max that occurred at any one time.
09:29:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It says from pickup window to menu
board, 3.3.
I'm sorry, it's 5.
It's the maximum.
And from the menu board to the end of the queue is 9.
So what you are saying is --
09:29:58 >> That's correct.
09:30:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's the whole line.
So really from the pick up window to the menu board is being
counted twice, if you add them together.
09:30:08 >> It's 6 to 7.
Which store are you talking about?
09:30:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Kennedy and Dale Mabry.
09:30:17 >> >>GINA GRIMES:
It's 6 or 7 in the queue average, 13 to
14, then it goes into being queue max.
09:30:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm seeing 5 and 9, total vehicles 13.
09:30:26 >> Okay.
09:30:27 >> That was on Tuesday.
You are correct.
And then the second day we did it was Wednesday.
And you will see a 5 and a 10.
And that's the information.
09:30:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But we are looking at 14, which is a lot
higher.
09:30:45 >> 14 would reflect the total of both of those, which
occurred -- I have to have go back and find that one hour.
But even 14 can be accommodated.
09:30:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
All right.
A little confusing.
09:31:08 >>GINA GRIMES:
Is your competent whether or not the two
lanes is sufficient?
09:31:12 >> Yes.
09:31:13 >> For both scenarios is more than sufficient.
One more than what was the max on North Dale Mabry.
09:31:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Nothing else.
09:31:27 >>GINA GRIMES:
The other presenter that we have this evening
is Jay Miller who is president of J.square and he wants to
address you regarding the neighborhood outreach that he
undertook.
09:31:37 >> My name is Jay Miller, president of J. Square Developers,
and I have been sworn in.
I'm pleased to be here before you tonight.
As you know, we are here tonight to obtain approval for
redevelopment of a 1950s ERA strip center on south Dale
Mabry with a new Starbuck's coffee shop, and drive-through
window.
As a developer, I have learned a long time ago that when
introducing change to a neighborhood it's important to be a
good neighbor and to address the concerns created by that
change.
My written remarks here have an example of how it's the
tradition of our company to reach out to our neighbors and
to work collaboratively with them, to come up with plans
that work for everybody.
And it's been a long night and I think I am going to spare
you the details.
I do want you to know that we have taken the same approach
with this small Starbuck's project, which is try to be a
good neighbor and to be address concerns created for our
neighbors both commercial and residential.
We started by working with the city to save and protect a
grand oak in the rear parking area.
Not the only tree on this property that you saw on the
images, there are several other large oak trees that are
right along that wall.
This tree is further into the site.
Saving the tree materially reduces the area available to us
for parking and for circulation.
We also presented an alternative plan if the city determined
it's more important to keep Tampa drive open through Lane a
minimum of 50 feet from Tampa abutting residential property
in the back.
We also located the drive-through window as Gina told you
and the order box closer to Dale Mabry.
230 feet and 130 feet respectively from that rear property
line.
I reached out very early to the most affected neighbors,
Mr. and Mrs. Sheridan, who are here tonight, and we have
met twice to talk about what we proposed to do and how we do
mitigate any potential negative impacts on them.
As a result of --
(Bell sounds)
Okay.
As a result of those meetings we agreed tore do two things.
First of all to use low baller lighting along the drive
through Lane rather than traditional parking lot lights so
they shouldn't see the lights.
And second to plant to hedges, one on our property side as
Gina showed you and the other on their side. So we have
offered to plant either bamboo or palm on their side of the
wall as well to screen any view that they would have.
(Bell sounds)
And I'm finished?
I guess I'm going to have to stop.
09:34:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Well, we appreciate it.
Okay.
Any questions of council right now of the petitioner?
Okay.
If there's anyone in the public that would like to speak at
this time on item number 8, REZ 16-60, please come up, state
your name and address, please.
09:35:10 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Mr. Sheridan has a petition from the golf
view civic and garden association that I will enter into the
record.
As well as minutes which I will let Mr. Shelby discuss.
09:35:23 >> All right.
09:35:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
If you are here please acknowledge your
presence Mr. Steadman.
Thank you.
Bryan Gillet.
Thank you.
And Linda Sheridan.
Three additional minutes for a total of six, please.
09:35:43 >> Go ahead.
09:35:50 >> My name is Tom Sheridan, 3708 Palma Ceia court here in
Tampa.
I own one of the houses that adjacent to the wall that will
be backing up onto Starbuck's.
First of all, I will concede what Jay Miller was saying.
They have been very helpful.
They have met with us.
They have acceded to various requests to be try to mitigate
anytime impact on the residential area.
However, I feel like a sandbag, twice, once by J.middler and
once by the city.
Jay Miller never mentioned about the objections that the
first gentleman raised wherein about the 50-foot setback
from residential property.
So I up in about the grand oak tree.
And as the first gentleman, I strongly support, strongly
support what his recommendation was for option number 3.
No one -- the attorney casually put that aside and said,
well, let's just deal with one and two.
As well as I'm hearing here that development, development,
development.
The needs of the residents of this city have to come into
consideration.
The city in its codes has a 50-foot distance requirement,
and that was, oh, just wait, it doesn't mean anything,
because we are going to have just what the city needed,
another Starbuck's.
Why do you need another Starbuck's?
You can't go a half mile in this city without finding a
Starbuck's.
I don't know if anyone has even looked at the impact that
this will have on the traffic in the area.
This is something to consider.
Franklin.
SoHo.
Neptune.
And I don't even want to consider Dale Mabry, as people
change their commuting habits, to stop by Starbuck's.
Now, Starbuck's will tell you, AH, we don't do any business
from 5:00 in the morning till, you know, when they want to
open.
Until whenever they want to close.
Maybe it's a 24 hour drive through.
Maybe it's a 24 hour restaurant at some point in time.
Never say never.
Because things happen in stages.
But when the people will be coming back and they will be
driving around, think of Dale Mabry.
People are trying to make a left-hand turn into the
Starbuck's.
Think of the traffic that is normally there.
Now you have got people trying to get out and everyone in a
rush to get to work.
Boom.
And then what is the impact of that going to be in your
area?
Now, they are looking to put a drive-through in whichever
option that they talk about.
Whether hits one, two, or what we recommend more like to
see, three.
What about the impact on the homes? Now they are saying we
want to open at 5 a.m. and we will stay open until -- could
be midnight.
You know what?
We are requesting that the hours be limited, that no earlier
they can -- not the restaurant.
The restaurant they can do.
The drive-through no earlier than 7 a.m., and no later than
10 a.m -- 10 p.m., excuse me, seven days a week.
We think the people who signed the petition, other people in
the area, the golf view Civic Association, that this
represents a reasonable compromise on the time for the
drive-through.
This will satisfy -- should satisfy their needs.
We won't have that noise.
I took the liberty, regardless of what the transportation
person said, as somebody up here said, I can pay somebody to
get me any result I want.
I took the liberty of going down to the store on Gandy
Boulevard in the Publix shopping center about a few days
ago, and about 6:15 in the morning.
They were backed up.
And there were several horn beeps because everyone is
impatient, they have got to get to work, or something like
that, they have got to get down there, and so the person in
front of you or two or three cars is not fast enough, they
hit the horn, and let's get going.
So we would think it is abutting.
Most of their other stores they've seen are really in
commercial areas.
They are really in commercial areas.
Now, they changed their look and they are actually going to
be abutting a residential area.
As the people and N that residential area need to be
respected.
And what's his name?
When I look online to the missions statement of Starbuck's,
it says, our mission is to inspire and nurture.
Nurture.
The human spirit, one neighborhood at a time.
This is not nurturing us when you are going to have
drive-throughs on a block that's a quiet cul-de-sac with
families running from young to old, with young kids, infants
trying to sleep, and you are going to have people coming
through at 12:00, maybe later.
You know, beeping their horn.
Additionally, they also say in that statement, we make sure
everything we do is through the lens of humanity from the
way we engage with our customers and community to do
business responsibly.
That's all we are asking for.
Being responsible, and let's look at option number three.
But if we are not going to have that or even if we do, limit
the hours.
Howard Shultz, CEO, in his book, how Starbuck's --
(Bell sounds)
They talk about balancing profit with social responsibility,
footprints supporting and enhancing the community that they
serve.
Let's support and enhance.
Thank you.
09:42:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the public that is not part Mr.
Sheridan's presentation that gave up time that wants to
speak at this time? Anyone in the public that would like to
speak at this time that has not given up time? If you
haven't given up your time to Mr. Sheridan and you want to
speak, you may.
If you gave up time to Mr. Sheridan, you cannot speak.
No, there's somebody behind you, that's all.
I just want to make sure.
Noon one else from the public would like to speak at this
time, correct?
Okay.
Rebuttal from the petitioner.
Go ahead.
Before you start the time, Mr. Cohen.
09:42:48 >>HARRY COHEN:
I would like to answer Mr. Sheridan's
question.
No, I am going to ask your question of Mrs. Grimes.
And that is, why was option three not something that you
were able to consider?
And my understanding of option three, to be clear, is that
it would be a little bit of a smaller queue, it would
preserve the tree, and the queue would come on the Dale
Mabry side of the tree.
09:43:13 >>GINA GRIMES:
The queue would be on the Dale Mabry side.
Let me put option 2 up there so we can all be looking at
what happens if we save the tree.
That's your question, right?
09:43:22 >>HARRY COHEN:
No.
My question is about option three.
And what I understood option three to be would save the tree
but have the drive-aisle be up close on the building side of
the tree rather than -- is that option three?
09:43:38 >> That's option two.
It's option two.
09:43:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Sheridan, let her talk now.
09:43:47 >>GINA GRIMES:
Let me answer your question directly, and
that is we considered whether or not to ask for a reduction
to the number of requested parking spaces.
If of we asked for a reduction of more than three, which
would be -- if we asked for reduction of more than three
spaces, transportation would be here objecting.
Okay? That's number one.
So again, that's one of the competing factors.
Also, just reducing it to the 10% or three wouldn't really
save us any kind of queue Lane in and around this area here.
It was -- it wouldn't benefit us at all.
We wouldn't be able to -- if we just reduced it by three we
wouldn't be able to save the tree and provide than the 50
feet.
But one of the most important reasons that we couldn't
reduce the queue Lane, in addition to not wanting it to
spill over on adjacent commercial property, including the
strip center that's right next door, is that Starbuck's has
their own standards, just like the city has their standards,
for how many parking spacings they have to have for each
store.
And we didn't think that a reduction to the parking for the
Starbuck's would go over very well.
So it was a judgment call while we were weighing all these
factors.
09:45:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
So the issue really wasn't that you needed
the queue line to be so long, it war more that you needed
the parking spaces it on the inside of the cue.
09:45:11 >> Can I?
Jay Miller.
So option three that was suggested to us early on would have
eliminated this area -- I'm sorry about that -- would have
eliminated this portion of the drive-through Lane and would
have made this the drive-through Lane.
And we would have had to move the dumpster over here.
So the reason that this doesn't work is because you would
have ended up with only about four cars from the order board
before the line -- before the queuing line turned here and
started to block parking space.
So not only would we not have met the code, to the number of
parking spaces, we would have ended up with 22, and it
required 25.
But we only would have had the queuing capacity for about 5
cars before started bottlenecking the parking locality by
queuing in front of parking spaces.
Starbuck's has a lot of experience here in this market.
They have got other stores that have similar conditions and
they basically said to us it doesn't work.
So it would have created tremendous bottleneck in the
parking lot, and the backup, we wouldn't have had the
queuing capacity for the parking spaces, and essentially we
wouldn't have been able to meet code for parking.
It just didn't work.
09:46:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
When I saw some of the pictures that you
showed about the way the property is being used now, it
looked as though people were parking along the back wall.
That the back wall has a strip of parking.
Correct?
Why couldn't you still have that if the queue line moved
out?
09:46:55 >> That is option number two.
What we did is instead of putting the queuing Lane back we
put parking which doesn't require the 50-foot setback.
09:47:08 >> But you also removed the tree under option two.
09:47:10 >> Well, there is not enough room to get a -- right now,
people maneuver as they are driving over the roots of the
tree.
If we were to build new parking back there, we still have to
be respect the 15-foot landscape buffer, and there is not
enough room for a parking space, and code compliant drive
aisle before we get to the tree.
09:47:35 >>HARRY COHEN:
Excuse me, let me -- it does look to me like
if you had parking along the back wall, the tree would have
to come out.
You can't have both.
Is that right?
09:47:54 >>GINA GRIMES:
It's not just that H.at this time 50-foot
setback.
If you are going -- if your option two provides the 50-foot
setback.
09:48:02 >> Option two has parking back there which requires a
15-foot buffer.
09:48:08 >>GINA GRIMES:
Right.
09:48:08 >> You still have the 15-foot landscape buffer and the area
between that and the tree, the natural resources department
in order to protect the tree requires a radius from that
tree before you can have any pavement, even though it's not
there now, so by the time you subtract that radius --
09:48:27 >>HARRY COHEN:
So the short answer to be my equip is you
can't have the parking in the rear.
09:48:31 >> You can't have been the parking.
So that's why we presented option two.
09:48:36 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.
09:48:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions from council at this
time?
Okay.
Before you start your rebuttal, I want to make sure that we
didn't have any other questions.
If you are ready to start your rebuttal you are going to
start taming you now.
So he will ask you a question and.
09:48:56 >>HARRY COHEN:
My assumption is that Starbuck's hours are
consistent throughout the chain.
Is that correct?
09:49:01 >> They are consistent throughout the chain.
They are an early morning business.
They are peak hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
09:49:11 >> Do the hours ever deviate?
09:49:14 >> There are some stores that deviate a little bit.
For example the one at Azeele and Dale Mabry closes at 10.
Most stores close at 11.
So in limitation they deviate.
But that's something they decide based on their business.
09:49:29 >>HARRY COHEN:
Is your answer yes or no?
09:49:34 >> Yes.
09:49:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If there's no other questions, I have a
question before you do your rebuttal, ma'am.
We made a comment about scenario three and it being -- would
have the queue in front of parking spaces.
And I think you had made a comment that this doesn't work.
Is it a contractual requirement for the franchisee that it
has to not block queuing, or is it just as a business
practice you probably should do it.
So which is it?
09:50:09 >> Believe me, we have presented option number three to
Starbuck's, and under no uncertain conditions their response
was we cannot move forward with the location.
09:50:22 >> Okay, you can't move forward with the location if there
is any possibility of queuing in front of parking spaces.
09:50:27 >> Right.
09:50:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That are used as part of your franchise
agreement with them.
09:50:31 >> They want to make sure that the parking lot functions,
that the doesn't block traffic, and from experience in other
indications, and they said five is not enough.
09:50:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I wanted to make sure because you said they
suggest.
I wasn't sure if it was a suggestion or a contractual issue.
Because with some of these franchise agreements, they are
very strict, he special reply Starbuck's, they are a company
that does not deviate very much from their way of doing
business.
And I wasn't sure if you can't move forward as a Starbuck's
unless you get that particular thing.
Franchises are different, as you know, in different
contractual things.
In addition to that, the option number three presented and
it sounded to me based on what you all have been saying, it
presented a lot more sticking points from not only our land
use code but also from Starbuck's.
So the only two were the ones that could fit all the
conditions were one of those two.
And then based on what staff said, staff made the
recommendation that number one was the best recommendation.
And then we of course have to make that decision.
So before you go, Mrs. Grahams, is there any other questions
before she does her rebuttal?
You have a question, Mrs. Montelione?
09:51:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I was going to ask Mr. Hay, scenario
number three was something he talked about.
09:52:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes, did he.
09:52:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Can you run us through your reasoning
for --
09:52:08 >>DAVID HAY:
Scenario three was the discussion at the
Planning Commission.
It was not ever submitted for review.
09:52:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Rate.
Understood.
09:52:14 >> Or presented --
09:52:21 >> Well --
09:52:29 >> When we moat with DRC, and tiff DRC comments if you would
like to review them, we said to them, there's a concern
about neighborhood protections, and our policies that lead
to the protecting of our residential neighborhood.
That was given to her at the hearing.
Also, we had mentioned in our DRC comments about the section
of the tree.
Whale staff reviewed and now that we are provided with two
options of really the same development, which is kind of
rare -- I don't think that usually occurs.
Usually you have option one for one type of development and
another.
But it was a little -- the Planning Commission staff had to
look at these two individually.
So when we got as a group, we looked, and when staff
discussed related to the policy, we looked at option two.
Here is their option two as submitted built applicant.
We looked at -- because of our neighborhood protection
policies, the waiving of parking in this area to create this
queue that they say meets their standards.
If they say standard two meets it, that's why they submitted
it.
But it doesn't meet parking.
And there is policy language in the comp plan about, you
know, the reduction of parking is encouraged when you are
protecting a tree.
09:54:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But then it doesn't preserve the tree.
09:54:08 >> If you remove this parking area right here, the tree
would be saved.
09:54:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, I'm thinking just from
experience -- and Mary is here to address that -- the queue
would be too close to the tree.
The protective radius of the tree wouldn't allow the queue
to be where it's located.
09:54:29 >> Mary Daniels, Natural resources, and I have been sworn.
Basically what is exiting in this area right now is broken
asphalt.
So this would work fine.
We would probably require maybe feeders, you know, something
along that line to be utilized, possibly a combination of
pervious material.
But we did look at that and we thought --
09:55:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So they could have the queue there and
save the tree?
09:55:10 >> I believe so.
09:55:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But without the parking.
09:55:12 >> If they lost the parking, correct.
09:55:14 >> And how many parking spaces would they lose?
One, two, three --
I mean, would all nine have to go?
I mean, the three that -- those look like they could
probably stay.
09:55:35 >> Yes.
09:55:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm counting six.
Six would go.
Three would stay.
So how many would that -- Mrs. Samaniego, it's not that we
don't have enough people standing at the podium.
09:56:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I would suggest people sit down and relax
except anyone we are talking to at any one time.
09:56:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
What would that do to the parking
requirements?
09:56:15 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
They record 25 parking spaces.
09:56:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And if they went with option three, the
parking that is shown really on two with the tree removed,
they would maybe be able to tan three, lose six?
09:56:44 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Right.
21.
09:56:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
121.
09:56:48 >> Four short.
09:56:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So they would have Tom ask him for the
PD, it would be a waiver for four parking spaces.
09:56:58 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Correct.
Provided that three retained meet code.
09:57:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So they are shown there now.
So I don't see why they would --
09:57:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Could you move it up, please?
09:57:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
They keep sliding down.
There we go.
No.
You slid down again.
We can't see you.
09:57:23 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
So here is the tree.
The tree requires a 20-foot protective radius.
So from here to here is 24 feet.
Which I don't have a scale.
But roughly here.
So the protective radius would be something in the
neighborhood of this.
And I can't say right now if this would meat code.
09:57:48 >> It's possible?
09:57:49 >> Right.
These six would be gone.
09:57:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I don't know.
It may be possible to reconfigure that.
I'm just saying.
So that it would be three or four.
09:58:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I am get it.
Thank you.
09:58:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any more questions of petitioner or staff?
Okay.
Are you coming back up?
You can continue your rebuttal.
She didn't ask you a question.
I want to make sure you preserve your time.
And if you want to keep asking questions, I will put you on
the clock but she didn't ask you a question.
That's why.
So if you are ready to continue your rebuttal, Mrs. Grimes.
09:59:05 >>GINA GRIMES:
Hill, Ward, Henderson representing the
petitioner.
Let me begin by saying if we could save the tree and provide
50-foot we would have done that.
If there was any way to Don that.
Why would we present option two but not option three?
We have no incentive to not present you that option.
The only reason that we -- the only remaining reason if you
assume that this plan that David concocted works, Starbuck's
has already reject it.
We have tried.
We wouldn't even be before you today if we didn't have to
have a waiver of some of these requirements.
And nobody wants to come before you and ask for a waiver.
If we could meet the 50-foot setback and save the tree, we
wouldn't have to come before you.
And I would like to address a couple of Mr. Sheridan's
comments real quick.
I know he said he felt like he was blind-sided by the
objections he heard from the Planning Commission.
That he wasn't aware of that.
Let me tell you nobody was more blind-sided by that than I
was.
I have worked with planning complication for a long time,
and I have had other cases Mace where we waived the 50-foot
setback from residential for a Burger King right up the
street.
No comment from the Planning Commission.
I have been involved in cases where we removed grand trees.
That's the first proposal, proposed to remove two hazardous
and one nonhazardous grant tree.
Not a word about the tree from the Planning Commission.
Secondly, in this one they find this is not consistent.
The traffic study, he asked Mr. Sheridan asked the question
why a traffic study wasn't done.
Because this is a decrease in intensity as far as what is
existing there now and no traffic study was required to be
done.
The other thing I point out is there's parking and traffic
along that wall rate now with no neighborhood protection.
Remember, we are willing to put in a 15-foot wide and
15-foot high buffer that will -- bamboo that will completely
shield that from any kind of light spillover onto his
property.
There are people driving up and down that easement right now
at 4:00 to 5:00 in the morning because they are employees of
Lykes.
And then the other thing keep in mind the CG zoning on the
site right now allows a variety of uses that have a lot more
impact to residential than this would have.
I'll let Jay -- I know he wants to address you regarding the
parking issue.
10:01:39 >> The elimination of the four or five parking spaces would
take us down to 21 to 22 so not only would we not meet the
code which requires 25 but Starbuck's made it very clear
that they would deny us in this location if they are under
par.
It's just not an option.
If the primary concern is the proximity to the residents
behind, I would encourage you to take a serious look at the
option two which is why we presented it.
And I want to point out to you -- and I know how important
it is, and how much an integral part of the City of Tampa's
policies to preserve grand oaks. This tree three or four
years ago probably wouldn't have been a grand oak.
There's a very substantial tree canopy in the back of this
property.
This is not the only tree.
There are three or four, I think, if you saw, if you
remember correctly, the wall, I am going to show you the
images that are in here.
That wall and the other trees.
The whole wall is lined with very sizable oak trees.
So if we took this one out, there's still going to be a very
substantial buffer, a visual buffer, at the wall.
Here.
The whole length of the wall is like this.
And these are not the grand trees.
There is a canopy along this wall.
So if we take this tree out, we would be obligated to
plant -- how many?
We would be obligated to plant four or five larger than
normal new oak trees that would grow in this parking area.
We would also plant the bamboo hedge.
There would still be a very, very substantial tree canopy.
(Bell sounds).
10:03:46 >>GINA GRIMES:
I just want to close by saying we have
narrowed it down to two waivers.
One for the sign.
The one that we presented within the two options would
either be tree removal or reduction to the 50-foot setback.
We all think option one, to preserve the tree, is the best
option.
The bamboo screen and the existing tree cannon I would more
than mitigate for any spillover as a result of that
reduction in the setback.
And with that we would request your approval of this
application.
Thank you.
(Bell sounds).
Thank you, Mrs. Grimes.
Any questions or comments by council at this time?
Mr. Cohen.
10:04:23 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mrs. Grimes, any comment regarding the
hours?
Did you want to address that at all?
10:04:30 >> As a result of my conversation with the Sheridans, and
their question about whether or not Starbuck's would
consider restricting hours, I didn't did talk to Starbuck's
twice about this and their response was we need to serve our
customers starting early in the morning and unlike with you
and I that would more than likely be there at 8:30 than a
person going to the hospital on their way to share shift at
6 a.m., we do -- the other thing they made very clear to me
is we don't differentiate between the drive-through hours
and the store hours.
So we have uniform hours for the business.
The drive-through is open the same hours.
So I appreciate and understand Mr. Sheridan's suggestion.
But it just -- it's not compatible with the way Starbuck's
does business.
10:05:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions?
Just one last question talking about the hours.
What are the hours that you are requesting?
I looked on the site plan.
I did not see them.
It doesn't mean that they weren't there.
I just didn't see them.
What were the hours they are requesting?
10:05:45 >> They may or may not.
5 a.m. to 11 p.m.
10:05:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
5 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any other questions by council?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Can I get a motion to close?
10:05:59 >> So moved.
10:06:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion to close by Mr -- Mr.
Sheridan, you cannot speak at this time.
I just want to make sure you know that.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate it.
Okay.
No, sir.
I didn't -- no, Mr. Sheridan.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Maniscalco, you have a motion to close.
Who had the second?
We have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Okay.
What is the pleasure of council?
Anyone want to tap this one?
Somebody has got to say something.
Mr. Miranda?
10:06:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, you got three options.
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
You know, I understand what was presented and I understand
the difficulty of the site.
I understand the neighbors.
I understand O and there is not a correct answer right now.
One says they were blind-sided and the other says she was
blind-sided so everybody was blind-sided.
How do you think we feel?
It's just difficult.
And I just don't know exactly what to do with it right now.
I haven't spoken much.
I have an upset stomach and I have just been listening.
So I just don't know exactly how to tackle this right now.
Starbuck's got their own rules.
The city has got their rules.
And Starbuck's doesn't want to give in.
And it's not the developer, Mr. Miller.
It's whoever Starbuck's.
I have voted against Starbuck's before.
I understand Tampa plea of both sides.
And I want to listen to council discussion whatever they
want to do.
I don't want to make a motion right now one way or the
other.
10:08:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Does anyone want to make a motion for denial
a motion to go forward, a motion for one of the options?
I want to make sure you know, this is not a silent movie.
Someone has to say something.
So I would hope that somebody will come forward and start.
10:08:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
I am just going to say, you know,
5:00 in the morning, drive-through, I mean, you are going to
have cars at 5 a.m.
You know, I understand the place has to open early in order
to serve customers that are going early.
But, you know, and people also need to sleep.
And there's got to be a balance.
10:08:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
A neighborhood that I know in parking
garages they can come anytime they want.
10:09:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Does anyone have any comment?
Anybody want to go forward?
10:09:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm just as conflicted.
I mean, a waiver for any other business of 3 or 4 parking
spaces is not a big deal.
We grant those waivers all the time.
And the idea that it would say that Starbuck's, the
corporate, wouldn't consider it if they were underparked.
Well, I don't -- I don't know if we heard what Starbuck's
concept of underparked is.
I mean, yes, Mrs. Kert is like dying to say something here.
10:10:08 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
I just need to Lee maned council as a land use decision it
doesn't run with the business, it runs with the land.
So you need to concentrate on whether or not the use and the
operation of any of these -- I don't know what it's limited
to in the PD but it's not limited to a Starbuck's.
So you need to look at the uses that are allowed under the
PD, and allowed to operate that would be compatible in the
area, because I'm sure it is planned to be a Starbuck's,
but --
10:10:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
If it were not a Starbuck's, though, I
mean, the issue, Mrs. Kert, was put to us --
10:10:44 >>REBECCA KERT:
I agree there is a lot of testimony about
business.
But when you are making your decision, you all can't base it
upon an theme of Starbuck's because it's not required to be
a Starbuck's.
10:10:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, my decision was to grant them a
waiver for three parking spaces.
And move on.
But that's not what they are asking for.
10:11:01 >>REBECCA KERT:
And that's the other thing.
You have two options.
But the third option isn't what is presented to you.
And so the two options are what is presented to you for, I
guess, up or down on one of them.
10:11:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So option two, if you move the queue,
but there would still be parking within proximity to the
adjacent neighborhood to Mr. Sheridan and his neighbors.
And we would be removing the tree.
So, I mean, to me it wouldn't satisfy either, because if the
idea of the protection of the neighborhood is to keep than
the peace, the Kuwait, if you have got people getting in and
out of their cars at 5:00 in the morning, or 6:00 in the
morning, and they are parked right up against your backyard,
you are going to hear that as much as you are going to hear
the cars and the queue.
Or at least that's how I feel.
So I don't think option two makes anybody happy.
It removes the tree and it keeps the cars right up against
that wall.
And with the grand oak, with the canopy, I think it's a
natural sound barrier in addition to the bamboo that's
proposed to be planted, which would be option one.
So since we seem to be in a quandary here, I'll move
approval of option one.
10:12:49 >> I'll second that.
10:12:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Because it just seems to me that you
have got a sound barrier.
It preserves the tree.
And we can move forward with option one.
10:13:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
We now have a motion.
From Mrs. Montelione.
And a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor -- on option one is what she had mentioned.
10:13:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
The question is under what process?
10:13:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I have to read number eight.
10:13:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Is it the same ordinance title?
Between first and second reading you do the revision sheet
option, and then choose the revision sheet?
10:13:36 >> to reflect option one.
10:13:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Correct.
10:13:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's solved.
Mrs. Montelione.
There is a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
Much.
10:13:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I have got to read the ordinance.
10:13:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, I apologize.
I am so confused.
We have gone all over the place here.
Go ahead.
10:13:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I present an ordinance for first reading
consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 1300 South Dale Mabry Highway in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classifications CG commercial general
to be PD planned development, restaurant with drive-in
window providing an effective date.
With the revision sheet between first and second reading to
reflect option one as provided by the applicant.
10:14:12 >> Second.
10:14:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
We have our second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying yay.
Opposed?
10:14:22 >>THE CLERK:
The motion failed with Miranda, Reddick,
Suarez and Cohen voting no, and Capin being absent at vote.
10:14:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Now, we need a motion.
10:14:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No.
It failed.
You need a motion to deny.
10:14:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's where I was going.
10:14:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sorry.
10:14:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Now we need a motion to deny based on the
factors that made you make that decision.
Who is going to take that up?
I don't think that you can speak at this time.
10:15:04 >>GINA GRIMES:
Can I ask be a question?
10:15:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I don't know about that legally.
I'm asking something of the legal department.
10:15:12 >>REBECCA KERT:
I believe she's asking a process question,
and as long as it's not a substantive thing I don't think it
would be inappropriate.
10:15:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, legal department.
Mrs. Kert.
Mrs. Grimes.
10:15:27 >>GINA GRIMES:
Given the vote that just occurred my client
would like the opportunity to gone back to Starbuck's and
ask them, it's not a question of whether we would be willing
to do any of these things.
It's a question of whether they would allow us under the
existing contractual arrange.
We would like to be go back and everyone express how
important this is and come back one more time.
10:15:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Now we need to go back to our lawyer and
find out where are we at in terms of the process at this
point if we allow that?
Or do we even have the power to allow that?
10:15:57 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
Where you are at this exact moment is much the hearing has
closed, and there is no motion on the table because the
previous motion did not get four votes.
Therefore you have a request for a continuance.
You do have the ability to grant that request.
10:16:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So do we have to open up and then go forward
with the continuance and then close again? Not close again
but continue the hearing.
10:16:20 >> Yes, sir.
10:16:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That is the process.
So we have a motion to open the hearing again from Mrs.
Montelione, a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
10:16:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move to continue Mrs. Grimes, a date for
a continuance?
How long do you think you need?
Grimes not long.
A week.
10:16:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
A week?
Can we schedule this -- our next evening session of council
is the 21st.
Of September.
10:16:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could make a suggestion.
Let us also -- if we could have it in an evening session
again.
10:17:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
At the budget work shown as a special
call.
10:17:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I'm saying if you could find an evening
session.
10:17:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
A regular session?
Yes.
10:17:08 >> The 22nd.
10:17:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
September 22nd at 5:30.
10:17:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Hang on.
Now, I am going to go back.
Before we take the vote, Mr. Sheridan, sit down.
You will probably get some of your answer ifs you sit for a
moment.
Now, legal, considering the number of times that -- not the
number of times but the number of folks that have spoken
already on this issue, now that it's on a continuance, do
those folks get a chance to come back and talk again?
10:17:46 >>REBECCA KERT:
If anything has changed yes, they have
ability to speak to the changes.
10:17:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Terrific.
I think that might answer Mr. Sheridan's question because he
gets a chance to talk again about this particular issue.
Okay.
We have a motion on the floor from Mrs. Montelione.
Who was the second?
Mr. Cohen.
10:18:02 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Question.
On the motion, I am not going to support this motion and I
going to tell you why.
I think it was stated to us on different occasions, and we
have reached out to Starbuck's, and the policy and
procedures was not allowed, to modify or do anything.
I don't see what the justification is going to be if I heard
three or four times tonight saying each attempt they have
made to talk with Starbuck's, they turn them down.
Now, we are going to give any indication they are -- Mr.
Miller is going back and talk to Starbuck's and they are
going to modify if they get these procedures and protocols
that they are not changing.
It's either going to be their way or no way at all.
He made it known to us tonight, he was very clear in
discussing taint, and so basically what they are doing is
wasting a lot of time here, because giving him additional
time, and if he had not stated that each time he gave his
testimony tonight, I would be supportive of this.
But he stated it.
Each time he opened his mouth about Starbuck's, he stated to
us they would not change.
And when we asked him about the -- Starbuck's said about the
hours, not going to expand the hours.
Everything he tonight was Starbuck's is not going to change.
So give me an indication that we are going back and he goes
back to Starbuck's they are going to change.
If this is standard protocol, for all of the Starbuck's
stores throughout the city.
He made this known.
So it's not nothing new.
You know, we have given time, and if he already made it
known on every attempt he attempted to make with Starbuck's,
and they are refusing to work with him, and about having
this location for this particular store, they have to work,
because he -- we have city policies, they have their
standard policy.
Somebody got to give.
And FM they wanted to work at this location, it just seems
to me that anyone that would be willing to compromise
somewhere.
And I admire you for what you were attempting to do, but it
seems like you are bounded by Starbuck's and their protocol.
And their procedures.
So this is the only reason why I just want to state this is
why I am not going to support it because he made his
position known that you had a difficulty time dealing with
Starbuck's and I don't see what's going to happen in the
next week or two.
So that's my position.
10:21:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Reddick, I appreciate what you had to
say about this.
I think regardless of what happens in the next two weeks,
you still have a losing vote if he comes back with the same
iteration.
So I guess allowing it to go forward is to give them a last
ditch effort, but again, I'm with you in terms of what
probably is going to be said.
I am not with you in terms of not allowing this to go on a
continuance.
We have a motion on the floor.
All in favor of -- oh, Mr --
10:21:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And I appreciate him saying that.
It makes me understand what he said.
That doesn't mean however that when you tell a big
corporation, listen, I don't care who you are, and what you
stand for, and what your hours are, either take it or leave
it.
I don't know what they are going to do.
This time, Mr. Miller, I ain't speaking for Mr. Miller and
J. Square, whatever the company is, J. Square, he's thinking
Tampa City Council, Starbuck's you either want it or you
don't want it.
That's what I think it is.
And I am willing to say listen, I'll listen to it again,
even though my stomach is telling me to get up and go home.
But it is what it is.
And I understand that.
But I appreciate Mr. Reddick standing up as a man.
That's all.
10:22:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any more discussion on the motion itself?
10:22:39 >> (off often).
10:22:50 >> we have or motion on the floor Mr. Crew, tough motion.
Who made it and who the seconder is, right?
10:22:56 >>THE CLERK:
Motion by Montelione.
Second by Cohen, to continue the public hearing to September
22nd at 5:30 p.m.
10:23:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
All in favor of that motion please indicate
by saying aye.
Any opposed?
10:23:08 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Reddick voting no and
Capin being absent at vote.
10:23:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you for attending.
Item number 9.
Are you ready to go?
10:23:27 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Item number 10.
Item number 10 and 171 are rezoning requests for properties
on gray, Oregon, and I believe the applicant has something
to request.
10:23:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can I stop you for a second?
You say it is not number 9?
10:23:48 >> No, sir.
10:23:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Oh, that's right.
We did continue it.
I apologize.
I got it right now, too. 10 and 171.
Go ahead.
I apologize.
10:23:54 >> The applicant has a request for 10 and 11.
10:23:58 >> Applicant?
10:24:00 >>MARK BENTLEY:
201 North Franklin Street.
I represent the applicant in connection with item 10 and 11.
And I have been advised by the city attorney that not only
is Mrs. Capin now absent, but Mr. Cohen intends to recuse
himself in connection with these two items.
Is that correct?
10:24:24 >>HARRY COHEN:
That is.
And since up asked, the reason is because my father's office
building, which he owns, is located at 1313 Gray Street
which is directly across the street.
10:24:36 >>MARK BENTLEY:
I understand.
I just wanted to get that out there.
So in light of that fact and our client's entitlement to due
process, and I know under your rules it's swan
discretionary, it's not mandatory if there is only four, but
we received a lot of letters in support I think over the
last couple of days in connection with this project and I
think no one will be prejudiced by continuing this case for
a couple weeks.
So if you do that and allow us to continue with the
opportunity to come back and participate in the proceedings,
we would appreciate it.
10:25:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Bentley, before we go forward, just for
your information, I will not be in attendance on the 22nd
for the morning meeting.
For both the morning and evening meeting.
I just want you to nobody that.
Hopefully, you will still have six members -- well, Mrs.
Capin should be back, I hope.
Right?
Five.
That's right, five.
10:25:33 >> I ask when are you available, Mr. Suarez?
10:25:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You mean like lunch or something?
(Laughter)
I will be back at the next meeting.
That's the only time.
So whatever date that is.
October 13th.
Would you lake to continue till October 13th?
10:25:56 >> Sounds good.
Thank you very much.
10:25:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Condition I get a motion to that effect?
10:25:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So moved.
10:26:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And that is a morning session, Mr. Cohen, I
think.
An evening meeting.
Is that okay with you?
Okay.
We have it moved -- what is the complication?
10:26:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, depending on what happens on
October 22nd, and looking to the future, if it passes on the
22nd, what's the next reading?
The next day reading?
Oh, October 13th.
Okay.
So I think we are okay.
Because my last meeting with council is November 3rd.
10:26:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
But that still shouldn't have any reflection
on it.
10:26:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
We have enough people here?
10:26:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
I think it would be fine.
10:26:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
As long as I have a pledge from everybody
they are going to show up.
There's a pledge on TV, so we'll try to figure it out.
Mr. Reddick, you have the motion?
10:27:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
(Off microphone) Yes.
The motion to continue to October 13th.
10:27:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And the second from Mrs. Montelione.
Mr. Reddick.
For both item number 10 and number 11.
Do you have that, clerk?
Motion by Mr. Reddick.
Second from Mrs. Montelione.
10:27:19 >>THE CLERK:
For October 13th at 6 p.m.
10:27:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
All in favor of that motion indicate by
saying aye.
All opposed?
Thank you.
Item number 12.
10:27:30 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just so I can make everyone's night more
pleasant, I have to have recuse myself from number 12 and
from item 13.
Item number 12 is because my father is part of the
petitioner group.
Item number 13, I recused myself from the original hearing
on this matter because the applicant is someone I am in a
contractual relationship with.
They are currently building a house for me.
And this is related to the same matter.
It's a follow-up to the same matter that I recused myself
from a couple of months ago.
10:28:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I was going to suggest, are they building a
good house?
10:28:26 >> That is not part of the discussion.
10:28:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I know that.
Mr. Cohen, thank you.
Thank you for attending, Mr. Cohen.
Mrs. Samaniego, go ahead.
10:28:46 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Number 12 is REZ 16-49, a rezoning
request for properties located at 5011, 5013, 5015, 501 and
5021 South MacDill Avenue from CG to planned development for
residential single-family attached.
10:29:11 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn.
We move down to the South Tampa planning district for this
next case.
It is located, the subject site, on South MacDill Avenue.
It is also within the Ballast Point neighborhood.
The closest public recreational facility is Ballast Point
park.
The applicant site is in an area with public transportation,
access to heart's route 4, commonly serves the area, and the
site is located within a level B evacuation zone.
Here we have the aerial, MacDill Avenue here.
We have got single-family detached.
To the left.
And then we have got this portion of South MacDill, there's
a lot of multifamily redevelopment that's occurring over the
past about five, six years.
We have apartments here.
And here are condominiums, MacDill Landings, and then we
get up into the CVS and Walgreen's and bar and grill.
And it's a mixed use corridor for that South Tampa, Ballast
Point neighborhood.
And then on the other side of MacDill, we have got more
of single-family detached.
The future land use map kind of mimics that pattern.
We have got the subject site and all the pink color that
runs up and down MacDill is that community mixed use 35,
and then directly behind it to the west in the tan color is
the residential 10.
The applicant is requesting approval to this petition to
rebuild the .73-acre subject site to this planned
development zoning district to allow construction of 16
single-family attached dwelling units.
There are exhibiting trees on-site, and like we know now,
one of the key provisions of the city's comprehensive plan
is to maximize the retention of trees.
Another significant portion of the comprehensive plan is to
encourage the development or retention of the diversity of
housing types to meet the needs of Tampa's present and
future population, and the applicant plans to construct 16
single-family attached dwelling units on this site.
Overall, the proposed development is comparable and
compatible with the development pattern along South MacDill
Avenue, and Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
rezoning consistent with the provisions of the imagine 2040
Tampa comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
10:32:09 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
This is a planned development for 16 townhomes.
Here is an aerial of the subject property.
Again, it's on MacDill Avenue, bound by on the north
by -- and west price Avenue.
It's currently, I believe, four dwelling units, as viewed by
the pictures.
The subject property is currently zoned CG as well as the
majority of the properties along MacDill Avenue, and
then when you get to the west behind the subject property,
you have residential 16 zoning district.
This is north of the subject property.
The northwest corner.
Paul and MacDill.
North of the site on Paul.
This is adjacent on Paul.
Again, going to the south.
On Price.
Single-family house.
This is the north side of the subject property.
You can see there are dwelling units.
A series of older buildings.
Subject property on MacDill.
Another shot of the subject property from MacDill.
The rear of the subject property.
The buildings.
It's hard to see with the aerial.
Let me straighten it.
But under these trees is the parking, which is shown thusly.
The rear side approaching from price.
There is a series of large trees that border the western
property line that shared with RS-50 zoning district.
Properties on price.
This is the northeast corner of the site on MacDill.
On the east side of MacDill.
Industrial use.
And again further down MacDill, a series of other
townhomes and apartment developments.
The applicant is proposing a total of 16 units and four
buildings.
On either side. This is MacDill.
This is Price.
This is Paul.
With a central drive aisle with access directly onto price
and Paul.
In a direct access onto MacDill with two sets of
buildings on either side.
For a total of 15 attached dwelling unit.
And the setbacks are front 15 feet north and south.
The corner is 7 feet and the side -- and given the existing
tree line, they are required to do protective radii for the
tree line on the shared property lines, that 7-foot setback
along the side, which is the west property line, would be
required to be enlarged between first and second reading.
The side setback would be as illustrated specifically on the
site plan again, taking into consideration the individual
canopies.
So it's somewhat varied.
They are required a total of 36 parking spaces.
36 are being provided with garages, surface parking, and
2001 car garage, and four guest parking spaces are provided.
Here.
Two on either side.
Adjacent to Paul.
As noted, modifications between first and second reading
from Land Development Coordination to clarify that it won't
be a straight 7 foot setback along this property.
It would be varied as shown.
Because with the tree preservation, and the root plan, as
submitted by the applicant.
Proposes a total of 44 feet.
It's 35 feet to the top of the building.
Massing of the building.
And then there's some auxiliary uses.
And the rooftop.
And called the rooftop deck area.
And specific conditions that would be on the site plan to
limit that being the roof deck.
The canopy should be limited to 60-foot secured per building
code.
The storage area, 30 square feet, and there should be no
converted air conditioning or living space located on the
roof deck.
Again to make sure that the roof deck does not become
enclosed: Occupied air conditioned space.
It's really limited to these three stories.
Natural resources had changes that they are recommending
between first and second reading with are the consistent
finding.
Again making sure that there's adequate notes to make sure
the protection of the tree line along the west property
line, as well as clarifying to numbers in the tree table.
Other than that,
The only waiver that's being requested is that section
27-3-G-107 says that for attached single-family dwelling
units, front doors must face the public right-of-way, or
internal plaza, or courtyard.
These units off of MacDill -- however, these units, the
front doors face the rear.
So, therefore, a waiver to allow alternative design which
permits entrances of units 2, 3, 4, had 5, 6 and 7 to face
side yard and not a right-of-way.
So that's the only waiver being requested.
Staff found it consistent if the changes are approved.
Do you have any specific questions for me are?
10:39:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council?
Petitioner?
10:39:34 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
Address suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
And I have the honor of representing ABC capital, Gary Cohen
and Andrew Cohen this evening on this project.
They are part of South Tampa residential VII this evening.
This is -- ABC capital already built 72 units in this
immediate neighborhood, across the street and further up the
street on Paxton and price.
What is compelling about this fourth project of theirs is
this is for ownership.
This is not an apartment project.
The terms of a rising tide lifts all boat search very
appropriate because in this portion of MacDill has
improved the neighborhood to the pointed that now sustained
ownership, and we are going to have a project that will have
ownership of 16 units.
The comments that Mrs. Samaniego provided to you are
acceptable to us.
The waiver will include the facing of the building.
I worked out a condition with Mary Daniel Bryson on the tree
pro affection.
We will also eliminate the 7-foot setback on the rear to
show it as dimensions.
So that setback will meander in order to protect all the
trees on the western side.
None of them will be removed.
Three grand trees on the opposite property on a neighboring
property will be protected and accounted for in the
construction of the project.
I received one call requesting support of the project from
Mr. Angel Mearis who lives.
Mr. Al Steenson has been here earlier.
He has been struggling with a bad hip.
He asked me to convey to you his strong support for the
project.
Let me just go over my notes.
There is a letter of support from a neighbor named Mr. Jamie
Frank who owns one of the apartment buildings down the way,
wants to see this project approved.
I'll provide that to Mr. Shelby for filing in the record.
The elevation is very compelling.
Architecture, I think it's very innovative Florida style
architecture.
I ask that you approve the project this evening.
In the interest of time I will reserve the remainder of my
comments for rebuttal if necessary.
I will provide the letter for the record.
10:42:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council at this time for
Mr. Grandoff?
Mr. Grandoff, I have one quick question.
Those buildings that are there now, are those commercial
office buildings?
Or --
10:42:16 >> One bedroom apartments.
Scattered hither and YON.
10:42:24 >> It's a strange design.
I don't think I have ever seen one bedroom apartments
separated lake that.
And that's kind of interesting, strange to me to see that.
I thought they might be offices based on the architecture
that were shown.
10:42:38 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
I had the same thought when I first looked
at it, it's an old office building.
But it's pretty old.
10:42:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you so much.
10:42:47 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
That's all I have.
In a questions from council at this time.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
this item, item number 12, REZ 16-49?
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Okay, Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take item number 12?
10:43:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
File number REZ 16-49.
Ordinance presented for first reading consideration.
Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5011,
5013, 5015, 5019, 5021 South MacDill Avenue zoning
classifications CG commercial general to PD planned
development residential single-family attached providing an
effective date, along with the waivers, Mrs. Samaniego?
Staff?
I'm asking.
When I'm talking, don't interrupt me.
10:43:48 >> Yes, there is one waiver, as well as revisions.
10:43:56 >> With the waivers stated by staff.
10:44:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
10:44:07 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Cohen and Capin being
absent at vote.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
10:44:15 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
Thank you.
10:44:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
All right.
Lucky 13.
Unfortunately those folks in the audience had to wait a long
time for number 13.
Yes, ma'am.
10:44:25 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
I am going to introduce number 13 which is rezoning 16-12.
It comes to you after having participated due to land use
and environment use resolution act, and City Council may
recall the original rezoning was before you last March.
It was RS-60 zoning to PD zoning.
The Planning Commission recommended it be found consistent.
City staff requested that had the be found inconsistent.
City Council denied the rezoning.
At that time, the petitioner filed a request for relief
pursuant to Florida statute, it is a go-part process.
The first part mandate that the city participate in a
mediation with the effort to try to find finance there are
any alternatives or conditions that can be placed on the
original request that would be allow it to be approved, to
take to that mediation, and make a recommendation back to
City Council.
We had your city planning staff at that mediation.
The surrounding property owners immediately adjacent
property owners and anyone hop participated in the original
hearing that we could find their address was notified, and
asked to participate at that hearing.
There were two meetings.
As a result of that, there were a number of changes that
were made to the proposal, and explained in more detail, but
as a result of that, felt they could come back to you with a
recommendation of consistency on this.
It is to allow for two 350-foot lots but there are
additional conditions placed on that.
Other than that, this will proceed as a typical public
hearing.
And I will turn it over to city staff.
10:46:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So it is considered de novo hearing, a brand
new hearing?
10:46:14 >>REBECCA KERT:
Yes.
10:46:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
10:46:15 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Land Development Coordination.
Here is the subject property again.
It was originally denied for first reading at the March
10th, 2016 regular City Council evening meeting.
It is the property at 4104 Obispo street, just one block to
the west of the intersection of Clark street and the larger
subdivision.
I will highlight the changes that have occurred through the
process that Mrs. Kert just explained.
The proposed building setbacks on the exterior were 7 feet,
they have expanded them to 9 feet.
On either side adjoining property owners.
A note is added for the protective radius on lots 3, block
30.
They will protect a 42-inch grand oak within 20 feet unless
further permitted otherwise from natural resources.
The developer will install a 6-foot high PVC fence along
Tampa rear two sides as well as the interior property line,
white PVC fence.
A note was added that -- sorry, it says it over here.
A note was added that no pool shall be constructed on lot 3
to ensure the protection of the 42-inch grand oak, as you
can see, the protective radius takes up the majority of the
backyard so there's not really room to put in a pool.
They have committed, and again there's a note on the site
plan that the 2001 houses that would be constructed will be
architecturally different sole they won't be matching houses
from the developer, that they will each have their own
architectural character.
And lastly the maximum hate was reduced from 35 feet maximum
to 32 feet maximum.
With these slight alterations of the planned development
site plan, land development found it consistent.
Again because of the legal process, there are no changes
between first and second reading and there are no waivers.
You can approve the site plan as presented before you.
Do you have any questions for me?
10:49:16 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
This will be very short ands succinct.
Planning staff paramedic in the proceedings, and originally
we found it consistent.
We are still finding it consistent with the provided changes
through the process.
So, therefore, the official recommendation is that than the
application be found consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
plan.
10:49:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So you are consistent in your consistency.
10:49:40 >>DAVID HAY:
We are consistent.
10:49:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Petitioner.
10:49:49 >> Good evening once again, Mr. Chairman, members of
council.
Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin.
I represent DEVONSHIRE homes, the applicant.
I didn't handle the original case I.don't want to rehash the
entire case.
I think you are pretty familiar with it and I know you have
the backup.
But the original issue or concern with council was
compatibility.
This is a situation where the client owns two platted lots
that are 51 feet wide, and surrounded on the west side by
55-foot lot, on the east side by 50-foot platted lot.
What they were trying to do is not actually split the lot
but just reinstate the fact to build on those two lots.
Unfortunately from my client's perspective under your zoning
code take property under one deed, two lots Marge so they
become one lot.
Because the issue here with RS-60, needing 60 feet of
frontage, notwithstanding that most of the plat on this side
of the street or all the plats were in the ranges of 51 to
55 feet.
So that's the dilemma.
So we went into this, and it's my understanding we are here
on the settlement agreement through chapter 70-151, the
Florida environmental resolution act, and the settlement
would be to hopefully an approval of the PD rezoning.
So that's kind of the context we are looking at.
And like Mrs. Kert indicated, we hired magistrate Rick
Davis.
I know a lot of you are familiar with him.
Rick has been employed by the city in connection for a
number of years.
An effort to mediation that included neighborhood
participation and also we allowed neighbors, my client did,
to participate that by statute they weren't obligated to do.
So they wanted everybody's input in the process, even to
though some of these people didn't qualify.
So we heard everything.
And then here again the issue of compatibility.
What we fashioned was some modification to the project and
assurance that the elevations that they wouldn't be two of
the same houses and we increased setbacks, reduced the
height.
There's a note on the plan, one of the issues raised by some
of the neighbors is drainage on their property.
So they agreed to drainage system.
I'm just a dumb lawyer but I guess it kind of filters
through the awnings and direct discharge into the street,
gets treated first.
So the client made a lot of concessions.
You had all of your professional planning staff participate,
Gloria Moreda, Mr. Hay, and they felt based on all the
modifications we made, found it consistent, and if you
recall the last zoning hearing, if you look at the staff
report, there was actually a finding that the rezoning was
consistent with the block face and not the overall
percentage of lots, how they pick the red-blue map area so
it was a close call, I think like 34%, from my research, the
cut-off is around 38% to find consistent.
In any event we made a lot of changes.
The intent of the resolution act is to avoid the cost,
uncertainty and risk associated with litigating these land
use disputes and I think the clients made extremely good
faith effort to get this resolved, and we would appreciate
your approval, obviously.
So we went through the process.
We handled it appropriately.
We made these concessions.
We heard everything that the neighbors had to say.
And, you know, you can't satisfy everybody, and I'm sure you
are going to hear a little bit from a different perspective
on this, but bear in mind a couple of these opponents are
living on lots the same size, that each have the benefit of
being there before my client was literally the last guy on
the block and one of the opponents was actually going around
getting a petition, and she lives about a mile and a half
away, in Britton Plaza, so it's hard to say that she really
has a dog in the fight.
So it's compatible in professional planning staff advises
you of you, Planning Commission advises you of that.
We would appreciate your consideration in approving the
settlement agreement which the end result apparently is PD
rezoning.
So if you have any questions, let me know.
I have a lot of information, more than you want to hear at
11:00 at night.
10:54:31 >> we are not quite at 11:
00 but we appreciate it.
Any other comments, sir?
10:54:38 >> No, thank you very much.
10:54:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Mrs. Samaniego, before the public
speaks, can you show me the photographs of the block,
adjacent to the subject property?
Just to get a feel of what the homes look like?
10:54:59 >> Mr. Suarez.
You said anything else.
I am going to you take up on it.
10:55:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
While she is digging through the files?
10:55:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Very good.
10:55:18 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
Here is the client's lot.
We are looking east on Obispo, oh Dale Mabry, and this is
the house on a 55-foot lot.
This is the property looking dead on to the south.
The two lots.
Then this house here is on a I think 50 or 51-foot lot.
So you have a 55.
My client is 51.
51.
And then 50 or 51.
And this is the house to the west.
And that's not relevant.
These are some of the elevations that Devonshire intended to
build.
This is to the west on a 50-foot lot.
You can see the house here is almost identical to the house
that Devonshire intends to build, 35 feet.
We are 32.
10:56:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Mr. Bentley, that's on the same side of
the street?
Your vacant lot is just on the other side?
10:56:42 >> Our vacant lot is here.
And to show the compatibility.
I don't know if you picked up on that.
The side yard setback under the code is 7 feet.
We agreed to 9-foot setback on either side of Devonshire.
Property.
And we maintained 17 on the internal side of the lot, as
seen.
So facing the setback, agreeing to certain architectural
designs.
10:57:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Can I see across the street?
Mary, do you have a photo?
10:57:29 >>MARK BENTLEY:
I don't.
10:57:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Bentley.
10:57:55 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
One moment, please.
I'm trying to see which one is actually across the street.
10:58:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Just run through them.
It will probably be faster to run through them than to find
the one.
10:58:25 >> This one is across the street.
4104.
I can't tell which one is directly across the street.
10:59:01 >> There's one yellow house across the street?
And going by the Google map.
10:59:12 >> If I recall that correctly it's next to a white ranch
style.
So that probably is it.
10:59:17 >> I know.
10:59:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Whoever is speaking wherever outside, you
know --
10:59:43 >> Adjoining houses.
So single-family one-story houses.
This is the one that is adjacent to the property, right?
No, two doors back.
Here is the subject property.
Here is single story.
11:00:09 >> That's across the street.
11:00:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
I get the idea.
Thank you.
11:00:18 >> Kind of a mixed bag.
11:00:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
11:00:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions by council to
Mr. Bentley?
Are you done with your presentation, sir?
Okay.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 13, REZ 16-12?
Please come forward.
Don't raise your hand.
Come on up.
One at a time.
I know the feeling.
Come on up and say your name and address.
11:00:52 >> Mary Salhanick, 4106 adjacent to the property we are
talking about.
I do want to straighten out a few things.
Number one, Mr. Soustek who lives down the street supplied
the 63 signatures of the neighbors who are against it and
they were given for the record it was not his daughter who
lives a mile and a half away.
The drainage into the street that they are proposing as a
better answer to the drainage, we don't have gutters on our
street so it's just more water into our street.
So that's really not going to help or change matters except
it makes more water.
Our water goes down the street and drains out onto Manhattan
Avenue which the past two rainstorms already is flooding
from all the new houses.
I have 18 reasons why I am against doing this.
And one is, number one, we already went through the right
process and they were denied.
Number two is the density of the neighborhood, the drainage
issue, sewage, street parking which is already a problem.
Increased flooding and increased drainage into yards and
neighborhoods, overcrowding of our highly sought after
school, increase in our traffic in our quite neighborhood.
Noise.
Increase of demand on the police department.
Increase of demand on the fire department.
My financial interest, maintaining the character and culture
of the neighborhood.
And I want to point out the five houses directly across the
street which you saw only one of all have greater than
60-foot front.
Okay.
Most of them have 70 or more.
So he's only representing a little part that helps him out.
I wanted you to consider that there is a lack of demand in
housing in our neighborhood.
There are currently from church Avenue to Lois Avenue, which
is about a half a mail, seven houses for sale.
Two newly -- are being built.
33629 has written forget the exact number but a huge number
of homes for sale.
So there is no demand for more housing in our neighborhood
by any stretch.
Imagination.
If I could consider -- how it affect me and my family and my
neighbors and I am totally against it.
11:03:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Next, please.
11:03:36 >> I'm Kathy, 3614 east Caroline circle.
I have come before you guys several times trying to stop the
splitting of the lots in the Virginia park Maryland man nor.
We have a neighborhood association, and they have been
trying and have failed as well.
Several houses have been approved with the split lots, and
that's why I think the Planning Commission went and approved
it after the first time.
They said that it was -- found the majority of the lots in
the immediate area are performing to the RS-60 zoning
district minimum lot within requirements.
The staff found it inconsistent with the existing
development pattern.
Now that all the lots are getting approved and split, that's
where they are getting their numbers from now.
We have been before you before, and chapter 26-1.2 to
preserve the character.
Single-family home residents of the area and discourage
demolition of single-family residences, and under 26-271.5,
retain the current density and character of the existing
single-family area.
And chapter 4 of the City of Tampa comprehensive plan policy
23.2.4, a plan should reflect the neighborhood's history,
character and current conditions and needs.
We are already seeing flooding in South Tampa.
They haven't been able to fix it we are just adding to the
problem.
Adding more homes.
Pulling on our electricity.
Pulling on the sewer system.
It's cramming a lot of people in a very small area.
Devonshire has a lot empty.
They are not selling.
They just want to split this lot for profit.
They can easily have sold this lot a long time ago.
It's been sitting empty.
They promised in a meeting they were going to clean it up,
they were going to mow it, get trash out of there.
Nothing happened until right before this meeting.
To support all their heavy I am vehicles on, their equipment
and everything.
They promise one thing and then do another.
I think Devonshire is a nice company that builds nice homes
but we only want one home on this lot.
Please save the RS-50 in our neighborhood.
Thank you.
11:06:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ma'am.
Next, please.
11:06:14 >> My name is James Soustek.
I live at 4117 West Obispo.
I have been living there for 50 years.
All I'm seeing is nothing but selling the property to have
break it up from one 25 to 50-foot, keeping that house
there, building a house on a 50-foot lot, and then move,
take their money and move and leave that with us hop stay
there.
This has happened twice, to my house across the street on
both sides.
Those properties were 125 feet.
And they sold 50-foot and kept 75.
I'm on a 75-foot lot.
My house was built in 1942.
And all the other houses that are on big properties are
gone.
75-foot, 100, and 125.
Why do we have to break up 100-foot lot that high pressure a
house for 65 years to go to two houses today?
We don't need 2001 more houses.
Like my daughter said, there's properties all over South
Tampa with for-sale signs on them waiting for builders to
give them their $250,000 and then go.
And we are stuck because we want to live in South Tampa.
I thank you.
And I hope your vote is in favor of us, like it was the
first time.
Thank you.
11:08:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Next, please.
11:08:17 >> My name is Gerald Salhanick.
I have been sworn in.
I live next door to this lot.
I have made two lists, why this splitting of the lots, and
that was the profit margins of the home builder.
That was it, only.
The others are against it are the infrastructure, which
covers everything my wife had mentioned, the fire
department, police department, water department, sewage,
power grid, the ripple effect, go to the schools, the parks
and recreation.
We are talking about oversaturation.
See what happens.
We don't need it here.
The DRC said that this 34 percent conforming.
That's not very much.
Thirty four percent.
How does that -- you know, it's not right.
I would like to thank you all for staying up here after
12:00 to see what's happening here.
And this was turned down once.
I hope you will see fit to turn it down again.
34% is not conforming.
One home, one lot is what I am looking forward to.
Thank you very much.
11:10:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
11:10:19 >> Also, if I still have time, I got this in the mail about
the flooding in our area.
They want to raise double the taxes so we can be protected
from the flooding.
And I thought, wow, how ironic.
This came in the mail.
And it's how they want to raise the taxes so we can keep
from getting flooding.
Thank you very much.
11:10:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.
Anyone else in the public that would like to speak on item
number 13, REZ 16-12? Anyone else in the public that would
like to speak at this time?
11:10:55 >> Move to close.
11:10:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Hang on.
He's got his rebuttal, and I also have a couple questions.
Unanimous problem.
Should I ask the questions first?
Someone from staff.
I don't know if Mrs. Samaniego or Mrs. Kert.
On the first time that this was before us, it was denied.
And what was the reason that was given? Do you have that
information before you?
11:11:25 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Based on policy 18-4-10, page 3 of the
staff report, the proposed lots split, although it is
consistent with the development pattern on -- 4100 block of
Obispo, staff finds the proposed reestablishment of the
original platted lot inconsistent with the existing
development pattern in the area. Further reference is also
made concerning conforming, nonconforming lots as listed,
56% of conforming lots and 34% of nonconforming lots in the
study area.
Further under section 27-136, purpose, it would not promote
the efficient use of land and structure, potential adverse
effects to upset natural elements, in impacted
neighborhoods, which is the emphasis here, and cultural
resources per 27-136-1.
11:12:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
In terms.
Mediated settlement, or the mediation, would you call it
mediated settlement, Mrs. Kert?
I am trying to think, it's not settlement yet, right?
Until we settle it?
11:13:02 >>REBECCA KERT:
It's appropriate to call at proposed
mediated settlement.
The items that Mrs. Samaniego just mentioned -- you can't
get away -- did the proposed mediated settlement deal with
those issues that were brought up as the reasons for denial?
11:13:23 >>REBECCA KERT:
Throughout the mediation settlement, we did
address the basis for denial.
As I told you, the statute requires that we bring someone to
the mediation who can bring a recommendation back to City
Council whether or not there are any conditions that would
address the basis for denial, and we did, and if you want
more detail about how those conditions address --
11:13:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I guess my point is that if the conditions
still exist for the first denial.
And the mediated settlement comes back but it doesn't really
deal with what council has already said was the reason for
denial, how do you go forward with a mediated settlement
when you are not really mediating, you are just making a
recommendation from staff, and have a voice in voting on
this, so I'm curious as to how that works.
11:14:13 >>REBECCA KERT:
The purpose of the mediation is to see
whether or not there is any alternative or condition that
could lead to an approval, one address the basis of denial.
In your recommended order from the mediator, he did say
that -- he specifically said this addressed the basis for
denial, and looked upon it favorably, that that came from
your city staff looking at those issues and saying, you
know, these are the things, some of the things were proposed
by Mr. Bentley and his clients, some things were proposed by
city staff, at the end of the day, and Mrs. Samaniego is
probably the appropriate person to say this, had but we
wouldn't be back with a recommendation if that hadn't --
11:15:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, let me ask you a legal-ethical
question.
Unless Mrs. Samaniego wanted to answer.
I noticed that Mr. Davis was a mediator in this case.
11:15:15 >>REBECCA KERT:
Correct.
11:15:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
He comes before us maybe not as often as he
has in the past, but is there any kind of conflict with
someone that appears before us on a regular basis as to
being a mediator in a case like that?
11:15:30 >>REBECCA KERT:
No, not unless they are directly involved
with something that were an active conflict with.
Mr. Davis has been a mediator in the past.
He's the mediator on this case.
Mr. Bentley has in the past been a mediator.
He appears before you.
He's been a mediator.
It's very expensive to get someone outside the area who is
not familiar with the council and than the particular
issues: But it is not uncommon to have someone appear
before you on mediated issues.
11:16:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And this is one other thing that I saw and I
was thinking about, which is, you know, if we decide to deny
again, I'm going to give you a hypothetical.
And let's say we deny again.
What is the next part of the process?
Because we have denied a proposed mediated settlement.
11:16:23 >>REBECCA KERT:
The next part of the process is actually
dictated under the statute 70-51.
We will go back before the mediator.
We will hold a hearing.
The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not
denial denied the property owner a reasonable use of his
property.
That's generally the term.
And we will both have an opportunity to present expert
witnesses.
After that the special magistrate will make a recommended
order on that issue.
That will come back to you.
If the council has the opportunity to reject that order, and
at that point, the chapter 51 proceeding is over, there are
administrative things to do, but it is administratively
over, and at that point the applicant has the ability to go
to court finance they so wish.
11:17:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Samaniego, I have one more question.
And this is the same question I asked Mrs. Kert, which is if
what you read is our reasons for denial, the mediated
settlement.
And I can only read what's in front of me.
And maybe I am not reading this correctly.
But did it touch at all on it?
How does this settlement, proposed settlement, actually go
back and answer some of the questions that we had or some of
the standards that we had for denial to begin with?
11:17:46 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
It sounded like the basis for your denial
was he quoted the general compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Given the changes specifically, the increasing of the side
yard setbacks, it appears the houses were closer together,
it appeared that there was a wider separation from the
adjoining property, adding the note to clarify that the tree
in the backyard would indeed be protected, there would be a
6-foot high PVC fence around the entire property except for
the front yard --
11:18:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can I interrupt you for a second?
So what you are saying is that all the conditions that they
are putting forward is supposed to make us believe that that
meets the aspect that we were discussing that night back in
March, essentially?
I mean, there's no other way for me to say it except that.
11:18:47 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Right.
Well, what I am saying is my professional opinion these
changes make the proposed project compatible with the
surrounding area.
11:18:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Got it.
I appreciate it.
11:19:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Along those same lines, everything that's
compatible begun what you said other than in the near
future, way far in the future, the two houses that are being
built on the vacant land, they are setback, and the center
would be different than the adjoining neighbors.
11:19:19 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
No, sir, it's 7 feet which is the
standard for the RS 507 and the RS-60.
11:19:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You have got 14 between the 2001 houses
that are being built?
11:19:36 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
Right.
Which is the standard.
11:19:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
7 on each house.
I heard you all say 7 and 9 and I thought what's going on
here?
11:19:44 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
The 9 are the outside.
11:19:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
If you have 9 and 7 you have 16 feet.
11:19:49 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
As opposed to normal 14.
So the increased outer setbacks from 7 to 9 that adds an
extra 2 feet --
11:19:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I wasn't getting that because I just
heard 9.
I just heard standard.
There was no standard given.
11:20:06 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
It's normally 7.
Increased it by two feet to 9 on the sides so the two houses
would be further away from the adjoining properties.
11:20:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions, Mr. Miranda?
11:20:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No, sir.
11:20:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione?
11:20:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
What was on the lot before it was
vacant? Was there a house there?
11:20:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Hang on.
Come to the microphone or don't come at all.
11:20:33 >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
There was one single family house on the
subject property as you can see from the arrow.
11:20:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So adding another house is not draining
the resources of the city in the area, because you are
adding one house.
It's not like it was never anything there, and you are
adding two houses.
And in essence, if there was one house, the density you are
adding is just one more house.
11:21:08 >> Correct.
11:21:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
You all follow me.
11:21:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anything else, Mrs. Montelione?
11:21:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No, sir.
11:21:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Are there any other questions from council
before we go to rebuttal?
Thank you, Mrs. Samaniego.
Mr. Bentley, as she moves away from the podium you are free
to do your rebuttal.
11:21:28 >>MARK BENTLEY:
I just want to clarify a couple of points.
In any event, DEVONSHIRE, I think a lot of you know, is a
pretty reputable builder and with than the anticipation
building on each house here, about an $800 that you house,
okay?
So in terms of draining the city's coffers or resources it's
going to have a pretty significant economic benefit.
Now, the draining, 40% of the lot is pervious surface.
It's grass.
Plus with an AD system it's going to be filtered and
discharged into the right-of-way on Obispo.
If you flip this around and say we would rather have a big
mansion here, the same issue in terms of square footage,
impervious surface and things like that.
One other point, too, and we made this a stipulation on the
site plan, we would be able to park four cars in each house
to ensure to the extent we can no one is parking in the
right-of-way.
So the driveway would accommodate two and there would be
two-car garages.
Now with all due respect to Salhanick, Mary and her house,
they live to the west, they are on a 50-foot lot.
And here again, Mrs. Soustek, she lives near Britton Plaza,
a mail and a half away.
Her father spoke.
Okay.
So I don't think what they have to say is really that
relevant.
And then when they talk about the 34%, that's kind of
ancient history at this point, because the conclusion of
that staff report, not withstanding 34% is similar to the
subject property in terms of the size of the lot, which is
inconsistent.
Okay.
We have worked with the city through this process, Lake Mary
said, described the efforts we make to make these properties
consistent, compatible with the surrounding environment.
Then finally with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, members of
council, you have your professional planning staff here, and
the only evidence in the record at this point in time to
qualify substantial and competent, is the finding of both
staffs that this is compatible and consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood.
There's nothing to contradict that.
With all due respect to some of the comments from the
neighbors.
So we did what we could.
We think it's compatible.
Devonshire is looking forward to building.
And I want to clarify something to you.
I hear that the Devonshire are negligent not taking care of
their property.
This is from two months ago.
I drive by occasionally to see what's going on.
Granted it's not pristine but they do mow it occasionally
and take care of it.
Excuse me.
And actually they were kind enough to allow the neighbors,
Salhanick to park their boat there before we filed this
petition.
That's all I have to say.
I really appreciate your consideration.
And thank you very much.
11:24:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council for Mr. Bentley?
Hang on a second.
Mr. Shelby.
11:24:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Just for purposes of the record,
Mr. Bentley did submit to me a packet of papers that he
would like to have placed in the record.
11:24:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
What is it?
11:24:55 >>MARK BENTLEY:
It's professional planner report, staff
recommendation, and also the special master's
recommendation.
I might have missed something else.
But that's the gist of it.
11:25:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion and receive and file from Mr.
Miranda, second by Mr. Reddick.
All in favor?
I opposed?
Day.
There are no questions from council after rebuttal.
Do I have a motion to close?
I have a motion to close from Mrs. Montelione.
I have a second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
What is the pleasure of council?
11:25:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move an ordinance being presented for
first reading K an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 4104 west Obispo street in the city of
Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classification RS-60 residential
single-family to PD planned development, residential,
single-family, detached, providing an effective date.
11:25:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
I have a second from Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
Nay.
11:25:56 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Suarez voting no, and
Cohen and Capin being absent at vote.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 6th at
9:30 a.m.
11:26:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Crew, would you please notate that Mr.
Cohen abstained?
11:26:18 >>THE CLERK:
Yes, thank you.
Correction.
Cohen was not absent at vote.
Cohen abstained from the vote.
Thank you.
11:26:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
October 16th.
Mr. Crew?
11:26:30 >> October 6th at 9:
30 a.m.
11:26:32 >> Thank you very much.
Have a good evening.
11:26:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Information reports from our council
members?
Mr. Miranda?
11:26:38 >> Nothing.
11:26:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Nothing.
11:26:41 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Nothing.
11:26:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
None, sir.
11:26:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before we go to motion to receive and file,
this weekend is the remembrance of September 11th, the
15th year since the attack.
Hopefully, I know that I will be tomorrow at the
firefighter's museum for the remembrance at 9 a.m.
Hopefully our colleagues will be there, too.
It's another time to remind us of what happened on that day.
Any motion to receive and file?
I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
We are now adjourned.
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.