TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, November 8, 2012
5:00 p.m.

DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.




>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Meeting is called to order.
Roll call?
[Roll Call]
5:04:49PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
5:04:50PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
5:04:53PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
5:04:55PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
Before we open these three public hearings, the chair yields
to Mr. Shelby.
5:05:01PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good evening, members of Council.

There are two walk-on items tonight.
One, did you want to talk to Council about that?
I have it here.
Otherwise, I'll just present it.
5:05:12PM >> Go ahead.
5:05:13PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
It's regarding setting public hearing.
About the Seminole Heights area of wide rezoning.
And you had previously received a memorandum about that.
5:05:22PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I need a motion to allow that to happen.
When shows hearing's set for.
5:05:28PM >> So moved.
5:05:28PM >> Second.
5:05:31PM >> I believe it's December 13th, the first reading, and
January 15.
5:05:38PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
December 13th at 5:01 p.m., and
January 10th at 9:30 a.m.
5:05:42PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms. Capin, second by Mr.
Suarez.
All in favor please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
5:05:51PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The other item is resolution ratifying Council's previous
decision that you made last week to appoint Susan Long.
The bulk of the other resolutions are coming next week, but

the VRB is going to be meeting this Tuesday.
5:06:02PM >> So moved.
5:06:03PM >> Second.
5:06:03PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Okay, now we need to open public hearings 1, 2 and 3, and 1
is going to be removed, but we got to open it anyway.
5:06:20PM >> Move to open the public hearing.
5:06:21PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Cohen, second by
Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion of opening one, two and three
please indicate by saying aye.
Item number one, am I correct?
There's a memorandum here by Rebecca Kert to withdrawing
said item.
Am I correct?
Okay.
Nodded for yes.
5:06:40PM >> Motion to withdraw item.
5:06:42PM >> Second.
5:06:44PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion to withdraw item number
one by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Two and three are open.
And before we go there, number two is a quasi-judicial
hearing.
Number three is not.
So if you're going to speak on 2 at any time, you got to be
sworn in when we go to the part.
If you're going to speak, please rise and be sworn in.
[Oath administered by Clerk]
5:07:18PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Thank you, Council.
Catherine Coyle, planning and development.
I'll be brief, so if there are any members of the public to
comment, I'll reserve any additional time for rebuttal.
The city actually is the applicant for this particular
rezoning.
And this is the first of five areas within Seminole Heights
that will be rezoned.
This is the last piece of the puzzle, so to speak, in the
process to actually adopt full-on division plan, the future
land use map amendments that were done.
The code amendments that were done that actually created the
form-based code specific to Seminole Heights.
And now this is bringing the zoning districts in line with
all the previous work that has already been adopted by City

Council.
The memo that I sent through highlights all of the meetings
that took place, that have taken place since February of
2008.
We did start with the vision process that ran through
October of 2008.
And the vision plan itself was accepted by City Council from
that.
We derived a whole laundry list of goals, objectives and
policies in the Tampa comprehensive plan that deal with the
Greater Seminole Heights planning area.
That folds directly into chapter four and the Tampa
comprehensive plan under community planning.
We are obligated in the comprehensive plan to complete
Seminole Heights, Tampa Heights and the 40th Street planning
area by 2015.
Seminole Heights was the first one in that order.
40th Street will be coming forward pretty soon.
We finished the vision plan.
That was accepted.
Then we amended the comprehensive plan, as I said, through
the text amendment.
We updated the future land use map, so we actually did
change the future land use category in early -- late 2010.
March, 2011, we actually adopted the land development

regulations that are on the books now.
And I go through the hearings that have taken place on page
two of the memo, as well as all the design process to
develop the code.
So as I mentioned, this area of rezoning is really the last
piece to finalize the entire project.
Loss my train of thought.
However, I'm available for any questions.
We have had two open houses and the third week of October.
Subsequent to the mailing going out, telling everybody they
were being rezoned, we invited them to a public open house
in our building.
There were only 11 people that came from that notice.
Everyone is individually noticed obviously because it is a
rezoning.
Following that, actually just prior to that, during the
week, we actually went to the neighborhood association
meeting for south Seminole Heights.
There were approximately 20, 25 people there.
We gave a presentation and answered questions and thus far,
we haven't had any, you know, serious objections or
complaints.
We have had one e-mail from Mr. Pressman regarding a
property on Martin Luther King, which I'll let him speak to.
That's what I wanted to say.

You have had I believe two to three -- two to three single
property rezonings within the entire area come forward for
an FH district.
Those came forward ahead of time because they needed to move
forward with their projects.
This is the city finishing the project.
5:10:36PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions for Councilmembers?
Ms. Capin?
5:10:39PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You mentioned what are the next two areas
that are in line for.
5:10:47PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
For the form based?
5:10:50PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Planning.
5:10:53PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Tampa Heights is actually south of
Seminole Heights.
40th Street, which is adjacent to the east side of Seminole
Heights.
The 40th Street planning area has actually been send, the
vision plan and we have amended the Tampa comprehensive
planned and future land use map.
The only piece is develop the land development regulations
and rezone the property the Tampa Heights area, is going to
springboard from the large center city plan that's being
done.
So we're going to go back and tie up all the loose ends of
the analysis of that area and then hopefully move straight

into land development regulation and rezoning for that area
as well.
5:11:30PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Ask I ask you, and would that since these
are contiguous, if you will, then would it be natural then
it would be West Tampa?
Is that something, or is that too soon?
I know it's too soon, but I'm looking at, you know, 40th,
then Seminole, then south, then -- I'm looking, would it go
toward West Tampa?
Would that be?
5:11:59PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
We weren't purposeful making sure they
were all contiguous because it is kind of an older area,
center city geographically of the city.
At this point there's nothing that obligates us to move
anywhere else by comp plan.
And it's up to the administration to direct me which one I
go tow next.
But we are looking at other areas.
5:12:19PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
Just curious.
5:12:21PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
We have to finish the two first.
5:12:24PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a little ways to go.
Thank you.
I know this didn't pertain to that specifically.
But thank.

5:12:31PM >> You any other questions of Councilmembers?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 2?
This is the first public hearing regarding this.
Yes, sir?
5:12:39PM >> Mr. Chairman, Councilmembers, my name is Todd Pressman.
I'm here on behalf of Sharon Honeywell and Galaxy Fireworks,
which is located at the northeast corner of Florida and MLK.
Your staff has worked very hard on it.
Catherine has done a very good job.
It's very comprehensive.
But our concern, in two words, is mission creep.
By that I mean all you have to do is look at Hillsborough
County.
When these community plans began, they were meant to be just
somewhat light, little plans that weren't in the code.
We have a few directives and a few parameters of what would
need to be done in districts.
Today let me read a few of these requirements now required.
For example in some of the plans.
There are limited hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and
9:00 p.m.
Any new construction should be oriented towards the roadway.
Outside lighting restricted to motion activated security.
Along Brandon Boulevard, there's a complete restriction that
any vehicular movement of any kind or front doors addressed

towards major roadways.
They're supposed to be to the interior.
These are just a few of the requirements, including control
of slope of roofs, extensive requirements for cladding and
for structures for how they're to look.
Now --
5:14:02PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Mr. Pressman, those are from
unincorporated Hillsborough County that you're reading those
requirements?
I don't want anybody to get confused that we're talking
about what we're looking at here in front of us.
5:14:13PM >> That's absolutely correct.
And I stated that these were from Hillsborough County.
The point is, they started in a very light fashion.
But over time, there's mission creep.
And what occurs is you end up having these districts with
far reaching regulations requirements that find their way
into the code and become code elements.
To the point as I mentioned, even just one, that there is
restrictions, hours of operation of businesses.
We had to go back to Hillsborough County and fight for
variance for a 24 hour gym to be able to operate so that
typically police officers, public employees could use the
facility.
So our concern is, we don't want to be at the beginning of

the nose of the elephant coming under the tent.
We don't want to be forced into a district that in the
future as we have seen elsewhere is going to end up having a
death of a thousand cuts as these regulations and these
improvements start to find themselves into code.
5:15:06PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Are you objecting to what is in front of
us right now, back to again the difference between what's in
front of us right now and what Hillsborough County has got?
Just to be clear.
5:15:17PM >> Our contention is that we -- I'm here tonight to voice to
you that Ms. Honeywell's property, which is located at this
location here, and zoomed in.
Which is located at MLK and Suwannee, we don't want to be at
the beginning and included in a part of a plan that we feel
in the future is going to get more aggressive and is going
to get more full of regulations.
We don't want to be part of it.
We don't want to be in it.
We don't want to be included in it.
5:15:49PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
Let me ask Ms. Coyle.
To your knowledge, can you specifically answer any of those
concerns?
5:16:00PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
I certainly understand where Mr. Pressman
is coming from.

What I can state for the record is the county's community
planning process and land development code amendment process
and the city's is completely different.
We went from the vision plan straight into the coach plan,
amended the maps.
Straight into code and rezoning.
It was a very direct approach.
The code amendments we put into place for form based code
for Seminole Heights, we took a very clear approach to make
sure that we did not diminish anybody's property rights as
far as the range of uses.
We actual had I applied enhancements that were allowed,
specifically in the SH-CI zoning classification versus the
CI.
There are a lot of 55-foot height limits.
In CI, they're allowed 45 feet.
So there are specific requirements and design parameters
that they're a little more enhanced.
Because of the way that we developed the plans for Seminole
Heights.
And what we identified as the development pattern as being
an urban village.
I understand where you're coming from as far as scope creep
in the future.
I have no intention to add additional design standards

through this four year process even with the residential
portion of the community that came out to the meetings,
because the commercial side came out as well.
We invited everyone, through individual notice, through the
entire process.
There was never even a consensus from the residential side
to apply full on design or architectural standards to the
commercial pieces.
What we dealt with from an urban form was placement of
buildings, how they related to the public realm.
Not full architectural standards for building.
There's never consensus for that.
It's not in the code.
I don't plan for it to be in there as of right now and it's
never even been brought to me.
The only architectural form standards that are in the code
relate back to residential, because they already had a
residential overlay district.
That's the final point that I'll make, as far as being
SH-CI, CBD, CI, CG.
At any point in time, it doesn't matter what zoning district
you, we could forward with overlay district, specific design
standards for a certain type of use to bring forward as a
code amendment that would apply to their property or any
other property zoned CI or SH-CI.

I don't see it as scope creep in that, from that perspective
because our approach as opposed to the county's where they
started with this lighter community planning process as it
translated into pseudo land development regulations.
Ours is very direct.
It's going to apply to X.
Whatever that box is we carve out.
And there's a public hearing process for that.
The code is what it is, I don't plan on amending it any time
soon.
5:18:46PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
I that I answer a lot of the concerns that I heard earlier.
Maybe not a hundred percent, but I'm at least at ease.
Any others care to speak on this item in the audience?
This is the audience portion of this first reading.
Please come forward.
5:19:07PM >> Hello, good evening.
My name is Paul Stein.
I own commercial property at 4405 north Suwannee.
From what I read in the notice for this, there appears to be
a typo in the language relating to the area in concern.
It says that we start from king and the river.
I don't know if I could have a copy -- I don't have a copy
of it here.
Location, south of Hillsborough Avenue, west of Hillsborough

river, I think we're talking about east of the Hillsborough
river.
So, I think that this notice actually is defective and the
language should be amended and the hearing put off to
another time until such time as people can get notice of the
correct hearing.
But that aside -- with respect to this particular area on
this map, the language in the noted hearing appears to carve
that out of the concerned area.
So as you go south on Florida, you go to Osborne, you go to
275.
That would be a really sensible thing to do because the area
between Florida avenue and I-275 has no -- excuse me, has no
business being in this district.
If I understand correctly, the philosophy behind the
creation of this district is though, so that people in
pretty homes north of Hillsborough High School, can live
next door to other people with pretty homes.
They're gorgeous homes.
They've done a great job restoring it.
It's a beautiful neighborhood.
The nature of the businesses that are moving into that
neighborhood, like the independent, like the refinery, and
others, contribute greatly to the character of that
neighborhood.

But if you survey the properties which are located south of
Hillsborough High School, which is south of Osborne, to
King, those kinds of houses do not exist in that zone.
It's complete perversion of the intent of the historic
district.
And this includes my friend here from Galaxy Fireworks.
Just drive up and down those streets.
It's only four blocks wide, only five blocks north to south,
six actually.
Go up to Nicko's.
This is not properly a historic district.
These are old small homes, next to my property are three
homes on 33-foot wide lots.
33 by 70.
Three homes side by side.
This is not an historic district.
But back to my first point, I think this hearing should be
continued --
5:22:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We have a legal opinion 0 that.
5:22:36PM >> Proper notice was not given.
5:22:37PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I appreciate it very much, Ms. Mandell.
5:22:41PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
We have gone back through the notice
the notice is correct.
There was the title on the resolution setting the public
hearing had a glitch in it, but the ordinance was corrected,

so I'm completely comfortable we can move forward.
Do I want to go and double-check the ordinance so I would
just ask that you hold the hearing for a couple minutes
while I run upstairs and check the ordinance, just to make
sure we don't have an issue down the line.
5:23:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
Question by Councilmembers?
5:23:06PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Question.
When you say it was correctly publicly noticed, I'm looking
at some of the paperwork here from planning.
It's got the same mistake on there.
5:23:18PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
The front page of the agenda request
form used the term west in setting the resolution setting
the public hearing.
The actual resolution setting the public hearing was
correct.
It's just showing up on your agenda incorrectly.
But that doesn't affect the notice.
Everybody was individually noticed here, the public notice
that went out was correct.
5:23:40PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I guess my question would be, how do we know
that it was correct?
5:23:44PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Because we have a copy of the notice
letter that went out.
The glitch is on the actual just front page of the agenda

sheet.
I have the resolution setting the public hearing.
The resolution actually setting the public hearing was
correct.
And the resolution setting the public hearing is not the
actual notice.
The notice is what goes out by mail.
5:24:02PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The reason I'm asking the question is because
I don't want to have to come back and re-do this if, you
know -- brought up a very good point.
Because every document I'm seeing has the same mistake.
And you're saying to one place where it was right was the
public notice.
I mean, we really don't know that we're trusting that it was
done correctly then and incorrectly now, versus.
5:24:26PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Lets give me a couple minutes to go
and check that.
I don't think there's anybody else here to speak.
We actually have to wait a couple minutes to go on to the
next hearing anyway.
If you give me a couple minutes to go upstairs and
double-check everything.
5:24:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have Ms. Montelione and Ms. Capin.
5:24:42PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Julia, exhibit D says the same thing.
And exhibit D is the notice letter that went out.

5:24:50PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Let me then go upstairs and check.
5:24:55PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
5:24:57PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
The resolution reads west.
5:24:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
She's going to get the proper notice that
went out.
I know what the resolution says before us, but she's going
to bring it back.
By the time she gets back, we don't start the next one till
5:30.
We have some time here.
Let's take an eight minute recess -- I'm sorry.
Cone I just wanted to say, aside from that, I'm
uncomfortable the agenda is wrong.
A lot of people use the agenda as their guide to decide what
they want to come and speak about when they come to a
meeting.
And, you know, if a person read it and decided it didn't
apply to them because it says west instead of east, I'm not
so sure that that doesn't create another problem.
5:25:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We'll be back -- Ms. Mulhern?
5:25:46PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I'll wait.
5:25:51PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Return in eight minutes.
We stand in recess for eight minutes.
Till 5:30.
[ RECESS ]

5:25:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
City Council is called back in session.
Roll call?
[Roll Call]
5:35:23PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
5:35:24PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
5:35:25PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
5:35:27PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
5:35:29PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
Ms. Mandell?
5:35:33PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Julie Mandell, legal department.
Given some confusion the way the agenda is written and
appears the participating organization notice did use the
term west and not east.
All the individual notices are correct.
I'm going to make the request of Council that you continue
this case, continue it for somewhere past 30 days to allow
us the opportunity to send notice only to the participating
organizations again with the corrected east of the
Hillsborough river versus west of the Hillsborough river.
5:36:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Wait a minute.
If you send notices that were correct, with the today's
date, and then you're not going to leave them out the second
hearing and you send it only to organization, aren't you
going to have another problem?
5:36:16PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
No, because we're continuing this

record on continuing this case on the record.
Just so I can say for the record, the individual property
owner notice went out did not give a description of the
area.
It simply indicated your property is being rezoned, or you
are within 250 feet of the area being rezoned.
But it did not give a description.
The notice that went out to the participating organizations
gave the description and gave the description using west of
the Hillsborough river versus east of the Hillsborough
river.
So, my recommendation and I'm comfortable that we can go
ahead and do this and the notice would be legally
sufficient, is for us to continue this hearing for 30, give
us little over 30 days, we can correct the notice that went
to the participating organizations.
We do not need to re-notice all the individuals.
They were properly noticed for this hearing.
In addition, that will give us a chance to correct the
agenda.
5:37:07PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So then December 13th, will that be
sufficient time?
5:37:13PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Actually I'm going to make a motion that we
continue it to December 20th, our day meeting.
Because you said that would give you enough time.

5:37:22PM >> To meet the 30-day notice requirement, I would have to
mail the letters out Tuesday, November 13th, which is
actually plenty of time.
It's only five letters that I have to mail out.
5:37:31PM >>HARRY COHEN:
So you're fine with doing it on the night
meeting on the 13th?
Or do you want it on the day meeting on the 20th?
5:37:38PM >> I'm going to be here on the 13th anyway because of the
one you just scheduled.
5:37:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just give me a date.
5:37:46PM >> The 13th at 6:
00 p.m., motion to continue to the 13th.
5:37:50PM >> I hate to ask, but can you do it at 5:
01 with the other
one that we've scheduled?
5:37:55PM >> We don't have one.
5:37:57PM >> You just scheduled one.
5:37:59PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Fine.
5:01.
5:38:01PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So we have a motion by Mr. Cohen to
continue item number two, to December 13th at 5:01.
December 13th being the year 2012.
Any further discussion?
Motion by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.

Thank you very much.
And appreciate it very much for bringing that up to the
Council, sir.
Okay.
It's past 5:10, so we go to item number 3.
It's a transmittal of public hearing.
And we're at item number 3.
5:38:39PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers.
David Hay with your Planning Commission staff.
The next item before you is Tampa comprehensive plan
amendment 1202.
Intended to update the city's ten year water supply
facilities work plan.
This proposed text amendment, which is required by state
law, updates the city's water supply facilities work plan,
which identifies those projects and programs that are
necessary to maintain an adequate water supply.
This is a transmittal hearing, so it will be forwarded to
the state and returned later for your formal adoption.
And the Planning Commission on August 13th, 2012 did find
CPA 12-02 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and
recommends that the City of Tampa adopt CPA 12-02.
5:39:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
This is a public hearing.
Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item?
5:39:45PM >> I'm Ed Tillou from north ninth street, Sulphur Spring.

Actually, there's a facility that's been revised recently to
tap into spring water to provide water supply.
I am an engineer, professional engineer actually.
I'm registered in Maryland still.
And the thing is, this is actually an engineering specialty,
although I also have public health background.
And the reason for that was I had wanted to go into this
field.
This, I worked for geological survey and I was interested in
water supply.
I ultimately got to do that with Maryland department of
health.
I worked with sewer, water and storm drains.
Potable water.
This is.
Even though we spent more time on the stormwater and the
wastewater.
Now, a couple of things bear on this.
The expert on this at University of South Florida is a
Dr. Muserskiy, Massuski, something like that, I heard him
speak once or twice.
I got his e-mail, but recently my e-mail account was hacked
into and somebody sent spam out from it.
And I lost my address book, my account was closed out.
And I don't have access to my address book and things like

that.
So don't throw your Rolodexes away.
Your Rolodexes still may be valuable.
You have all that stuff in the computer and then you can't
get to it.
Okay, there are a couple of things that bear on this and
should be focused on to look into.
And a big one right now it's in the news a lot is fluoride.
Now, fluoride is wonderful.
Everybody comes to line.
This is the official thing, everybody wants fluoride.
But there's something you don't know about fluoride.
And this is something that was told to me at the dental
college at University of Maryland.
I was around University of Maryland a lot.
I started my microbiology there.
I knew a couple of dental students and things like that.
There's a phenomenon called subsurface decay.
And what they have observed is that even though fluoride by
toughening the tooth Emmanuel keeps the cavities low, what
happens, you get subsurface decay and if people miss getting
to the dentist every six months to a year, which is a lot of
people these days.
These is the bottom line of the economy we have been saddled
with for now, well, Clinton himself said 30 years, and the

thing is, you're all of a sudden crunch, there goes the
whole tooth.
So fluoride is not the beautiful wonderful thing that you
hear that it is.
Now, there's other factors that go with that too.
But in any case, Dr. Maserski, Masuski -- whatever it is --
his first name is Jim, I think, he's with civil engineering
at University of South Florida.
There should be some working on the tax structure to
communicate that water is a scarce resource.
Not the tax structure, the rate structure.
5:42:52PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Don't leave.
I got ask you a question because I'm not as well-versed in
engineering as you are and water as you are.
Is there a phenomenon that in any drinking water, naturally
there's fluoride without being added to it?
5:43:05PM >> Well, there are places that have natural fluoride and the
people oftentimes, they're --
5:43:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's all I wanted.
Thank you very much.
Have a nice evening.
Thank you very much.
Anyone necessary the audience care to speak on item number
three?
Any questions by Councilmembers?

5:43:24PM >> Move to close.
5:43:25PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion to close the hearing by
Ms. Montelione, second bring Suarez.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Assume I need a motion to transmit.
5:43:37PM >> So moved.
5:43:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Made by Mr. Suarez, second by Mr. Reddick
to transmit.
Item number the three.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed that.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Since we -- next one starts at 6:00, we have to wait till
6:00, so we'll be in recess for 20 minutes.
[ RECESS ]
5:43:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
City Council is called back in session.
Roll call?
[Roll Call]
6:03:25PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
6:03:26PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
6:03:31PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Here.
6:03:33PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let's open the hearings 4 through 15
pleased.
Motion bring Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Reddick.

All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
I need a motion to receive and file all the documents we
received.
Motion by Mr. Reddick, second by Ms. Mulhern.
All in favor please indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Item number 4.
6:03:59PM >> Mr. Chairman?
6:04:01PM >> These are quasi-judicial, I'd ask the witnesses be sworn.
Also with regard to the hearings that are open for this
evening, I'd ask that the e-mails and written communication
that is have been available for public inspection be
received and filed.
6:04:17PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We have two things.
First, let's do the second one first.
Any e-mails or documents received on items 4 through 15,
need a motion to receive.
6:04:26PM >> So moved.
6:04:26PM >> Second.
6:04:27PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion made by Mr. Reddick, second my
Ms. Mulhern.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nigh.
The ayes have it unanimously.

And the first one again, you want to repeat that?
6:04:41PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
The first one was the public hearing's
tonight are quasi-judicial.
6:04:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone who is going to speak or think
they're going to speak or might think they're going to speak
or wants to speak, please on items 4 through 15, please
stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in.
[Oath administered by Clerk]
6:05:07PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right, these are public hearings and
they are quasi-judicial.
Item number 4.
6:05:26PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination,
item number four son your agenda is a special why you
request, 7201 to 7243 North Nebraska Avenue.
The request before you this evening is for a special use for
a temporary help agency.
6:05:54PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hay with your
planning commission staff.
And I have been sworn.
The subject site is located within the northeast corner of
North Nebraska Avenue and East Crawford Street within the
central Tampa planning district.
Also falls within the boundaries of the Seminole Heights
urban village.
Next we have the aerial, you can see the commercial uses

lining Nebraska Avenue and the predominantly single-family
residential pattern located east of the subject site.
You can also see Grover Cleveland elementary to the west of
the subject site.
And finally we have the future land use map.
The subject site has two future land use designations, the
red along Nebraska Avenue is community commercial 35, while
the pink located on the eastern portion is community mixed
use 35.
The yellow to the east is residential 10.
And the blue color is public quasi-public representing the
Grover Cleveland elementary school.
Planning Commission staff found that the proposed special
use meets a number of policies regarding compatible uses
within areas designated mixed use core villages.
Planning commission staff finds the proposed special use
request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
6:07:09PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thank you, David.
Abbye Feeley, land development.
There are two waivers being requested this evening.
The first is to allow the maneuvering of vehicles in the
right-of-way for parking spaces located along east Crawford
street.
And the second is to reduce the minimum distance separation
from residentially zoned property from five hundred to zero

feet on the east.
From 500 feet to 50 feet for the south, 500 to 150 feet to
the north and 500 to 210 feet to the west.
Go ahead and show you little bit more information about the
site.
It is an existing strip commercial center and one of the
tenants is seeking the temporary help agency designation.
It's located at the northeast corner of Nebraska Avenue and
Crawford street and surrounded by commercial uses.
To the north, south and west is single-family residentials
to the east.
It was constructed in 1962.
And the special use is being requested for the unit closest
to North Nebraska Avenue.
The current uses is occupying the shopping center with the
proposed special use would require 45 parking spaces and 55
spaces are being provided.
No modifications to the existing structure or the existing
parking area would occur as part of this request.
As David showed you, Crawford to the south, Nebraska to the
west, Hamilton to the north.
Predominately everything along the Nebraska corridor is the
CI commercial intensive.
CI line comes all the way back.
The strip center is a conforming use there is residential

single-family immediately adjacent.
Here's an aerial of the site.
Here's a photo of the site from Nebraska, looking east.
Another.
This is on Crawford.
A look down towards Crawford.
This is from Crawford looking north at the shopping center.
This is the eastern end of the shopping center.
6:09:40PM >> Could you move those up?
6:09:42PM >> I'm sorry.
Sure.
Single-family residence on Crawford immediately adjacent to
the site.
This is also on Crawford.
This is the south side of Crawford heading back toward
Nebraska.
This is at the southeast corner of Nebraska and Crawford.
This is the southwest corner across Nebraska and Crawford.
This is the northwest corner across.
And I think that was it.
These are just repeats.
Based on the special use criteria for a temporary help
agency which riches that the temporary help agency is
located 500 feet from a residential use, or residentially
zoned property, the subject is located within 500 feet to

the RS-50 and RS-60 district.
RS-50 is immediately adjacent to the east and 210 feet to
the west.
RS-60 is zoned property is directly across Crawford street
at the southeast corner of the property.
50 feet from the site and 150 feet north of the subject
property.
The residential properties are developed as single-family
dwelling units.
Also listed under the general requirements of code and staff
findings are some modifications that are required by
transportation and also natural resources should it be the
desire of City Council to waive that criteria and allow for
the special use to proceed.
Staff is available for any questions.
6:11:29PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions for Councilmembers?
Ms. Montelione?
6:11:35PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
On the site plan, and this is so I'm not
confused.
The project name says SWENDERS sweepstake center.
This hearing is about...
6:11:56PM >> That use is not currently there.
6:11:58PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
Good.
6:12:01PM >> This was probably based on the site survey but that

tenant is not occupying the space.
6:12:07PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
On with the other questions that I have.
The parking that's along the side street, that's been
existing for a while?
It looks to me.
And that's where the house is, the residential is right next
door.
And the unit you said is the one closest to Nebraska Avenue,
so it would be where, looks like sheer expressions is maybe
in this picture?
6:12:44PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Yeah, it's my understanding, the
applicant is here.
This is marked as the unit on the site plan.
There is a house here --
6:12:55PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So it wouldn't be the unit that is
closest to the residential.
Would be actually the unit that's furthest away.
But you need to have the 500 reduced to zero because it's
the entire building?
6:13:05PM >> Yes.
The entire shopping center.
6:13:07PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Got it.
Okay.
So I just wanted to be clear which unit we're talking about.
Something that concerns me, can you define for me the

temporary help agency -- this going to be like day labor,
professional services?
What is this?
Like home health aides, that sort of thing?
6:13:32PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
The code doesn't require that they
indicate to us what type of temporary help agency.
I mean, I would assume it could run the gamut.
6:13:43PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Isn't there a definition though
difference between the two?
6:13:46PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
No, there's not.
6:13:48PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I thought in the state code that, I
thought it did.
Okay.
6:13:54PM >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Not in the zoning code for the purposes
of the special use or the conditional use.
6:14:00PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Didn't we talk about that, the
definition?
6:14:09PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you very much.
The reason I'm asking is because the differences that folks
who are being called for say a home health aide, temporary
help type of situation or even a temporary service,
secretarial type thing or clerical type work, they usually
don't come to the location, just, you know to take a test
tore interview, and that kind of thing.
They're at home, somebody calls them, can you make it this

day, that day, whatever?
But with a day labor situation, they're, they actually --
laborers come to the location and wait for an assignment.
So I guess, why I'm asking for the definition and what type
of service this would be is to determine whether or not we
would have a lot of people in and out of this location, or
potentially waiting in the parking lot, like I --
6:15:10PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Sir, sir, sir, this is the conversation
between staff and Councilmember.
You will have 15 minutes to present your case and five
minutes for rebuttal after the public speaks.
I just want you to -- thank you very much.
Continue please.
6:15:28PM >> Let me pull the code for you.
6:15:30PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, my next would be hinged upon what
the answer to this one is.
6:15:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez?
6:15:41PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Ms. Feeley?
You want to go on and do definition?
I'll ask the question.
6:15:48PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Per the definition of temporary help agency,
it is any corporation, partnership or business of any kind
whatsoever which for a monetary consideration is primarily
engaged in supplying workers from a pool of potential

employees located on its premises and directly dispatches
these employees to another corporation, partnership or
business of any kind or to a private individual on a
temporary basis, whether the employees are to work a full
time or part time schedule, providing however that this
definition shall not apply to agencies which provide
professional employees who are licensed and regulated by the
state to other businesses on a temporary basis.
6:16:26PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So it would not include like home health
aides or PRNs, RNs?
6:16:34PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.
6:16:35PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So then my concern is if there are going
to be people arriving there and then waiting for an
assignment to be sent out, that there's enough square
footage of this location that they can wait inside and not
outside?
And what hours of operation would there be?
6:16:57PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
To the best of my knowledge, the conditional
use criteria do not require that they're housed inside or
outside.
So we did not review the application under those auspices.
But the applicant is here and could speak to that.
Nor does it require specific hours of operation.
I can testify there are not hours of operation on the site
plan for this conditional use.

Should that be the pleasure of Council, you could ask the
applicant if they would be amenable to hours or whatever and
that conditional use could then incorporate those hours.
6:17:31PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
6:17:33PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez?
6:17:34PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Ms. Feeley, on the first waiver that you have here, and I,
you know, the I may be wrong about this, but I don't think
we have seen where we have a applicant that has enough
parking that now wants to eliminate, not eliminate, but I
guess is to allow the maneuvering of vehicles in the
right-of-way.
What does that mean?
6:17:55PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That means that spaces that are currently
backing out onto a street, that the waiver would allow them
to continue to do that and not have to get rid of those
spaces.
And that's based on existing conditions on the plan.
Those spaces that I showed you in my photo that are right
here a-- see how they are?
How the wheel stops.
Those five would then back up.
Give me just a second.
I think I had a better shot of that.
6:18:59PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We got the gist of it.

I just was curious.
I just have never seen that before.
6:19:06PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
On MacDill, I think one we did on
MacDill recently had the same thing, where the two end
spaces you couldn't actually ma knife on the private
property to function in the spaces.
So we do utilize that waiver that allows them to maintain
these spaces in the right-of-way.
6:19:22PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And in the second waiver that we have on
here, because right now there's zero feet between the
building and residential, is that what it is?
6:19:33PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yeah, the same area of the existing building
is immediately adjacent to residential to the east.
So that makes it a zero foot separation.
This actually to the residentially zoned lot, not to the
use.
Or the structure.
6:19:49PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Was the structure just built before we had
those rules or what was the reason for it being at a zero?
6:19:56PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Oh, no.
The conditional use, the special use criteria states that
it's 500-foot separation from a residentially zoned piece of
property.
So, giving that there are they're abutting, there's a with
zero separation.

6:20:13PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank.
6:20:14PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any more questions?
Okay, petitioner.
That's you.
You're the petitioner.
Unless you want me to speak on your behalf.
6:20:22PM >> You could.
I'm not passion interest either way about this situation.
6:20:27PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, you have, let me explain.
And I apologize, note trying to be anywhere but helpful to
you.
You have 15 minutes to present your case, at which time
we'll go to the public and ask if anyone would like to
speak.
6:20:41PM >> I'm just from a fact pattern.
It's a day labor company.
6:20:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
First of all, let's not start until you
give your name and address and we go from there, okay?
6:20:51PM >> Angelo, 4415 Carrollwood Village Drive, Tampa, Florida,
33618.
6:21:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You have 15 minutes.
6:21:01PM >> So it is a day labor company.
Do come there during the mornings.
They clean the Bucs stadium when the Bucs are there and for
different day labor activity.

When they stay or go is really up to you guys.
I don't know if there's anything to present.
We have to keep the bearings, to have the license.
They've been there two years without a license.
The day laborers generally stay in the Laundromat when
they're not at a job.
So we have mounted ten cameras on the site and we send
people over there tow tell them they can't hang around.
That's pretty much it.
But you guys can decide whether it's acceptable and whether
the neighbors are unhappy with the situation.
All right?
That's it.
6:21:42PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick?
6:21:44PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Sir?
6:21:47PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Angelo, we have a question by
Councilmember.
6:21:51PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
I'm a little confused.
Are you the petitioner?
6:21:54PM >> I am the owner of the property.
The tenant refused to pay the fee to get the variance.
So they want the license now and, they actually did -- same
tendency.
So they asked me to do it for them.
They were going to present a person to present their case

and he didn't show.
So --
6:22:15PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I understand.
6:22:17PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
6:22:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We now go to the audience.
And you'll have five minutes to rebut anything that
anybody's going to say.
All right, anyone in the audience care to speak on item
number 4?
Item number 4.
Anyone care to speak on this item?
Please come forward.
If you're going to speak, just line up so we can make this
as expeditiously as possible.
Yes, ma'am, you have three minutes.
6:22:43PM >> Kelly young.
I live 1425 east Crawford street.
I've lived on Crawford for 30 years.
I've seen that strip mall change throughout the years.
There is a methadone clinic there now.
And I don't understand how they're going to share all these
parking spaces, because it's packed in the morning from
4:00 in the morning till about 3:00 in the afternoon.
The neighborhood is starting to come back.
We have got businesses and restaurants trying to make a

better neighborhood.
We're going to have day laborers there.
We already have had a homeless camping out at the pawn shop
that is next door.
And they were there for a good month before the police
finally rousted them.
I just don't think this is a good fit for a neighborhood
that's struggling to come back and make a good name for
themselves.
And change the character of the neighborhood.
Think this is only going to bring us back down to where we
were.
The city has done a great job of clearing out the
prostitutes.
But now we're going to have day laborers?
Exact same area.
I respectfully request that you deny this.
Thank you.
6:24:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, ma'am.
Next please?
6:24:10PM >> My name is Emily Greenwell, 1422 East Crawford Street.
I too would like for you to deny this request for the
variance.
The neighborhood is on the way up and it's a place that
people not only live, but have come to enjoy being there.

There are many businesses that have moved into the area.
And particularly for me personally, I have two children.
They're five years old and 11.
And I just really don't want the people that may be using
this business -- already it's scary, you know.
As a mother, I am apprehensive to have my 11-year-old child
even ride his bike very far, much less pass people who are
transient and camping out in the Laundromat or sleeping in
the woods right across the street, which is what we've had
in the past.
Another thing that I think is not good about this, you can
see Cleveland elementary school from the site.
There's a crosswalk from, right from right in front of the
strip mall heading towards the school.
I don't think that's appropriate either, for inviting more
people that are transient and there from before daybreak
until late in the day and who might be sleeping there.
So, furthermore, I learned about this request for the
variance by a sign that was posted in front of the site.
That was about a month ago.
The sign has not been there for the last two weeks.
I've been keeping an eye out.
I didn't receive any other notification.
I live about five blocks away, maybe that's too far to have
been notified personally.

When I did bring this up to a group of neighbors within the
last week, most people did not know about it.
And I would request that your ruling on this be delayed
until more people this the neighborhood are aware of the
situation, and can express their feelings.
Based on the fact that the sign hasn't been there.
6:26:23PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Hold the time one second.
I'm not an attorney, but I think the rule says that the
petitioner's obligation is to post a sign.
We post a sign and if it disappears, it's not the
petitioner's fault.
I'm not trying to be an attorney, but I think that's what
the rules say.
6:26:48PM >> Nonetheless, we don't have enough information or feedback
from the community to deny this anyway, I would ask that you
delay your ruling until more of the neighborhood can
understand and let you know their thoughts.
6:27:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
6:27:04PM >> Thank you.
6:27:07PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Legal department, just one second.
Can you verify that all the notices were sent within
250 feet?
6:27:18PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Julie Mandell, legal department.
The notices were sent.
Five blocks away would be outside that notice area.

Just to reiterate what Mr. Miranda said, yes, it was
obligation to post a sign and do an affidavit, the ongoing
posting.
There's no ongoing posting obligation for the code.
So they've met code in terms of notice and it's appropriate.
6:27:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Before I go to Ms. Montelione, anyone
necessary the audience who care to speak who has not spoken
yet on this item number 4?
I see no one.
Ms. Montelione?
6:27:53PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
I'm looking at the pictures, I'm trying to determine the
tenant in the business, one in this shopping center, one of
the neighborhood residents, and I'm sorry, I don't remember
your name, said something about a methadone clinic being
located there?
6:28:21PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
I heard that as well.
I would caution you to be careful not to make that part of
your discussion or consideration.
You may have somebody go out and investigate whether or not
it is supposed to in compliance with our pain management
clinic or regulation, so I think at this point it would be
better for us to go through that investigation --
6:28:36PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
The reason I bring that up is because in
the staff report on page five, number five, letter B, it

says the agency shall not be within one thousand feet of any
other such agency or a blood donor center.
So that just in my mind is compatibility, and you know, in
the spirit of what this is talking about, so that's why I
ask.
6:29:00PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
That's the thing.
I'm concerned that we don't know, is this quote a methadone
clinic, is it a pain management clinic?
And if it is a pain management clinic and falls under that
definition, they will be obligated to get a separate
business license and so I think we should allow staff and
I've asked Ms. Feeley to go out and direct their appropriate
persons to investigate whether or not that is a legitimate
pain management clinic and whether or not it's received any
kind of additional requirement that some form of methadone
clinic, they may also need to get some additional permits
and requirements.
So the provision that you read can't be I guess in that
stretched out to fall within those two definitions.
But while I'm up here, I do think it's appropriate to say,
one of the waivers on your site that's being requested is a
waiver from residential.
And it's down to zero.
And you have got some testimony from some neighbors in the
sense about how close that they reside to this

establishment, so certainly that could be part of your
consideration moving forward.
6:30:05PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
And one other thing I heard was that, it was there the
petitioner actually, I mean the property owner, was that
this business has been operating there already?
And they did not -- I know the residents are referring to it
as, they're asking for a variance.
This isn't a variance.
This is a special use that we'd be granting here.
Is this business already operating there?
6:30:33PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes, and it was under code violation.
It was brought to their attention that it did require a
conditional use.
It was applied for last year.
I have the case file here.
It misnoticed two times in a row and per code, was
withdrawn.
Because the provision of code says if you miss notice or do
not perfect notice two consecutive hearings in a row, then
you're withdrawn.
And then you have to wait a period of time before you can
resubmit.
So they have now resubmitted same application that was
withdrawn under our procedures, and is now before you.

6:31:07PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So I guess what I find interesting then
is that this has been ongoing for at least a couple of
years.
That they knew that they had to make this application, and
they didn't get it because they didn't notice properly.
I just find that interesting.
All right.
Thank you.
6:31:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers?
Petitioner, you have five minutes to rebuttal.
Do you care to speak?
You're certainly welcome to use five minutes.
6:31:42PM >> That's my fault.
I messed up in the Seminole Heights had a association to
send it to.
So I screwed up the mail.
That's why we were unsuccessful.
I got it right this time.
But listening to the neighbor, I'd rather my neighbors be
happy than my tenants, so if you feel their view is more
important, don't grant the variance.
6:32:02PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You're a very nice man, thank you very
much.
[ Laughter ]
6:32:07PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It might be Christmas before December.

I have a motion to close public hearing by Ms. Mulhern,
second by Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
What's the pleasure of the Council?
Ms. Montelione?
6:32:23PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sir, I would move to deny the applicant.
6:32:27PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Ms. Montelione, second
by Mr. Reddick.
Would you please just state why.
6:32:35PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, one of the waivers that's being
requested is to reduce the minimum distance separation from
residentially zoned property from 500 feet to zero.
That's citing section 27-272 A.
We have had residents in the area testify to its adverse
impact on the neighborhood.
Also that we have operations, the first waiver operation to
maneuver vehicles in the right-of-way parking spaces,
section 27-246 cone second.
Thank you, Harry, but not know.
Section 27-269, general standards, the use is compatible
with contiguous and surrounding property or the use is a
public necessity.
For those reasons, I am siding for denying the applicant.
6:33:41PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.

6:33:42PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That was original motion was
Ms. Montelione, second by Mr. Reddick, with three more
second.
6:33:48PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I want to add one more thing.
Also section 27-269, number one the use will ensure the
public health, safety and general welfare.
I don't believe that this would do any of those things.
6:34:01PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
We have a motion on the floor made by Ms. Montelione, second
by Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Motion passes unanimous --
6:34:13PM >> Been denied.
6:34:14PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you all very much for attending.
Okay, we go to item number five.
Yes, ma'am?
6:34:25PM >> Item number five and six go together.
It's a special use request for alcohol and a parking lot.
The parking lot I believe we should probably do first, if we
would move item number 6 first because it provides the
required parking for the alcohol.
So if we could do that and have that be heard, then that
would clean the alcohol up.
6:34:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.

All those that came in, if you're going to speak on any of
these items, five through 15, you got to be sworn in.
I don't know if you are or not.
If you plan on speaking on items five through 15, please
stand up, raise your right hand and get sworn in.
[Oath administered by Clerk]
6:35:27PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
So item 6 on your agenda is V 12-319 located
at 1716 North A Street and it is a special use request for
parking off-street commercial.
6:35:46PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hay with your
Planning Commission staff again and I have been sworn.
This subject site is located at the south side of west North
A Street.
Just west of Rome Avenue within the central Tampa planning
district.
Next we have the aerial.
You can see the subject site is in the center of the map.
You can see the commercial and office uses lining West
Kennedy Boulevard.
We have the neighborhood Walmart to the east of the subject
site.
You can also see the light industrial and office uses lining
north Rome.
Finally we have the future land use map.
The subject site and properties to the north and west are

designated residential 35.
We have urban mixed use 60 to the south of the subject site
along Kennedy Boulevard.
To the east is general mixed use 24.
Planning Commission staff found that the proposed special
use is consistent with the number of policies regarding
commercial uses, neighborhood protection and economic
development.
Therefore, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
special use request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
plan.
6:37:00PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thanks, David.
If I could leave this up for just a minute.
Let me show you here because it's kind of an interesting
situation.
Although you may not find it too interesting.
Okay, so the future land use map David just showed you here,
there's a brown, the brown and the purple.
This one piece mid block that you see here also, the PD to
the west of here is the Solomon Trop parking lot that goes
all the way back to north A.
And this piece here, these two pieces here that are CG are
already a parking lot.
So when we first saw this come in to our offices, we said
oh, we can just partner it with the piece that is CG and

make it all CG and then they can have the parking lot by
right.
But the weird thing is that it's brown underneath, which
means it's R 20 and you can't have CG.
So we have to do a special use for just that one sliver of
the parking lot.
So it's kind of a little bit of a conundrum to give you a
little background there.
On your site plan you see before you, you see part of a
parking lot, which is all of that CG.
And then one or two rows of parking that is actually the
special use.
So, just to give you a little background on that, this is
kind of helpful because it would make sense to try to put it
with the CG, but because of the underlying land use, we
can't bump it up that high.
I don't know why it kind of hung out there.
But, that being said, we'll move on.
This is a request for special use for a parking off-street
commercial.
There are two waivers.
One is to allow the commercial property, which the parking
serves to be separated by an alley.
This is an alley between the properties on Kennedy and the
north A frontage.

Although you'll see on your site plans this parking lot will
have no access on north A.
The piece it goes with does have access on north A.
But it also has access through the alley.
And then to allow the parking to extend more than 100-foot
from the boundary.
You may recall this from previous applications we have done.
The lot is 161 feet deep.
And that plus the depth of the alley puts us at 178 feet for
the parking area.
Let me just correct myself.
There will no access on north A.
The access will be on the alley.
The request -- it's R-35 land use.
Sorry on that.
This would allow for 16 parking spaces to be combined with
the other parking lot.
The subject property is 50 by 161.175 or 8,000 square feet.
There's no proposed access off of north A.
All the access will be off the alley.
Let me go ahead and show you the site.
The aerial.
We just discussed, that is Solomon Trop just to the west.
The property this would serve would be the subject of the
next application, would be this building here, is, was

formerly raging cajun.
It is currently vacant.
This property here is the new site of Primrose school.
To put in context of where we are.
I think David mentioned to you the neighborhood Walmart here
and Wendy's Taco Bell area there.
I already showed you PD to the west of here.
CG.
Everything else is IG or CI along Kennedy.
And RM-16 back from this red line heading west.
So immediately adjacent on this side would be the IG.
Here's a picture of the property.
From north A looking south.
Back toward Kennedy.
It's currently fenced.
This is moving east along north A.
Another photo.
This is that CG portion.
This is immediately -- oops, let me go back one.
There's some parking there.
And then you have a host of different industrial uses.
This is from the alley looking back toward north A.
This is along the alley looking south toward Kennedy.
This is immediately to the west of the site, which is
Solomon Trop I've referred to, parking lot a few times on

North A.
This is north of the site along North A heading back toward
the west.
And then I did refer to the site that it would serve off of
Kennedy.
It does already have some surface parking adjacent to that
as well.
There are a few modifications that need -- there are no
modifications that need to be made to the site plan.
Everything is ready to go.
The special use criteria can be found on page four of my
staff report.
And staff did find the request consistent.
6:42:52PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions from Councilmembers?
Thank you.
Petitioner?
6:43:08PM >> Good evening, Council.
My name is Joseph Diaz, 2522 West Kennedy Boulevard and I
have been sworn.
The reason for this application is, rises because of the
next application that you're going to be seeing, which is
the alcoholic beverage.
And when we then filed this application, we will satisfy the
parking requirement under the other application.
We wanted to do it as a CG.

We couldn't.
So this was the only avenue that we could use to use it for
a parking lot, to tie it back to the next application.
We would request your approval on it.
6:43:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions for Councilmembers?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item?
Item number six first.
6:43:55PM >> Charlie Miranda, Frank Reddick, Councilmembers, I'm
Wesley Weissenburger, 1919 North A Street.
I have been sworn.
I've lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years.
And the north Hyde Park civic association with Robert Allen
president, we would request that this is denied.
First of all, you can talk anything you want about access to
North A.
But this is going to be involved, the whole package deal is
going to be involving liquor.
Late at night, in the evening, people even parking on our
residential street and we had problems in the past with the
club Atlanta, took us 13 years to get that bar out of there.
On North A Street, late at night, once you finish drinking
and boozing, you're going to head up to Howard Avenue.
And we have had head-on collisions right at that
intersection on the corner of North A and Freemont where the
trooper was T-boned.

Where people do not stop.
They come through that street, step on it and we have had
collisions.
There are two stop signs -- theater, people will go through
both of them.
The second thing is, there are people in the middle of the
night in every community, but you have one bar, the Kiki
across the street with the male prostitutes work that
street.
We know that for a fact.
We have been trying to get that bar closed for many years.
The people park on those streets.
They meet their tricks there.
And any way you look at it, they will be hanging around in
our neighborhood.
This is a residential area.
Yes, it's improving.
Yes, we'd like to see business come and everything else.
But we have to protect our citizens.
And anything involved with Kennedy will come off North A.
There is a school across the street that's brand new the you
can see it, it was brought up to your attention.
No matter what age, it's still a school.
And it's close proximity to their property.
The university, their students, bless their heart, love to

drink at night.
There's one bar over at the Cass Street where the university
students are hanging out, walking straight across the street
in the middle of the night, intersection, couldn't care less
if they get run over or not.
Same situation will occur here.
I believe or we believe the students will be coming up.
We wish it was, it's turned down.
We do not want any more liquor, any more booze in that area.
Restaurants or any other business, please, we do not want to
have any more of this type of problem in our community.
For the booze, the traffic, and thank you very much for your
time.
6:46:55PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Anyone else in the audience care to speak on this item?
Item number six?
Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal.
6:47:06PM >> Council, first of all, there will be no access off of
this property onto North A Street.
The access of this property is through the alley and back
out to Kennedy.
Secondly, I think when we get to the alcoholic beverage
request, you're going to see that we're not a late hour
establishment.
And we meet all of the city hour requirements for closing

related to a restaurant use.
We're not asking for any time waivers whatsoever.
So we're not going to be here at no 3:00 in the morning or
anything near that.
6:47:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Montelione?
6:47:50PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm guessing that you, you own the piece
or your clients own the piece for a while.
Is there anything that this property could, I mean, be used
for?
Is it large enough for any other kind of use?
6:48:07PM >> Ms. Montelione, look, when we look at the Kennedy
Boulevard parcel, you're going to see there's a one story
building, the one we want to get the alcoholic beverage use
on.
There's kind of like a parking sliver in between it and then
there is a two-story structure that runs perpendicular to
Kennedy Boulevard.
Then you have these three lots in the back.
And so I guess we could do that, but I guess technically --
6:48:37PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No, I'm asking if it would be financially
or otherwise feasible to use this piece of property for
anything else?
6:48:44PM >> Which piece of property?
The single lot?
6:48:47PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.

Looks like it's going to be stormwater retention.
6:48:53PM >> We're going to use it for some parking and stormwater
retention.
If I don't use it for that I don't see anybody building a
single-family residence in that one lot next to the park,
next to our commercial CG to the east and next to the
Solomon parking lot to the west.
6:49:11PM >> One other question.
What kind of restaurant?
6:49:20PM >> Japanese jazz.
Sushi, because someone had mentioned a bar, you know.
6:49:28PM >> The next one you're going to see -- it's a restaurant.
6:49:32PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Ms. Feeley?
Is this piece, the way this piece is zoned.
6:49:40PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
RM-16.
6:49:41PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
What else could you use it for?
6:49:44PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
A house.
I don't know that you'd stick a house in between this CG
industrial piece and the Solomon Trop.
6:49:51PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I was just wondering, without any
rezoning or anything else, that's all that could be built
there is a house?
Okay.
That's all I have.
Thank you.

6:50:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmember?
Thank you very much.
Need a motion to close on item number 6.
6:50:08PM >> Move to close.
6:50:10PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close by Mr. Cohen, second by
Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Although we have heard number six, we haven't heard number
five.
They run together.
6:50:25PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
No, they'll be heard.
6:50:28PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We heard six.
That's the parking lot.
Right?
So we have not heard five.
So is it possible that we can wait or does it have to be
voted on one at a time or can we hear the other one before
we vote on six?
6:50:46PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
My suggestion is, I believe it would be
appropriate for you to vote on this now.
And if for whatever reason that there's an issue, you do
have a second reading coming up in two weeks.
You can address your concerns at that point.

6:50:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
The hearing is closed.
Ms. Mulhern?
6:51:07PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I'm curious that we're, I mean, it's a
parking lot, you're asking to rezone this property for
parking lot.
6:51:20PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
It's a conditional use for commercial
off-street parking.
6:51:25PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Right.
But it goes with the next one.
6:51:27PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
No, it could be parking.
I mean, that's it.
The next one doesn't matter.
The only thing it matters for the next one is if it has a
parking waiver or not.
If you approve the parking as a use, then the parking is the
use.
And whether it's serving Solomon Trop or serving another
office building, it's an off-street commercial parking lot
for that purpose only.
6:51:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Understand.
6:51:55PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Just to follow, if we approve this, and we're
to deny the next application, then there would be a parking
lot permitted there, but you know, the next application
could be anything.

6:52:08PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.
Because if I put a hair salon on Kennedy, I could use the
parking lot for personal services at eight spaces per
thousand.
A barber shop.
Get a shave.
6:52:25PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
The hearing was closed.
Mr. Suarez?
6:52:28PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Just a procedural question, Ms. Feeley, when
you're asking to add on to the agenda, does anyone ever look
and see that one is for the other or, you know, because
obviously you asked for us to take six first instead of
five.
Procedurally, what -- you understand what I'm asking?
Why do we have it backward in numerical order?
6:52:53PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
When I send stuff over to the clerk, I don't
know that the clerk knows.
Maybe I should do a better job.
6:52:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You answered my question.
You sent it to the clerk.
6:53:02PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I didn't tell her.
Usually they show up in numerical order.
6:53:07PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
We had the hearing closed.

We had the procedural questions answered.
Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number six.
6:53:14PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you Mr. Chair.
I move an ordinance being presented for first reading
consideration, an ordinance approving a special use permit
S-2, approving parking off-street, commerce in an RM-16
residential multi-family zoning district in the general
vicinity of 1716 North A Street in the City of Tampa,
Florida, and as more particularly described in section
1 hereof; providing an effective date.
6:53:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Mr. Cohen, have a second
by Ms. Montelione.
Any discussion?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Number five we go to.
6:53:52PM >> Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption December 6, 9:30 a.m.
6:53:59PM >> Next case is V 12-296.
Property address is 1719 and 1723 West Kennedy Boulevard.
Applicant is Sam Shin, Incorporated.
Development review the application, found consistent with
the regulations, with minor site plan revisions between
first and second reading.

As you've already heard, there are three zoning districts on
this, CR, CI, CG, proposed alcohol beverage sales for a
restaurant, beer, wine and liquor, consumption on premises
only.
The hours of operation, Monday through Wednesday, 7:00 a.m.
to 11:00 p.m.
Thursday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., and
Sundays, 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
They're requesting one waiver.
And that waiver is to increase the number of compact parking
spaces from 65 to 85%, for a total of 67.
Let me show you some of my photographs.
Same as Ms. Feeley's.
Again, this is the subject parcel.
This is the previous lot that you were talking about before.
This is the subject restaurant building and this is the
office building that shares the lot with.
This is a photo of the drive aisle between the two
buildings.
Site is occupied by two commercial buildings, two story
office building, 1723 west Kennedy and subject building,
which is 1719 West Kennedy Boulevard, which is a one-story
restaurant.
Proposed alcohol beverage sales area encompasses 5,596
square feet, of which 390 will be exterior, which will be

outside seating restaurant.
The restaurant proposes an occupant load of 198 people,
requiring 50 parking spaces.
Adjacent office building requires 29 parking spaces.
Site proposes to utilize the existing and additional surface
parking for this site which will total 79 per your site
plan.
The applicant is currently, or was currently an application
for special use two permit which you just heard, which is
required as part of this approval for the parking
performance.
The require numerous small revisions to the site plan.
Staff is here if you have any questions.
6:56:52PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions from Councilmembers?
Ms. Montelione?
6:56:55PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Eric, you said that it was operating
hours were 7:00 to 11 and 7:00 to 1:00.
On the site plan it just says Sunday through Wednesday until
11.
Saturday until 1:00.
It doesn't have an opening.
6:57:11PM >> That's the way it reads in code.
I'm reading you the opening hours because that's what is
code.
6:57:17PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.

All right.
And then the waivers that are on here are going to be
changed between first and second reading, because they're
only asking for the one and there are four there.
6:57:31PM >> That's right.
6:57:34PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's all I have.
6:57:35PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone else from the city?
Petitioner?
I'm sorry, Ms. Capin.
6:57:42PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
You have 390 square feet outside seating area.
Again, the issue of amplified music is always on my mind
when we look at outside seating.
So maybe they can address that.
6:58:07PM >> That would be good to address that.
We have not received the floor plan or any plans.
That would be a good thing to talk to the petitioner about.
6:58:16PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
6:58:18PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner?
Council, my name a Joseph Diaz, 2522 West Kennedy Boulevard
and I have been sworn.
Ms. Capin, the outdoor area is an area that's 13 by 30.
390 square feet and it fronts on Kennedy Boulevard is where
that outdoor area is.
I don't know that music wouldn't be, no residential inning

that area.
There is way back on North A Street.
But I'm telling you, we're on the front on Kennedy Boulevard
is where we're at.
So you'd have to go the depth of our lot, 151 feet.
The alley 17 feet.
Depth of the next lot, 161 feet and then you'd have to cross
North A.
6:59:07PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
If it's facing Kennedy, then what is the
front and on the sides?
I was looking at this here.
6:59:12PM >> It's all commercial use.
It's seats Solomon Trop that's closed.
Our two story office building to the west.
To the east is an automotive repair shop and further
commercial uses, then you get to the Wendy's, the
drive-thru.
There's a McDonald's on the other side of the street.
It's all commercial use on the south side of Kennedy.
It's all commercial.
There's no residential -- the residential would be somewhere
south of Kennedy Boulevard.
7:00:01PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Therefore...
7:00:05PM >> We don't think that it's going to create a problem that
would impact anyone.

7:00:10PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
To have amplified music?
7:00:13PM >> I would assume there's going to be some music if it's
going to be called Japanese jazz, yes, ma'am, I'd assume
they are going to have music.
If you don't want it outdoors, you know, I guess, but I
really don't see that it would impact anyone.
We'd have to certainly comply with the city sound ordinance.
7:00:32PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That is true.
I'm looking at your, at the map and you have made that
point, where it is -- it is commercial, although sound
travels.
And your 1:00 a.m. is the closing?
7:00:54PM >> 1:
00 a.m. is the closing just on Thursday through
Saturdays.
7:01:02PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's all I had to ask.
Thank you.
7:01:05PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers at this time?
Anything else, sir?
We go to the audience portion.
Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number five,
please come forward.
7:01:23PM >> Ladies and gentlemen, you have answered my question.
Madam, you brought up a point.
And may I share with you what took place in the past if you
go to the bungalow restaurant, a nice sweet little Italian.

7:01:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Weisberg, I need to you identify
yourself.
7:01:44PM >> I'm Wesley Weissenburger, 1919 and a half west North A
Street.
Executive secretary of the north Hyde Park civic association
and this is our community.
I've lived there 20 years.
And ma'am, I'll speak to you.
If you go to that sweet little Italian restaurant, which
supposed to have little violins and no noise, ma'am, they
had speakers almost as tall as me in the front.
We had to call the police on that sweet little Italian
restaurant, with seating, which went from inside the
restaurant to the public street, right out to the sidewalk.
As I spoke to the officer, that man could not even hear me.
In his police car, he said with sign language, I'll take
care of it.
They had to go in and take care of the sound.
The same thing will occur with a little oriental restaurant
with 300 square feet or whatever.
You could say whatever you want.
The volume does carry.
Mr. Reddick, you know our community.
It will carry into the residential.
If you go to the attorney's law firm, diagonal to the

property, they just re-did a beautiful piece of property,
good rent.
We want to keep the people there.
But people vibrating a restaurant over on Kennedy will
affect us.
The volume, what you hear is not reality.
We'd like to maintain a little peace and quiet.
We do not oppose a restaurant.
But outside totally be restricted.
The noise will bother us.
And again, there is a school across the street.
I believe there's restrictions on a school, close to this
type of business.
I have nothing else to say.
Thank you very much.
7:03:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Any Councilmembers?
Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal.
7:03:49PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a question for the petitioner?
7:03:51PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick had a question.
7:03:53PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Did you meet with the neighborhood
residents about this?
7:03:58PM >> I'm sorry, sir?
7:03:59PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Did you meet with the neighborhood
association?

7:04:01PM >> No, sir, this is the first time I ever knew there was any
opposition.
I checked to see if the city had heard anyone.
No one has ever contacted me and I have not spoken with
anyone, no, sir.
Until I got here, I didn't know any concerns they had.
7:04:15PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
7:04:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You have five minutes, sir.
7:04:21PM >> Mr. Miranda, you know, we're talking about an area that's
13 feet by 30 feet.
I don't even know, it's this big.
The area that this gentleman wants to compare us to is a lot
larger than what we are, holds a lot more people.
I mean, this is just a 390 square foot area.
We don't see the logic for the noise restriction.
But if you want to us put a condition, which we really don't
want to do, to be very candid with you, we don't see the
need for it.
We'd leave it up to Council.
We just don't see any reason for it.
We're fronting Kennedy.
If we're making any noise, and I'm not suggesting that at
all, it would be headed in the southbound direction, away
from his neighborhood.
Away from his residences.

These residences are 300 and some odd feet away or more.
I mean, I just don't see it.
We humbly request that you approve our petition.
7:05:37PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Okay, as you know, this Council I'm talking to our legal
department, we can't make any suggestion or things to change
an appearance of a petitioner.
No matter what we like, it's up to the petitioner or the
owner of the petitioner or the landowner to make
recommendations to us, not us to them.
7:05:56PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
They have a right to be heard on the
application they have in front of them.
If he's not willing to go ahead and change his application
by say saying it's up to you, it's up to you to decide
whether or not his application is appropriate and meets our
code.
7:06:11PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And I take it that's what he meant.
Any other Councilmembers?
Thank you very much.
I need a motion to close item number five.
Motion by Ms. Montelione, seconded by Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay on number five.
7:06:27PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Nay.
7:06:27PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No, no, this is to close.

7:06:30PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I'm sorry.
You know where I'm at now.
[ Laughter ]
7:06:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I must be calling bingo.
I'm going too quick.
All in favor of that motion to close, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nigh.
Will the ayes have it unanimously.
What's the flavor of the Council, what's the pleasure of the
Council on item number five?
7:06:46PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move to approval.
7:06:47PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Montelione for
approval of number five.
Do I have a second?
Motion dies for lack of a second.
Do I have another motion?
I got to get somewhere.
Mr. Shelby?
7:07:04PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Council, my only reminder to you, whatever
decision you do make has to be made on competent substantial
evidence.
7:07:11PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
If there's a motion to approve without a second, then I have
to go to another motion on the floor.

Ms. Mulhern?
7:07:20PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I'm not sure -- I'd like to move to open the
public hearing again so I can ask Mr. Diaz a question.
7:07:30PM >> Move to open.
7:07:32PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern, second by Mr. Cohen, please
indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Yes, Ms. Mulhern?
7:07:39PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I stepped out for a minute so I might have
missed some of this discussion.
It sounds like if you'd be willing to limit as we have done
in other cases, have no amplified music outdoors?
7:07:59PM >> I seem to be hearing that Ms. Mulhern.
I appreciate the opportunity and I would think nothing more
than I would love tow see a restriction with no outdoor
amplified music.
7:08:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I didn't quite hear that.
I'm sorry.
7:08:15PM >> I would agree to the restriction with respect to the
amplified music outdoors.
7:08:21PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
7:08:22PM >> And I would request that you incorporate same into my
site plan.
7:08:27PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That of course does not pertain to
acoustical music.

That is acceptable by everyone, I know, so I just thank you.
7:08:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers?
7:08:44PM >> Move to close the public hearing.
7:08:46PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
What's the pleasure of the Council again?
7:08:57PM >> Move to approve.
7:08:58PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin has motion for approval.
Do I hear a second?
7:09:03PM >> Second.
--
7:09:07PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
So, the ordinance.
I'm sorry.
What is this, five?
Public hearing --
7:09:20PM >> I'll read it.
7:09:21PM >> I move an ordinance -- move an ordinance approving a
special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales,
restaurant on premises only and making lawful the sale of
beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and
liquor, on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
at 1719 and 1723 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, as

more particularly described in section 2; that all
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed;
providing an effective date.
And adding the note to the site plan that there will be no
amplified outdoor music.
7:09:58PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anything else?
7:10:01PM >>MARY MULHERN:
And the revision sheet.
7:10:02PM >> Second.
7:10:02PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms. Mulhern, I have a second by
Mrs. Capin.
Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Roll call vote.
By hand.
7:10:20PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
7:10:22PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
7:10:24PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
No.
7:10:25PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes.
7:10:27PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
7:10:28PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No.
7:10:30PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
7:10:31PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick, Montelione and
Miranda voting no.
Second reading and adoption will be on December 6th at

9:30 a.m.
7:10:42PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much for attending.
We go to item number 7.
7:10:48PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.
Item number 7 on your agenda this evening is Z12-34, located
at 3006, 3008 West Bay Vista Avenue.
The request before you tonight is from an RS-60 zoning
district to PD, planned development to create two
residential single-family detached lots.
7:11:32PM >> Good evening, David Hay again with your Planning
Commission staff and I have been sworn.
The subject site is located within the South Tampa planning
district, which is one of the city's predominantly
residential planning district, the other being New Tampa.
Next we move on to the aerial.
Which we can see most of the Bayshore Beautiful neighborhood
and its predominantly residential character.
We have Bayshore Boulevard running north south on the right
or east side of the aerial and we can also see the Bayshore
united Methodist church at South MacDill, just to give you
some landmarks down there.
And then onto the future land use map, here we can see the
subject site and the surrounding properties are all planned
at residential 10.
We can also see the community mixed use 35 lining south

MacDill Avenue.
Planning Commission staff found the proposed rezoning is in
keeping with the number of planned policies regarding urban
design, residential development and redevelopment.
The request also allows for the property to be developed
with uses similar to the existing development pattern found
in the surrounding areas.
And Planning Commission staff based on that found the
request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
7:12:51PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thanks, David.
This is a request from RS-60 to PD planned development to
create two building zoning lots.
A lot on the west would have a dimension of 50 feet in width
and 5,000 square feet in area.
The lot on the east will also have a dimension of 50 feet
west at 5,000 square feet in area.
The subdivision was originally platted in 1906.
With lot width of 50 feet, including the corner lots.
The subject property has approximately 100 feet of frontage
and contains two platted lots.
There is currently a single-family residence on the eastern
side.
That residence is proposed to remain and is shown on your
site plan.
All proposed development on the site will meet the RS-60

standards and associated supplemental regulations with the
exception of a setback.
The setbacks of the existing structure are as follows.
The front yard is 15-foot -- 15-foot one feet.
The west side yard is 3.6 feet.
Zero foot to the air conditioning equipment.
East side yard is point 5 feet to the existing carport and
the rear yard is three point one feet.
The new lot would have a 20-foot front yard, 20-foot rear
yard and seven foot sides.
Max building height is 35 feet.
Elevations of the proposed two story on the west were
provided.
And the existing home on the east, photos of the existing
home on the east have been provided.
Did I give you my package of photos up there?
No, they're underneath here.
Sorry.
As you know, when we do a lot split, when you're going from
a larger lot of the RS-60 down to an RS-50 lot, so to speak,
or lot width of 50-foot, what staff does, we conduct
analysis of the existing development pattern of the area.
Which has become known as the red blue map.
You have a red blue map in your package tonight.
What I do, and many of you have seen this and I'll show you,

I use the original plat of the subdivision.
So I go back to the plat books.
Like I said, this was done in 1924.
And actually go through and make sure how the development
pattern has been built.
Is it one house, one lot?
Is it one house, two lots?
How did they get that 50-foot or 60-foot development
pattern?
What you'll see here, you do see Bayshore Boulevard on the
east.
And although the original subdivision included those lots,
those lots are currently zoned RS-100 and RS-150 and they
have an orientation to Bayshore, so they were not included
in the analysis because they aren't a 60-foot lot.
Lots along MacDill, which also were in the original
subdivision, have a zoning district of commercial general.
Some of them have town homes in them.
Some of them are non-residential uses.
So those were not included in the analysis.
What is included in the analysis is the single-family
residential lot and their placement.
And the development pattern.
So what you see in red is everything that has 60-foot in
width or greater.

Is conforming to the RS-60 standard.
What you see in blue is everything that has 59.99 feet or
less.
And in this area, in the surrounding blocks, it actually is,
the majority of the lots, 55% are nonconforming, so they are
smaller than the 60 feet.
Typically they've been built on one platted lot, which was a
50-foot lot.
And that is what the request is asking for this evening.
If you come down these green lots here are actually the
subject lots.
And the lot to the west of them is a single platted lot and
the lots to the east of them are single platted lots.
Everything that they interface with are single platted lots.
With the exception of the commercial that I'll show you some
photos of that area.
So I did provide you with that analysis in my staff report.
Therefore, what is being proposed would be consistent with
the other blues in the immediately surrounding area.
Here's an aerial of the site.
You'll see there's town homes I mentioned that were in the
CG.
And the zoning atlas of the site.
Site shown there in green, MacDill to the west, Bayshore
to the east, Bay Vista do the north, Bay View to the south.

When this lot originally came in it was an RS-60 to RS-50
zoning because it was one platted lot by 50 by 100.
But giving the existing lot was going to stay and does not
conform to the regulations with the setback, it would have
to be a PD in order to take care of the nonconformity that
was being created on the other piece of property.
Go ahead and show you some pictures of the site.
This is the existing home.
This is the property that would be constructed and creating
the new lot, single-family.
I'm actually heading west toward MacDill, so single-family
residence.
This would've been that blue lot I showed you.
Ooh, wait a minute.
Yes.
This also still heading west.
And then there is a salon at the corner of the southeast
corner of MacDill and Bay Vista.
Heading to the east of the subject property, single-family
residence.
This is also at the east.
At the corner.
This would be at the southwest corner of Bartlett and Bay
Vista right here.
What I was going to do is head to the north side of the

street and move from MacDill all the way back toward
Bartlett.
This is view from MacDill.
Through is the commercial general pieces of property that I
discussed on the western part of this block.
So now I'm moving east toward Bartlett and Bayshore.
Single-family residential.
And these are all those blue lots that are on the north
side.
This is immediately across the street.
And then this is at the corner.
This is at the southeast corner of Bartlett and Bay Vista.
And those are also blue lots.
New build.
It was actually under construction on Google earth when I
went down the street view.
Based on the existing development pattern of the area, staff
did find the proposed request consistent.
There are no modifications that are being requested in
between first and second reading and we are available for
any questions.
7:21:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Any questions for Councilmembers at this time?
7:21:16PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I did provide a letter that staff received
for your review as well.

7:21:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez?
7:21:21PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have one question.
It's all RS-50 now -- sorry, 60 now.
And it's going to become a PD.
Why PD instead of some other zoning classification?
7:21:35PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Because of that existing house that is going
to remain.
It doesn't have the seven foot on the, on the west side
setback.
So the only way to take -- whenever you're creating a lot,
you can never create a nonconformity on another lot.
So when --
7:21:56PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
They have to be consistent when you zone both
of them?
7:21:59PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Right.
So when the subject lot, although it meets all the mum
requirements of the 50 by a hundred and can meet everything,
when you sever it from the piece that its currently owned
with on the east, that would create a nonconforming setback
on the side.
So we can't do that.
So the way to take care of that is to go ahead and PD -- you
could've done it I guess for the PD for the existing house
and RS-60 for the other.
But this would take care of both properties.

7:22:28PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
What other uses can be built with PD?
Can anything else be built there?
7:22:33PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Single-family house and any accessory.
Just like it will function as the RS standard.
7:22:43PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's the only way to fit a conforming use on
a nonconforming, correct?
7:22:50PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Right.
7:22:51PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
7:22:51PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
7:22:52PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I'm a little slow here.
I want to understand this.
Mr. Suarez's question.
I still don't understand why you couldn't rezone both of
those lots to RS-50.
The existing house.
7:23:09PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Because in an RS-50 zoning district, the
side yard setback are seven feet.
The existing structure has 3.6 feet on one side and .5 feet
on the other side.
Let me go ahead and show you.
7:23:25PM >>MARY MULHERN:
It's the side setback -- you can't.
7:23:32PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
You would have to do a rezoning to RS-50 and
go get a variance.
So it would be a multi-step project to get to the same
multi-applications to get to the same place you're at this

evening.
7:23:45PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I'm just wondering what --
7:23:49PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Because they're not going to tear down the
existing house.
It's going to remain event but you can't make it
nonconforming by severing --
7:23:56PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I understand that.
But it's not -- I mean, coming to us with a PD isn't for
both lots, is not -- how is that simpler?
7:24:10PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Because you would've had one application to
make this RS-50.
You would've had another application to make this RS-50.
And you can't do that because they're nonconforming factors
to the RS-50 on the existing lot.
You would not only have to make it RS-50, you would also
have to go before the Variance Review Board and get setback
waivers because you cannot setback waivers under a PD zoning
district.
7:24:36PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Just for one of them?
7:24:38PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.
But nowhere in time can you ever make somebody else --
7:24:42PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I understand that but I'm just saying there
was that option.
And since the neighbors seem to be concerned about starting
to have PDs in a neighborhood where they haven't had them,

that might have been --
7:24:57PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
The only other way I can process this would
be to do a PD for the existing house and an RS-50 for the
separate lot.
7:25:08PM >>MARY MULHERN:
That's two different --
7:25:10PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I can do whatever.
7:25:11PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I said it's two separate.
7:25:14PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Would've been two separate applications.
7:25:16PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Cohen?
7:25:18PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Really, as a follow-up on Councilwoman's
Mulhern's question, to be clear, the fact that we would put
a PD on this, in this neighborhood would have absolutely no
precedential value in terms of future application or future
decisions.
7:25:38PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.
7:25:40PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Because every item is taken on its own?
7:25:43PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.
7:25:44PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.
7:25:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers?
Okay.
7:25:49PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I do want to say this to Mr. Cohen.
We look at these zoning atlases that all these zoning
hearings and we're shown PD, PD, PD.
We're shown the surrounding zonings and we do take that into
consideration.

So it does become -- it can and I've seen it happen a lot,
become a precedent.
7:26:09PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
Petitioner here?
You have 150 minutes and five minutes.
7:26:22PM >> My name is Brooks Byrd.
I have been sworn in.
Representing bill O'Donnell, the owner of Bay Vista lot.
And we appreciate your consideration of this PD zoning.
We took careful consideration in trying to find the petition
and proper way to approach this rezoning.
Because of the existing structure setback situation, we felt
that the PD was probably the most pragmatic process in
moving forward on this.
Mr. O'Donnell has owned this, bought his house on lot 6 I
believe in 1985.
And the lot next door was previously owned by his mother and
at her passing, it was deeded back to Mr. O'Donnell.
That's how the lots became combined back together.
Happy to take any questions.
7:27:29PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions for Councilmembers at this
time?
I see none.
All right.
Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 7,

please come forward.
Item number 7, please come forward.
7:27:40PM >> My name is Anisi.
I'm the property owner at 3007 Bay View.
My property is south of this development.
First of all I just want to make sure this is RS-60 or
RS-50?
And my other question, if you just change it to the PD, as
we see the surrounding neighborhood and you say that, what
guarantee later on they're not going to come and put town
homes over there?
So I guess it is more for, for me and for the neighbor if
you just go ahead, make sure that this is only as a
single-family and if you want to go PD, get the PD for his
own property, that's fine.
And just if he want to make sure to maintain the setback and
the character, architect character of the, just,
neighborhood.
7:28:46PM >>MARY MULHERN:
The PD will be controlled by the site plan.
And it can only be a single-family home.
So they can't build anything other than a single-family home
at the dimensions that are on this site plan they're
presenting to us today.
So they can't build something else.
7:29:03PM >> So they cannot come do another?

7:29:07PM >>MARY MULHERN:
They can come back and request something.
7:29:09PM >> Put on top of the PD, PDF just for town home?
7:29:14PM >>MARY MULHERN:
They would have to come back with a wholly
new application, go through land development and come back
to Council to put something else there.
7:29:21PM >> Yes, but why don't you just stop it right now?
Because they can go ahead and put three town homes later on
because it's a hundred.
Right now, we prefer just prefer that just to put PD on his
property and just make that one a single-family.
7:29:41PM >>MARY MULHERN:
They can't do that without coming and
requesting to have multi-family units on that lot and change
the PD, have a whether new PDF.
The attorney can explain to you.
7:29:57PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
The -- any PD can specify whatever the
allowable uses are.
In this instance, this PD specifies the use must be for
single-family.
In order to have some other use allowed, a multi-family use,
that would have to come back to City Council.
And I suspect and I don't know this, this isn't a R-10
category under your, under the future land use map, they
couldn't come in for multi-family even if they wanted to.
So, multi-family is not an available option for this
property.

7:30:33PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
7:30:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Next please?
Into.
7:30:44PM >> Good evening, my name is Nancy FERASH.
3010 West Bay Vista Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
I have been sworn.
First I'd like to say, we get along with our neighbors, Bill
O'Donnell, so we feel very awkward having to come in and do
this.
But we feel it's important.
Our neighborhood is an old neighborhood.
We moved there in 1979.
But like I said, the lots are 50-foot lots.
We were aware of this problem at that property of 3006 for
years.
When that property got bought by Mr. O'Donnell or his
family, people knew that the lot three 3008 could not be
built on because that 3006 property building was placed
close to the line.
The time we moved in, the owner of those two lots, I think
was the original builders of that property.
And the property was always, as long as we have lived there,
held by one owner.
So I do understand from Mr. O'Donnell that he has some
switches between his mother and himself.

But the property had this problem from the time we livid
there in 1979.
In any event, I'm opposed to a change of zoning to PD.
For this lot, early lot in our neighborhood.
When I looked up the purpose of a PD on your city web site,
it talks about allowing the development of land uses that
are conformance with adopted future land use and talked
about issues such as characterized by unique conditions or
situations, which other zoning districts can't accommodate.
And two, including a mixture of appropriate land uses.
Here you're not talking about a mixture of land uses.
And we're certainly not talking about anything unique about
the property.
Granted, a building was put on the property, but all the
lots are 50 feet.
And these two lots I believe were also 50-foot lots.
If anything should happen, maybe somebody should go in and
change all our properties to RS-50.
But the solution is not to bend PD to be not what it was
ever intended to be, but to just fit this particular
problem.
Turn these lots into RS-50 and then the problem is solved.
But don't extend the use of PD to an individual problem that
is not something wrong with the property, it's a problem of
how it was built and used by its original owners and by the

people that subsequently bought it.
This is just a slippery slope to start allowing individual
properties to become PD when it's not what the intention of
PD ever was.
Was no hardship or practical problem unique to this
property.
We're all 50-foot lots.
7:33:55PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next please?
7:34:00PM >> Good evening members of the board.
My name is Sherwin Marsi.
I own a house down the block.
I have to agree with the very nice lady who just spoke
before me.
When you go into the definition section of what planned
development is, it's completely being used in the contrary
in my opinion, that was not the intent of creating this PD.
And the general character of the whole entire neighborhood
appears to be more towards an RS-50 than it would be on an
RS-60.
I don't really understand they would take an RS-60 and make
a whole bunch of nonconforming lots on our block, which is
west Bay View and on their block.
However, I'm not really opposing the application for a
subdivision because, you know, they're basically are mostly

predominantly 50-foot wide lots.
But applying this PD designation, if you carefully read the
definition section of the code, it's just seems to be that I
have to agree with her, it just seems to be misapplication
of what the intent was originally.
Thank you.
7:35:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Anyone else care to speak, please come forward.
Any care to speak on this item number 7, please come
forward.
Anyone else?
Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal.
7:35:25PM >> Thank you.
And I do appreciate the neighbors' input.
And Bill O'Donnell, the owner, the actual applicant has done
a wonderful job of trying to make sure he talks to his
neighbors an let them know what the intent here.
7:35:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just a second.
Let me stop here.
Are you going to speak against?
7:35:50PM >> No, I'm for.
7:35:51PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Then I got to put you on the record.
Are you Mr. O'Donnell?
7:35:55PM >> Yes, sir.
7:35:55PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I understand that.

Now, go on and continue.
I didn't understand.
Yes, sir.
7:36:05PM >> As I believe staff pointed out, we are looking at an
area, the majority of the lots are 50-foot lots.
To be very clear, the intention here is not to do anything
other than a single-family house.
And keep an existing single-family house and adding a
single-family house.
The question as to setting a precedent here, I did pull up
some examples of other zoning lots in the area that were in
this neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods that
were PD zoned for lots.
Is that something that I could share?
7:36:46PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Sure.
7:36:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You better go to the mic.
You got five minutes.
7:37:02PM >> This is lot, it was use, the PD process to get, to obtain
a single-family lot.
This is 3408 west Bay Vista.
This is the block over, PD zoning again used to create a
single-family lot.
This is 2913 west ninth avenue.
This is 2915 west ninth avenue.
PD zoning used to create a single-family lot.

This is 3110 West Fielder Street.
PD zoning used to create single-family lots.
This is 3112 West Fielder Street, PD zone used to create a
single-family lot.
These two lots were created through PD zoning.
That is at 3111 and 3110 west Tambay Avenue.
7:38:06PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
3112.
7:38:08PM >> And this is 3117 West Fielder street.
My only point here is, while I don't suggest that PD zoning
should be used for everything, this particular situation
appears to be the correct method in order to create a lot, a
50-foot lot in an area that is surrounded by 50-foot lots.
Thank you.
7:38:37PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes, Julia?
7:38:41PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
I feel compelled to get up there and
discuss some of the testimony that has been brought forward
leading to the use of the PD as the mechanism to bring this
forward to rezoning.
Some of you may recall we dealt with this issue through some
pieces of litigation where a court determined the use of a
PD procedurally is not the basis of a denial and is also not
necessarily indicative of their being some kind of
incompatibility.
And I don't want to get too much more into that unless
there's questions, but that is exactly what the court found.

And so that cannot be the basis of a denial.
You need to look at the underlying conditions that are being
brought forward as part of the PD and that is what you use
to determine whether or not this application is consistent
and compatible with the surrounding area.
And I just want to make that point clear.
The only other thing I do want to say, and we have a couple
of these cases tonight.
So I'll say it right now so I don't have to say it later the
way your code is drafted right now, if you want to move
forward to split a lot into two lots, and those lots do not
meet existing zoning classifications, your only remedy under
the code is to go forward with a planned development or a
rezoning to a lesser zoning, Euclidian zoning classification
in this instance, would be going to an RS-50.
You cannot get a variance to any of the lot size
characteristics, the width of lot, the square footage within
a lot, or any of those other issues.
It is not -- it is under code, variances are not allowed.
There used to be something called the 80% rule, which
allowed properties that were substandard, if they wanted to
split or if they were a smaller lot, to come forward and get
a special use to be able to have that characteristic of a
lot that might be substandard, whatever standards were
created because I wasn't actually here when there was the

80% rule.
That was done away with.
So this is the only remedy a property owner has.
And that coupled with the idea that you have some litigation
that said you cannot make a decision on these kinds of cases
on the basis of the procedure of using a PD.
I just think it's really important for the record and for
everybody to understand that.
7:41:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I appreciate it very much.
And that was about 33 months ago.
I got Ms. Capin, Ms. Mulhern and Ms. Montelione.
7:41:19PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you, Julia for that.
You know, I'm looking at this.
I can see the point of the, it's an RS-60 and this should be
RS-50.
But they're not.
It is not.
It's an RS-60 and the only remedy, as Julia stated, is the
PD.
So, when I'm looking at this, and it is also -- it is on the
site plan.
It can only be a residential, right?
And later on, it cannot be changed, correct?
They can't come forth, they can't do anything except build a
single-family home or leave it vacant.

Thank you.
Ms. Mulhern.
7:42:18PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
They're nodding her head.
7:42:24PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Ms. Cole, you are saying a PD is the only
remedy.
But Ms. Feeley said they could've asked to rezone both
properties to RS-50 and ask for variances.
That is what you said.
7:42:41PM >> What I said was that if you have a lot and you want, a
large lot and you want to create two lots, your only remedy
is to rezone either to a PD or to a Euclidian in this
instance, what Ms. Feeley explained is if you want to rezone
these two lots to a Euclidian lot, to an RS-50, and that was
an acceptable decision and we went ahead and approved that,
one of the lots would still have conditions on it which were
nonconforming, which would need to, those conditions could
go through a variance, setback variance.
7:43:19PM >>MARY MULHERN:
That's what I said.
So when you say PD is the only remedy -- keel.
7:43:25PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
That's what I'm trying to explain.
Rezoning was the only option.
You couldn't get a variance to create a substandard lot.
7:43:32PM >>MARY MULHERN:
What I heard was that a PD was the only
remedy.
I've heard you both.

Okay.
And I would like to just say that as we have all explained
to the neighbors, they can only build a single-family home
on this PD lot.
If it's approved, they can only build a single-family home.
Nothing else can be built there.
7:43:54PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Ms. Montelione?
7:43:57PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Ms. Feeley, Ms. Cole, I can help you -- we're going to try
and explain this, Ms. Feeley?
If we went with Euclidian zoning for both lots separately,
the house that is already in existence would not be able to
comply with the setbacks in RS-50, correct?
7:44:31PM >> Correct.
7:44:32PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
They would have to come back for what
process?
7:44:35PM >> A variance.
7:44:36PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And if that variance got denied?
7:44:39PM >> Then both lots are in violation.
That is why you cannot -- you cannot conditionally give them
an RS-50 with the understanding that a variance may or may
not be granted.
They are nonconforming.
7:44:53PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Because of the operation of law.

We could not put that process forward because there is a
chance, albeit maybe an outside chance, there is a chance
that a variance could get denied on an existing residence,
and then those lots would then be nonconforming the.
7:45:16PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Right.
7:45:17PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
7:45:18PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
7:45:19PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I wasn't finished.
7:45:22PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm sorry.
Ms. Montelione, continue.
7:45:24PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Can you explain to he moo maybe a little
bit of history?
How is it that we have an entire neighborhood of platted
RS-50 lots with RS-60 zoning?
7:45:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
1924.
7:45:39PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
There are two times of zoning, 1956 and
1987.
And this is not the only case we're going to talk about
tonight where things get built.
There were things that got built before '56 when there was R
1 A, R 1, the first zoning code of the city.
There were things that got built in this area before 1987,
the second time zoning conformance.
Second time of zoning conformance, the city went around and
said, oh, the predominant development pattern is 60-foot

lots.
7:46:10PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But it's not.
7:46:11PM >> I wasn't here in 1987.
[ Laughter ]
7:46:16PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I did not go and pull every age of every
structure when that structure was built, how that structure
was built, when the most recent permits were pulled.
We utilized this tool as a barometer to tell you what is the
existing development pattern.
The existing development pattern is that in 1924, this land
was subdivided into platted lots, 50 by 100.
And predominantly built that way.
7:46:39PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
So the way I look at it is, I don't like that we have the PD
process either.
And however, because of how the city, and I'm not going to
say us, because not all of us were here.
7:46:58PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
None of us were here.
7:47:01PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But because of the way the city has
chosen to zone this particular property, this particular
neighborhood, we are stuck with the process we have now.
And I feel that -- I understand -- you know, like I said, I
don't like the PD process.
I wish we could go back area wide rezoning and make this all
RS-50 rezoning.

But we can't.
At least not in the next ten minutes so that they could have
their RS-50.
So, that's the only possibility there is.
7:47:40PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
There used to be the 80% rule, which a lot
of people will talk to you, a lot of developers, don't we
have the 80% rule?
If we have 80%, then we're buildable.
And it doesn't work that way anymore.
Nor can you get a variance for a substandard lot.
The process is the PD.
As much as I love it.
[ Laughter ]
7:48:00PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And actually I mean it's a much more
expensive process to go through.
And to me it's almost as if in cases like this, it's almost
a penalty.
Because we're forcing individuals to go through a more
expensive, lengthier process because of, you know, in this
case a few feet.
And that's all I'm going to say.
7:48:28PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
7:48:29PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
I just want to make it clear what I'm hearing.
And maybe before we close the public hearing, I can hear

from at least one of the neighbors who are opposed to this
PD, what they really are worried about.
Because things don't come in front of us if we don't have to
make a decision.
We wouldn't be sitting here talking about this if there was
only one option.
When this proposal petition or this question of how to build
on this lot came to land use, somehow, someone made a
decision to ask for a PD.
If they had instead asked for two, to rezone their one lot
into two RS-50 lots and then wanted to build a house on the
second lot, they would've had to get a variance to build
that.
That is a possibility, that could've been.
I don't understand -- that could've happened, correct?
One of the lots -- both of them would need a variance?
Okay, so you can -- and you can't legally do that?
7:49:52PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
If I may read to you a section of the code.
This is why you can't do this.
Because you see that that variance is necessary.
That's why.
It's because it forces that other process.
When it says, section 2725 of the code, creation of new
lots.
Which this would be a creation of a new lot.

No new lot shall be created after the effective date of the
ordinance from which this chapter was derived, except in
conformity with the requirements of applicable regulation.
No yard or zoning lot existing at the time of passage of
this chapter shall be reduced in width, depth or area by
private action below the minimum requirements for lots or
structures as set forth in this chapter.
You cannot create a nonconformity.
7:50:42PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.
Thank you, thank you for being patient with me.
7:50:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers?
Okay.
I need a motion, I think we have heard from the petitioner,
I think we heard from rebuttal.
Think we have heard from the neighborhood.
I thought PD must be the police department.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I have a motion to close by Ms. Montelione, seconded by
Suarez.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
What's the pleasure of the Council?
7:51:13PM >> Move to approve.
7:51:14PM >> Second.

7:51:15PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You got to read the ordinance.
7:51:20PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin will read the ordinance.
7:51:23PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An ordinance being presented for first
reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 3006 and 3008 West Bay Vista Avenue in
the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
in section 1, from zoning district classifications, RS-60
residential single-family to PD, planned development,
residential, single-family detached; providing an effective
date.
7:51:52PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Capin, have a second
by Ms. Montelione in a close vote.
Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
7:52:04PM >> Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be December 6 at 9:30 a.m.
7:52:11PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you all very much for attending.
We go to item number 8.
7:53:03PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item number 8 on your agenda this evening is
Z12-38, located at 2401 South Cameron Avenue and the request
before you tonight is from RS-75 to PD for residential
single-family detached, two lots.
7:53:30PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hay, planning staff.

Like the previous case, Z12-38 is located within the south
Tampa planning district.
Next we have the aerial, the subject site is located in the
center of the map.
You can see the large TECO substation directly to the south
of the subject site.
You can see the surrounding single-family detached
residential development pattern that makes up the majority
of the Palma Ceia west neighborhood.
And you can also see Henderson Boulevard up this the upper
left of the aerial map with all of its associated commercial
uses.
Finally, we move on to the future land use map, the
surrounding area, including the subject site is all
designated residential 6 on that future land use map.
You can also see from this map there is a variety of lot
sizes within the area.
Immediately to the west of the subject sites are lots that
are similar in size to what the applicant is seeking.
Also the subject site is unique as it is immediately
adjacent to the large TECO substation, which is visually
intensive use.
Also, this what looks like a roadway here is actually a
ditch, so Cameron is a dead end roadway.
Regarding the orientation, the Planning Commission staff

found that though the majority of parcels front along
Cameron, the applicant's proposal to front along San Carlos
street does provide an additional 26 feet in width or 13
additional feet per lot.
Than if they were oriented toward Cameron.
Planning Commission staff found the proposed rezoning is in
keeping with a number of planned policies regarding urban
design, residential development and redevelopment and
allowing for opportunities for housing choices within the
City of Tampa.
Overall, the development allows for single-family detached
residential development building upon the variety of lot
sizes within this portion of the Palma Ceia west
neighborhood.
With that said, Planning Commission staff finds the rezoning
request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
7:55:43PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.
Petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 2401 south
Cameron from RS-75.
This would be a 75 bay hundred lot.
To create two building zoning lots and reorient the lots to
Cameron Avenue.
From Cameron Avenue to San Miguel street.
So, we currently have an east-west orientation.
They're requesting a north-south orientation.

The property has a frontage of 139 feet along San Carlos,
sorry.
San Carlos.
Each lot is proposed with a width of 69.5 feet.
The western lot is proposed with 7837 square feet of area
and the eastern lot is proposed with 7850.81 square feet of
area.
This subdivision was originally platted in 1924 with
interior lot width of 55 feet and corner lots ranging from
53 feet to 58 feet.
The subject property has approximately 113 feet along South
Cameron Avenue.
Containing two platted lots.
There is currently a single-family residence that's located
in the center of that lot.
Let me make that correction there.
All proposed development is to meet the RS-75 setback.
So in this case, the house would be demolished.
And two lots would be created.
And those lots would be created facing San Carlos street.
7:57:37PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
7:57:40PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Abbye, the depth of the lot is -- I'm not
seeing it.
Would be, since they're asking to configure north.
7:57:55PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Well, right now there's 113 feet of frontage

on Cameron.
That would become the depth.
And platted lot depth of 139 feet would become the
frontages.
7:58:08PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Now, RS-75 by a hundred is 7,500 square
feet, which is a legal -- it's a building lot.
You would not need anything to build on that.
7:58:22PM >> They don't meet the minimum width.
7:58:26PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I understand that.
But the square footage is 7797.
7:58:31PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes, ma'am.
But you must meet both.
7:58:33PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
7:58:34PM >> To be an RS-75 lots --
7:58:36PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I understand.
But I'm looking at the square footage.
7:58:40PM >> There is enough area.
7:58:42PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
7:58:46PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
My little worksheets again, this is the
southland addition.
This was actually the original subdivision of this area.
And this was done -- gosh -- they were both done in 24s.
This was done in May of 24s and a few months later in July
of 24s, these few blocks were pulled out and I have them
highlighted for you there in the blue, to become the

highland terrace subdivision.
There is my little worksheet for you there to show you what
the frontages were.
What we ended up with -- so that blue cutout I just showed
you was here.
On the west side of Lois is a different subdivision.
But usually when I complete this analysis, I do do the
blocks that are surrounding.
In this case, I did not do to the south because south of
that green line is RS-100.
So that would not be very telling to the analysis for you.
So I actually pulled from three subdivisions, and the lot is
shown to you here in green.
There is a TECO substation just to the south.
On this, you can see both the orientation of the lots as
well as the width.
In this case, the predominant is 75 feet or greater, the
reds.
There are blues, and these platted lots here.
Actually on this one, pulled some of the ages that the
houses were constructed.
So, 1958, 1950s.
So these were prior to first zoning conformance in '56.
54, 53, 56, 55, there's a 95.
I did just kind of the surrounding so I could better

understand the character when these structures were actually
built.
If I include just what is east of Lois, there were 38 lots
total.
Of those 38 lots, 22 of them or 58% had 75 feet of frontage,
lot width or greater, an 16 of them had less than 75 feet.
If I do the whole area, which was 55 lots, 34 or 62% of them
were conforming to the RS-75.
And 21 or 38% were nonconforming or blue.
Here is a clear aerial.
There are some beautiful trees.
I'll show you one that's located right in the front of this
property.
The zoning atlas -- what is interesting, unlike the previous
case where you saw dollops of RS-50s and some PDs in the
atlas.
All of the lots that are there, this one is, up is town home
development.
I think I have on the corner there.
They've all been that way.
There hasn't been any rezoning activity in this area to
create any other lots.
So everything you saw there in the blues that I showed you
that were 1950, '55, '51, those lots have been there and the
structures have been there.

So this was, presents the first split and reconfiguration in
this area.
And this was the RS-100 I showed you to the south there.
Unique situation.
No PDs, no RS-75s, nothing that appears to have been
touched in that area since the time of zoning conformance.
That being said, the predominant development pattern is
consistent with the existing zoning and staff did find this
request for the lot split to be inconsistent with the area.
8:03:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
May I ask a question?
That being said, since there hasn't been any change since
the '50s, what amount of vacant land, if any, are open to
meet this same criteria?
8:03:22PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Well, this lot isn't currently vacant.
8:03:24PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm not saying it is.
What I'm saying, is there any -- I guess if this one can do
it, anyone can do it, am I correct?
If you have two lots, providing you have two lots.
I'm sorry to stun you.
8:03:44PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I'm not sure I'm understanding your
question.
If you have a legal lot of record, plat or deed and you're
one of these platted lot and in single ownership.
Then you're buildable.
In my window survey of the surrounding, I'll show you some

photos.
There are a couple under construction.
So I will go ahead and show you those.
But they are building on the single lot in its current
configuration.
So let me go ahead and show that to you.
This is the subject property.
It's oriented toward Cameron.
This is the southern portion of it.
So in terms of the plotted lots, I guess you could say this
is on the northern platted lots, and this is the southern
plotted lots.
This is the side that faces San Carlos.
This is on the property.
This is the tree right in the front of the proposed, what
would become the fencible lot.
So now on San Carlos.
What I'm actually going to do for you now, I'm going to come
all the way down to the dead end and work myself back up and
over this way.
And then a little bit around the neighborhood.
Just because sometimes I feel like what I'm showing you, I
don't give you an orientation toking with we are.
So this is on the east side at the end of Cameron, across
from the TECO substation.

A knew I'm going to move north on that east side of the
property.
This is at the corner of Cameron and San Carlos.
And it's oriented actually to the corner of the lot.
On the west side going back to that dead end, here's the
substation.
And then I know -- and then that is all that is there
besides the subject.
The boundary of the substation is there.
Then more of the vacant lot and then the house.
This is at San Carlos and Lois.
So just to the west of the property.
That's actually the side that faces Lois.
This is the side on San Carlos.
And that is the garage to the structure.
This is just north of the property.
Sorry, I'm kind of right here now.
The front actually faces Cameron.
And this is the side that's on San Carlos.
So that north-west orientation.
This is the rear of the property.
This is the northeast corner of San Carlos and Lois.
I'm going to start here now and go back up Cameron.
There are only three lots there.
I showed you the gray house at the corner there.

This is the middle house on the west side of Cameron and
this is at the corner of Cameron and San Miguel.
On the east side of Cameron there are also single-family
residence.
And then along San Miguel, had you mentioned how many can
this -- here's the one that was under construction right
now.
This was, these are west on San Carlos, west of Cameron.
And then this is a larger one that was just built on south
Clark.
These are also on south Clark.
And then at the corner of San Miguel and Cameron, at this
corner here, there is a larger home that was built.
And the front actually faces on San Miguel.
That being said, I believe that I mentioned that staff did
find the request inconsistent based on the existing
development pattern of the area.
8:08:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any question for Councilmembers at this
time?
Petitioner?
8:08:51PM >> For the record, I have been sworn.
My name is Timothy H. Powell, I'm president of Tsp
Companies, Inc.
Our address is Post Office Box 1016, Tampa, Florida, 33601.
As an urban planner, I'm representing the applicant Kevin

Robles this evening.
As a non-attorney, I'm not rendering any legal advice.
As mentioned in the staff's presentation and staff report,
this PD planned development rezoning request is for
reoriented two platted single-family lots containing one
stated single-family structure in such a manner as to allow
the construction of two single-family detached single-family
homes.
I'm going to quickly go through these because my time -- I'm
right at 15 minutes.
But I can come back and answer any questions that you have.
Including the positive elements of the city staff report, I
note the following statements of fact.
One, all proposed development on-site will meet the RS-75
development standards and associated regulations.
Noting that this PD is requesting each lot frontage to be
only 69.5 feet.
No waivers are being requested.
And three, each proposed lot meets the minimum density
required by the R 6 future land use designation.
In turning to the Planning Commission staff report findings,
I quote the following.
The proposed request is consistent with and furthers the
intent of the goals, objectives and policies of the Tampa
comprehensive plan.

In addition, cited three objectives supporting their
recommendation of consistency.
First one was objective 13.1, respect Tampa's human scale
unique history aesthetics, natural environment and sense of
community and identity in the city changes, as the city
changes and evolves.
Objective 18.4, compatible development and redevelopment to
sustain stable neighborhoods and ensure the social and
economic health of the city.
And objective 26.1, maintain the stability of existing
neighborhoods while expanding opportunities for housing
needs.
We think that the PD plan before you achieves these
objectives.
The housing market as well as this neighborhood is changing
and evolving.
The proposed two homes address specific site conditions.
In a harmonious architectural style and size and in
economically sustainable manner.
At the same time, they will be compatible with numerous lot
sizes in the adjoining block.
This PD plan is addressing some new realities facing the
housing industry.
The subject lot was built upon in 1949, 63 years ago.
The existing home was built on two platted lots, making it a

larger house lot combination than what is contiguous to it
to the east, to the west and to the northwest across San
Carlos.
Additionally, it had the unfortunate circumstance of having
TECO place a substation at its -- as its southern neighbor
sometime in the past.
There's a picture.
And then here's another, another picture.
Both of those pictures from the lot -- well, one was across
the street from Cameron and that particular picture is
actually standing on the lot looking at it.
The current has been vacant the last three or four months as
the property owner choose not to renew the lease of a
problem tenant who had cars on the property and a chained
dog.
The house is dated and deteriorating.
My client is proposing an economically viable and
sustainable solution for the specific circumstance of this
lot at this location by reorienting the two lots that will
conform to the city's RS-75 requirement with the exception
of lot width and in the process, save the existing three
large trees and one grand oak.
There's the picture, I think Abbye has shown you one of the
other trees on the property.
Too often in trying to come up with land development

solutions, we overlook some basic realities.
In this case, these two lots combined form an oversized lot
which would typically result in a larger house footprint to
be consistent with the economics of the lot.
The two platted combined -- the two lots combined are 139 by
113 feet.
It is the second largest lot in the staff study area
boundaries.
I want to emphasize.
This is the second largest lot in this study area that Abbye
had originally talked about.
The economics of the lot are driven not only by the initial
pricing, but lender appraisals, continuing property taxes
and property maintenance, etcetera.
Two, as previously mentioned the lot neighbors to the east,
west and northwest are on smaller lots, consistent in size
with the proposed PD site plan.
And three, most influential is that we have a value killer
neighbor to the south.
The TECO substation.
Trying to build an economically viable home next to this
facility is difficult at best.
Some of what I have just mentioned are subjective issues.
Others are hard economic realities.
But they all speak to the character and sustainability and

enhancement of the neighborhood.
Going forward, the new normal for housing has to address
affordability, practicality and financing.
All of which will then affect the character, the
sustainability and enhancement of neighborhoods.
Staff limited its primary determination of compatibility at
looking at numerical tabulation of the equivalent eight
blocks surrounding this property and determining the
predominant lot size.
Then equating that to whether the proposed PD zoning is
consistent with the land development code.
To me, we are missing other land development and plan
criteria that when viewed in context with all the relative
information about this specific property provides a much
more accurate compatibility picture.
The PD site plan we are presenting focuses on criteria and
in going forward encourages builders to redevelop
deteriorating housing stock within neighborhoods, while
still maintaining compatibility with existing land uses and
providing quality end product.
In addressing staff's comments, as contained in the staff
report addressing compliance with the purpose of a site plan
control rezoning, according to section 27-321, found on page
4 of their staff report.
I have the following comments.

You may want to turn to page four of the staff report.
Item number one, although not mentioned by staff, the
proposed site plan does promote the efficient and
sustainable use of land in infrastructure and carefully
considers the potential adverse impacts to on-site natural
elements, i.e., the existing trees.
I think you can see by the site plan on the first one, the
green circles were all the existing trees that will remain.
In addressing staff's analysis of the predominant lot width
in the area, I have observed that several lots of record are
having new homes built on them that are actually less wide
than what is this PD plan calls for.
However, since they are lots of record, they can have new
homes permitted on them, while this property, due to its
history, cannot.
In assessing the PD's planned impact on the neighborhood, I
ask the reverse question.
What are the on-site and natural -- on-site natural and
adjacent manmade impacts on this property rather than the
reverse.
This PD plan mitigates those impacts, allowing the property
to be developed compatible with its set of unique
circumstances, noting that the existing on-site trees, the
TECO substation and the immediate surrounding lot sizes to
the east, west and northwest.

Item number two on your staff report, and there is agreement
on item number two with staff that the proposed PD site plan
encourages the compatibility and overall site and scale in
both external and internal.
Items three and four not applicable.
Item five there is agreement with staff that the proposed
development conserves energy by constructing new development
and maximizes the press service of natural resources, the
trees again.
Number six, I have previously addressed my contention that
the proposed PD site plan is appropriate when considering
its location, character and compatibility with the
surrounding impact neighborhood and most importantly, the
built environment -- by the way, these are words directly of
the, your code.
The built environment and existing geography, i.e., the TECO
substation and existing trees.
Number seven, although staff did not thing this issue
applicable, it is my opinion this PD site plan development
promotes desirable living than would be possible through
strict application of minimum requirements of other zoning
districts.
It has been pointed out that there are no other PD rezoning,
or other rezonings in this immediate area that would allow
this type of proposed development.

My only comment is, is that times look back in time does not
provide for sustainable development going forward.
Number eight, I respectfully disagree with staff as to the
architectural harmony of the proposed two houses.
I will show you the elevations we are proposing.
This is the first elevation.
And this is the second elevation.
Similar elevations to those being proposed tonight can be
found throughout existing heritage Tampa neighborhoods whose
housing dates back to the 1950s and 1960s.
I contend this neighborhood already has a variety of
architecture, allowing it to avoid being stuck in time and
becoming less and less desirable.
The overall appearance of the proposed PD plan homes are
traditional, not modern as contained in the staff report.
And there is no prohibition to any of the existing
neighborhood homes being expanded to two stories.
And therefore using the two story issue against the
applicant seems to be inappropriate.
There is an excellent example of similar architecturally
styled two story homes located at 2305 south Lois Avenue,
which is within one block of this rezoning.
I'll put a picture up that actually shows the two homes.
The one on the lower home is the one I'm talking about right
now.

It is noted that this house is on a lot of record.
It's 68 feet wide, less than what we're proposing.
And is less than what we are applying for the another even
more extreme example is the upper one in the same
photograph.
It is the house located 4111 west San Miguel street, only
one block to the north on Cameron.
It is another two story residence on a lot of record only
5 feet wide.
Also the photo that Ms. Feeley showed earlier with, I notice
everybody kind of gasped, it was a very large house.
That is on the lot that is less wide than the one we're
proposing here.
Obviously, we're not proposing something that large.
Both of these examples are in city staff, the ones I showed
you, as provided in staff report.
And number nine, it is noted that the retention and re-use
of the existing residence would not be either financially
practical or a benefit to the neighborhood.
In communicating with the neighborhood, the applicant has
made numerous attempts to communicate and work with the
surrounding neighbors as well as the Palma Ceia west
neighborhood association.
I will put into the record details of these attempts, but
they have included one phone conversation with the record

president, Mr. McNabb of the Palma Ceia neighborhood
association, two phone call attempts to reach the Palma Ceia
neighborhood association Juan Fernandez.
No return calls were received and no meeting was arranged by
the association.
This were two mailed notice public meetings, one on-site
meeting and had approximately, I think it's been
communicated to me that five homeowners attended that.
And then there was another public meeting at the Charles
Reddick public library at which Mr. Hernandez and another
officer of the association attended, as well as three other
residents.
There were comments about traffic of the two houses versus
one.
It may have been generated by a bad past tenant as mentioned
earlier.
We have pointed out that the two new homes will have full
sized driveways and garages, which meets the city's
requirements for accommodating off-street parking, plus it
is assumed that there will be greater probability these two
homes will be occupied by homeowners rather than renters.
Although the Palma Ceia west homeowners letter to the city
objecting to the rezoning mentioned drainage, we noted there
is a large drainage ditch and city staff has not mentioned
drainage as an issue.

And with that, I, the applicant, Kevin Robles, are here to
answer any questions or comments by Council or members of
the public.
8:23:23PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any question for councilmembers?
Ms. Montelione?
8:23:27PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Ms. Feeley, can you put your red-blue map back up there,
please?
Or maybe even, probably maybe the aerial would be better.
Although it's hard to see, there are so many trees.
Thank you.
I want to talk about the reorientation of the homes.
It's hard to see there, they're very fortunate to have a lot
of very beautiful big tree there is the area, but makes it
hard to see the rooftops.
Can you tell me the.
8:24:16PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
If I may just a moment.
In provision of our code, when we talk about reorientation,
we're actually talking about the lots, no it the structure.
Because many lots are oriented east-west, but the structure
is oriented north-south.
8:24:33PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
8:24:34PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
So just to be clear on that.
Because even when this is configured, the front on the west
lot would have to face San Carlos, but the front that has a

corner on Cameron would have a front on San Carlos, but the
front door of the house could be on Cameron.
So when we talk about reorientation --
8:24:56PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
We are talking about the lot.
And we're going to split this lot.
Whether we are going to split it vertically or we're going
to split it horizontally?
8:25:04PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.
I'm sorry.
8:25:07PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So, the request is to split, if we're
going to talk horizontal and vertical lines, the request is
to split these lots in a vertical orientation.
8:25:26PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
North-south orientation.
Let me just use this because -- let's go back here.
This is showing you the existing development line.
The orientation here at this corner is the north-south
orientation.
This orientation is the platted lot orientation.
Everything else follows the platted lot orientation.
This is the only one that does not.
8:26:02PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Got it.
No, leave that there.
So the two lots immediately to the west are -- I'm sorry, to
the east.
Thank you very much.

Are oriented the same exact as what the applicant is asking
for?
8:26:22PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.
I did not evaluate the lot reconfiguration as part of my
analysis because I found the split inconsistent.
But if I may just read you the provision in the code that
speaks to reorientation because probably should've put that
in my staff report, knowing that if you felt the split were
appropriate, you would be considering the criteria for
reorientation.
So if I may, just a few lines long.
Says when considering the appropriateness of reconfiguring a
zoning lot or lot of record into building lots, the zoning
administrator shall, one, receive and review a field survey,
conduct, number two conduct a site visit to view the actual
lot development pattern of the block on which the subject
lies.
And three, review the actual development pattern for a
radius of 1,320 feet.
So quarter mile or more.
That's a lot bigger than the area that we looked at or that
you have for consideration before you, but, and to review
the original plat or subdivision documents prior to
determining consistency with the requirements stated in this
chapter.

8:27:38PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
So we have got the two lots immediately to the east that are
oriented exactly the same as what the applicant is asking
for.
And understanding that orientation refers to the lot and not
to the structure, just curious, the houses across the
street, or the house across the street, ray cross San
Carlos.
8:28:04PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
This one here is oriented to the corner.
And I showed you a picture of that.
It's a weird kind of thing.
This one here has a front here and the driveway and the
garage here.
This one here also had a front and then the driveway you can
see the pad and the garage there.
This one here had both the front door and the driveway
there.
8:28:35PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
On to San Carlos or on Lois?
8:28:39PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That one I have here.
Hold on.
8:28:43PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Just from a practical standpoint, which
is how I'm looking at this, from a practical standpoint,
with the lot requested in north-south orientation as is
being asked, the driveway of the home across the street
would be lined up, not exactly, but they would be driveway

to driveway?
8:29:09PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
But the fronts of these two new homes --
8:29:17PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Wait, let me finish asking my question.
Thank you.
Again, looking from a practical standpoint, if you're going
to build something that's going to eventually be sold, I'm
guessing these are spec houses, which is nice to see that
people are risking their money to build spec houses again.
The narrower -- the narrow part of the lot would be the real
part of the lot, which would abut the TECO substation.
8:29:51PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.
8:29:53PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And that would be then a 20-foot setback,
because it would be the rear yard setback.
8:30:03PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.
8:30:04PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
If we said no, you have to follow
development pattern so it has to be oriented in an east-west
split, then you've got the entire side of your house to the
substation, with only a seven foot setback.
8:30:22PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.
8:30:24PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So just looking from a practical
standpoint from building and selling things, having the lot
orientation in a north-south makes a whole lot more sense.
So, when -- I'm looking at the items under purpose, 27321,
in your staff report.
8:30:50PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.

8:30:51PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Number three, I think Mr. Powell pointed
out, he felt it was failing to tissue and the layout.
8:31:00PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Number three is typically when you have
non-residential and residential development on one PD.
And how those things relate to one another.
That's typically how that criteria is evaluated.
That is why I put that --
8:31:16PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I guess what I was looking at was layout
of residential, non-residential, because this property has
the misfortune it being located next to a TECO substation.
So that's what I was taking into consideration again.
From a practical standpoint of building and selling whatever
is put on this lot.
So, in that sense I find that that would make sense, the
north-south.
8:31:44PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I would concur with you.
8:31:45PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
So given that, and given that you concur on number two that
it is compatible, and on going up in number one, working
backwards, the potential adverse impact to on-site natural
elements surrounding impacting neighborhoods, you also agree
because there's -- well...
8:32:05PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That's where I don't agree.
8:32:07PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry, you don't agree.
8:32:09PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Because it's buildable for one house right

now.
I don't know building two houses, I think that's probably a
subjective statement because I'm not sure that building two
houses is more efficient.
8:32:19PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But building one house, one big house on
that lot backing up to a TECO substation may not be -- isn't
the most attractive financial investment for a builder.
8:32:32PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
It does have some natural constraints, are
those trees --
8:32:36PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Then that's what I meant to get at,
number one, was the on-site natural elements.
So that orienting the lots north-south vertical would, as I
think Mr. Powell pointed out, save those trees.
That one in the front is absolutely gorgeous.
8:32:53PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
It is.
That's actually in the right-of-way.
So they will need to be very, very nice to that tree.
8:33:04PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Number six again talking about the built
environment and the existing geography, I think Mr. Powell
properly pointed out about again the TECO substation and the
orientation there.
So -- there's a lot of reason for me to disagree here with
your inconsistent findings.
So I'm anxious to hear how the others feel, but this is to
me what is feasible for this lot.

What they're asking for.
8:33:37PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Our standard of review when I'm reviewing
these, I seek to implore the same standard of review I do on
each and every case.
The reds outweighed the blues, so that's what I present to
you.
8:33:50PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
There's looking at a very clinical, you
know, obviously, there's more red than blue on this
particular map.
But I think there are other factors that we need to take
into consideration when we're considering.
8:34:02PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And remember, it goes by electoral votes.
[ Laughter ]
8:34:07PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Reds and blues.
Did they finish that count yet?
8:34:10PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sometimes I feel like North Dakota.
8:34:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Right now, I feel like South Dakota.
But anyway, I understand what you all are saying.
But I'd like to get back to the motion of the public to the
public hearing.
Item number 7.
Anyone in the public care to speak on item number 7, please
come forward at this time.
Yes, sir?
8:34:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Number eight, I'm sorry.

It's 8.
8:34:46PM >> Talking about the --
8:34:48PM >> I need your name and address.
8:34:50PM >> Sid nettles, 4121 West Palm Aria avenue.
I own my own home, two lots directly south of the
substation.
Our houses aren't dated.
I own two lots.
My wife just sent the city her 35th check for taxes.
Speculators are in the neighborhood again.
They're wanting to put two houses on one lot.
My neighborhood is the original Virginia park, which runs
from Palmira and Lois, three streets south to Bay to Bay and
from Lois to Himes.
We all have double lots, hundred by a hundred.
Few years back, speculators came in said oh, we'll tear down
one house, we'll put two mega houses up.
We had to fight like crazy.
I don't have the people behind me any more, but we stopped
it.
We all have hundred by hundred lots.
I'm in the original Virginia park, Palma Ceia west is one
street over from me.
You're requesting to tear down a house and put up two.
On Lois, one of the people that has built one of the new

houses on Lois has the police there continuously for
speeders.
She's got a four-way stop sign put up.
I don't believe the one big house on that lot, yeah, fine.
Two, no.
Our water pressure is low.
I'm only 300, 400 feet from the houses you're requesting to
put two instead of one.
My water pressure, I can hardly take a shower because we're
on the end of the line.
Lois is overloaded with traffic.
I can't back out of my driveway.
You're wanting to put two houses.
I'm not wanting to live in the past.
My grandfather moved to Tampa in 1890.
I'm not moving.
My wife parents' moved to Hillsborough County in 1850.
I pay my taxes.
I'm not a little guy.
I'm not a big guy.
I'm just -- I'm not wanting to hold back progress.
But, two houses on that lot won't go.
Why not one house?
The reason you're wanting two houses or whoever is building
this is there's little more money for them.

Makes sense.
So if you approve this, can I tear my house down and build
two houses on my two lots?
I own two 50 by hundred foot lots.
Everybody on Virginia park owns 250 by 100 lots.
Can we all start tearing down our houses and build two
houses?
My time running out?
8:37:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes, sir.
8:37:57PM >> You all don't live in this neighborhood.
8:38:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well -- I'm sorry, sir, we have gone over
the three minutes.
8:38:05PM >> That's all I get?
8:38:07PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
8:38:07PM >> Thank you.
8:38:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Next please?
8:38:16PM >> Good evening.
My name is Kathleen duffer, I've been sworn.
I live at 2402 south Lois Avenue.
I've lived there about six years.
I am to the west of the property.
I'm one of the blue lots that is right on Lois and San
Carlos on the corner lot.
And I would like for you to deny the change in the, the
rezoning of the lot because of the lot size changing it to.

I understand that it's almost 75 if you split it, and it's
enough square footage, but I live on a lot that is, it's
grandfathered in to, to the 75, but it's actually about,
mine is split the other way, if one we're talking about was
split east-west, that's mine, next to, to the other one.
And the other house to the south of me is next to the
substation.
The lot size now is a great size for the lot we're talking
about.
For a single-family house, it would have a plentiful yard
for kids to grow and play in.
And to split it, it would be very similar to my size.
I have four grandkids that play and they're growing up in my
home, and I worry about them playing outside.
We have a small backyard, which they play in, but when they
want to ride their bikes, etcetera, they're out on San
Carlos mainly.
And with the two homes going in there, we're going to worry
about cars parking on that street, traffic.
The two new driveways would back up to the neighbor to the
north, and they would be butted up against each other
backing up.
I believe that splitting the lot and putting two homes in
there, even though you keep the trees, the green space
itself, you're going to lose, we're going to lose on.

And as it stands now, we don't have too much problems with
water in the street.
But I think that there -- it's a possibility.
Parking for the homes may cause a problem on San Carlos.
And there are three other neighbors that the pictures were
shown, the one right across the street to the north, north
to me and the east of the property, they were also against
this change of splitting it into two.
8:41:24PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
8:41:24PM >> Thank you for your time.
8:41:26PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Next please, sir?
We're going to go to the right, then to the left.
This gentleman was up first.
Let's go.
I know we're friends, but I'm going to rule in your favor.
8:41:40PM >> I'm marshal Thrasher.
I'm a graduate of Dale Mabry elementary school three blocks
north up there and graduate of Plant High School.
Four blocks east.
And I've seen a lot come and go in there.
The TECO station was very beautiful looking in its day.
And I liked the privacy that it offers also.
And yeah, I didn't tell you, 2405 south Lois, which is right
across the street from the lady's house there that just
spoke.

That's me and I'm marshal Thrasher.
I have been around a little while, but I have overseas and
everywhere else too.
But I've got 20 years at least going right now.
So I am against this proposal.
I think it doesn't benefit the community.
And go with my predecessors.
8:42:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Next, please?
8:42:59PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers.
Michael McNabb, 2404 south Park Avenue, 33629.
I've lived there 25 years.
And I've been sworn.
I'm board member and immediate past president of Palma Ceia
west neighborhood association and I'm really here to speak
in opposition to the rezoning, both as a neighbor, I had I
have the next street over.
And also as the representative of the association.
Our president had to make a trip out of town and could not
make it, so I'm standing in his place.
We also previously sent a letter to the Council in
opposition to this and that should be in your records.
I want to remind you in 2004, this same request came before
this board.
Same thing.

Split the lot in half the only thing I recall different was
what you referred to orienting one house towards Cameron and
the other one towards San Carlos.
But neither lot would've conformed in that situation either.
And we were in opposition to the PD at that time and it was
denied by this board.
So it's really the same thing over again.
Except time has gone by.
We have really consistently opposed splitting lots like this
in our area because of the precedent that it sets and also
the fact that the lots in our area are very desirable right
now.
When somebody buys a corner lot like this one, they
typically knock the house down and they put a nice new two
story house on it.
We have a lot of those going on.
So our neighborhood is a mixture of 550 new homes and older
homes, some large, some smaller, but it's moving towards new
homes.
In the Plant High School district.
The lot right down the street from that just sold for
$180,000 without a house on it.
It's a corner lot similar to this.
We're opposed to it for a number of reasons.
I did speak to all the neighbors I could talk to and I

didn't find anybody that was in favor.
All were opposed to it because of the smaller lot size in
there.
Ms. Feeney (sic) alluded to the RS-60 which the city was
converting lots to.
Back in the '80s we wanted to stay with 75 and the city
granted us that.
So those are your codes.
If it's RS-75, then we think the lot should conform to that
I don't see a hardship in this situation.
I don't see an immediate need.
In terms of the TECO substation, it's been there a long
time.
I see it every day when I drive by it.
TECO has been a good neighbor.
They've renovated it.
They took down some rusty structures, they painted and
landscaped it.
And we really don't see that as a detriment.
You can see it from Lois, Palmyra, my street and everything
else.
It's there and it's not going anywhere.
The staff doesn't recommend this.
We don't recommend it.
I hope that you don't recommend it.

We don't really feel like there's any particular need to
split that lot.
We'd like to see a nice two story brand new home on that lot
that matches the other new homes that are going in there.
And there's no reason why a nice home couldn't be put on
that lot.
Thank you.
8:46:05PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone else in the audience care to speak
to this item, item number 8?
I see no one.
Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal.
8:46:22PM >> Again, for the record, Timothy H. Powell.
The applicant and I both are type of people that we try to
define specific issues that we can address in order to be
able to reach compromises on.
And think one of the harder things in this particular case
has been mainly to combat the fact that they just don't like
it.
I think there were several issues that even some Council
people brought up.
In order to go back, I think if you want to look at the site
plan, you'll notice -- the big green circles are the trees.
So in order to be able to really save the trees, if in fact
as the people said they want us to put a very large two
story house on there, you're going to start taking out some

of those trees.
It just seems to be inconsistent.
There are inconsistencies in what they're saying.
But I've been doing this for a long time, as probably
Mr. Miranda knows just how long.
8:47:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I haven't been here that long.
8:47:36PM >> I know.
Actually probably here before you were.
Again, trying to define issues that we can address.
They talk about drainage and yet we have a drainage canal
right there in the city drainage department didn't mention
there was any drainage problems.
We've talked about the fact that there are precedent houses
being built -- in fact, one of the people opposing on Lois
said she actually has a lot that size but she thinks that
we'll cause problems.
Having to do with child care and not enough yard space,
etcetera.
The thoughts are brought up about driveways, yet San Carlos
has nothing but driveways.
So we are putting our driveways on San Carlos, which are
compatible with the driveways already there, yet somebody
says that's going to cause a problem.
So I think what we're faced with, and I certainly don't mean
to demean anybody.

But you get to a point where you gather that they don't like
it.
And that's it.
So it's very, very difficult for people like myself and
Mr. Robles to face up with and to come up with a solution.
I think the PD plan provides for adequate off-street
parking.
We have talk about that.
Has driveways and garages.
They have homes scaled to the neighborhood.
We're not trying to overbuild on these lots at all.
It's traditional architecture.
Compatible with heritage neighborhoods.
Most important, it's replacement of an existing
deteriorating structure with two single-family homes on lots
that are compatible with the adjoining neighbors.
One of the Council people brought out, the southeast corner,
this was the first thing I saw when I took on this case the
southeast corner has the same orientation as we do.
Yes it was done before zoning.
But it's still there I mean it's a physical surrounding that
we have to deal with.
And unfortunately I really disagree when somebody says the
TECO substation is not a problem.
It's a problem, folks.

This is the new reality of financing homes.
You go to a bank, the first thing they're going to look at
that substation.
Then it's going to be the appraisal.
Then you have to get it financed.
If people want us to build a nice big two story home, the
question is go to a bank and talk to them and figure out how
you're going to get an appraisal for it.
Because you're not going to get it.
These are the new harsh realities of building single-family
homes anywhere, whether in south Tampa, New Tampa, wherever.
You're going to have to face these new surroundings, not
you, but us the, industry is having to face them.
So what -- we have come up with what we think is a very,
very good solution.
It's sound.
It takes into account its surroundings and I understand the
city staff.
I've had long conversations with Ms. Feeley.
I understand why they think it's the predominant land use.
But to me that's a simple numerical analysis.
It doesn't dig into the character.
It doesn't dig into sustainability.
It doesn't dig into the financial issues.
And that's what my client has to deal with.

He can't avoid it.
He can't simply say go into the bank and say hey, numerical
count is here, give me an appraisal, build a two-story
house.
Doesn't work that.
Thank you very much.
8:51:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any discussion for Councilmembers before
we close?
8:51:05PM >> Motion to close.
8:51:06PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Montelione, seconded
by Ms. Capin.
To close.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Item number 8 is now closed.
What's the pleasure of Council?
8:51:19PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sir I move to approve zoning the request
for zoning Z12-38.
8:51:25PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay, you have to read the ordinance.
8:51:27PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.
Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration,
ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2401
South Cameron Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, more
particularly described in section one, from PD zoning
district classification RS-75 residential single-family to

PD planned development, residential, single-family detached,
providing an effective date.
8:52:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Montelione.
Do I have a second?
8:52:12PM >> Second.
8:52:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Seconded by Ms. Capin.
Any further discussion for Councilmembers?
Any discussion?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed, nay.
Roll call vote.
8:52:34PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
No.
8:52:35PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
No.
8:52:38PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
No.
8:52:40PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
8:52:42PM >>MARY MULHERN:
No.
8:52:45PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Why.
8:52:47PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
8:52:48PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion fails with Suarez, Reddick, Miranda and
Mulhern voting no.
8:52:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you all very much for attending.
Yes?
8:53:03PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
You would need.
8:53:05PM >> Move to deny.
8:53:06PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms.--

8:53:09PM >>MARY MULHERN:
The application based on the inconsistency
that the staff Land Development Coordination proposed in the
surrounding area, it's not consistent with the development
pattern of the surrounding area.
8:53:26PM >> Second.
8:53:27PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Ms. Mulhern, I have a
second by Mr. Reddick, close the vote.
8:53:34PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'm sorry to interrupt.
But Ms. Mulhern, would you also include the entire staff
report's finding of inconsistency relative to section
27-321.
8:53:49PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes, relative to section -- what was it?
27-321.
8:53:59PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan, I believe on page two, if you see it
there, the general requirements of staff finding.
8:54:16PM >>MARY MULHERN:
That's what I was referring to.
8:54:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Findings come under that.
8:54:21PM >>MARY MULHERN:
It's actually on page three.
General requirements of code staff findings, policy 18.410,
it is not consistent with the majority of lots in the area.
8:54:37PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Thank you.
8:54:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Mulhern, second by
Reddick on that motion for denial based on the fact was
stated on the record.

Close vote.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Roll call vote again just for the record.
8:54:58PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
8:55:01PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
No.
8:55:03PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
8:55:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
8:55:09PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes.
8:55:10PM >>HARRY COHEN:
No.
8:55:11PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No.
8:55:12PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin, Cohen and Montelione
voting no.
8:55:20PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
We go to item number 9.
8:56:01PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Kneel feel item number 9 is not a lot split.
It is rezoning from RM-16 to PD planned development for
office, medical and parking commercial off-street.
Actually what is before you, it's at 512 South Tampania.
This is at the corner of Tampania and Deleon.
Ask is a two phase request, first for off-street commercial
parking and second would be to build a medical office above
the parking.
I will reserve the rest of my presentation after Mr. Hay.
8:56:42PM >> Good evening, commissioners, David Hay again with your

Planning Commission staff.
And I have been sworn.
While we continue our run of cases within the central Tampa
planning district, the subject site is located just within
the boundaries of the district in the lower left side of the
map.
Next we move on to the aerial.
Here we can see the subject site in the center of the map
immediately to the east we have the Florida Cardiovascular
Institute and the Madison SoHo apartments.
Single-family attached residential uses are located to the
north.
And now we can see numerous medical office uses in the
memorial hospital campus located west along west Swann
avenue and West Deleon Street.
Finally move on to future land use category.
The subject site is completely surrounded by the community
commercial 35 and it's also designated community commercial
35.
There is also some community mixed use 35, mixed in as well.
These are the light pink colors.
We can see the residential 20 future land use category
further to the north.
We can also see the proximity to the Parkland Estates
neighborhood, which is located to the south of the subject

site and designated residential 6 in the yellow.
Planning Commission staff found that the proposed rezoning
allows for further intensification within an area of the
city that is planned and programmed to support additional
intensification.
Proposed rezoning furthers the number of goals within the
comprehensive plan regarding urban design and promotion of
redevelopment within appropriate areas of the city.
Planning Commission staff finds the zoning request
consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
8:58:35PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thanks, David.
Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.
There is one waiver with this request this evening and that
is to allow for access to a local street, which is South
Tampania Avenue.
Proposing to rezone the property located at 512 South
Tampania from residential multi-family to PD planned
development, two phase development scenario.
This would include parking commercial off-street, which is
listed as phase one.
And medical office, which is listed as phase two.
The .20-acre parcel is located at the northeast corner of
South Tampania and Deleon.
Currently vacant.
Phase one would develop a 14 space commercial parking lot

with ingress on west Deleon and egress on South Tampania.
And phase two would propose a 2,000 square foot two story
medical office with surface parking located under the
building.
The property is surrounded by medical office and parking and
stormwater retention to the north, east is a day care and --
I'm sorry, west is day care and there's residential to the
south along Deleon.
PD setbacks for the structure proposed under phase two,
north, eight feet, south eight feet, east 25 feet, and west
25 feet.
The maximum building height is proposed at 23.5 feet.
The required parking for medical office is 12 spaces and 12
spaces would be provided, including nine standard, two
compact and one ADA space.
Let me go ahead and show you the aerial zoning atlas and
photos of the site.
This is the infamous I-10.
I usually refer to the infamous I-11.
You'll see there are many PDs around this area.
This is Deleon to the south.
Tampania to the west.
Armenia to the east.
The site is shown here in green.
There is RL one, which is the day care to the west.

There's host and CG, OP, many medical offices that support
memorial hospital along that area, as well asp several on
Armenia, large PD here is the Greenwise Publix.
The ZOM project.
Multi-families.
A mix of all sorts of things.
Then you hit Howard every, which is CG.
There is the site again and the orientation again, Tampania,
Deleon, Armenia.
Here is the site from Tampania looking east.
There is immediately to the north of it is the stormwater
retention pond or the existing medical.
I'm traveling north now up Tampania, pretty short block
right here.
There is -- this is another PD to the north, multi-family.
Located, Tampania dead ends just north of here.
There's a large stormwater pond that is a city facility.
There is another PD on the west side of Tampania for again
some terminals.
Moving south on Tampania is the parking for the day care.
And then the bay school building itself.
This is a view looking east, I'm sorry west down Deleon.
This is the southeast corner across, immediately to the
south of the project across Deleon.
This is a view from Tampania.

This is another, residential single-family attached.
That is the southwest corner of Deleon and Tampania,
immediately across from the day care.
Dollar some outstanding site plan requirements that need to
be corrected in between first and second reading.
I have identified those in the staff report.
There are comments from Land Development Coordination, solid
waste, and natural resources related to the trees.
Staff's finding in relation to the PD criteria is provided
on pages four and five.
This is an infill piece of property along Deleon, there's a
host of different uses, neighborhood serving uses.
This backs up to medical office.
The subject parcel is less than 10,000 square feet, so it
would not qualify for CN or CG or Euclidian district.
It must utilize the PD.
There are no green space or buffer waivers being requested.
And the proposed architecture is complementary to the
surrounding area.
Staff is available for any questions.
9:04:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Petitioner here?
9:04:21PM >> Hi.
My name is Dustin Ballard.
I'm with BDI, Baskerville-Donovan,

1860 Highland Oaks Boulevard, Lutz, Florida, 33559.
I'm representing the client of Florida Cardiovascular, which
is actually the parcel just to the east and to the north of
the site that we're requesting rezoning on.
We are prepared and are going to meet all the modifications
that city staff has asked to meet.
We have actually already looked at them to make sure that we
could, and we can.
With that, the building we're going, the buildings are going
to be very similar.
They're going to look just like the medical office just to
the northeast of it.
The surrounding area you've got tall buildings, so I don't
think height is an issue.
The parking at Florida cardio that's there now is going to
be very similar, parking underneath the building.
So we are just taking that on to the lot that we're looking
for the rezoning for.
With that, I guess, are there any questions?
9:05:36PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Any questions for Councilmembers?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item?
Item number nine.
9:05:45PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sir, I have a question.
This is being built in phases?

9:05:48PM >> Yes.
9:05:49PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So, in the first phase is consisting of
what?
9:05:53PM >> Of parking.
Just parking on the lot.
9:05:58PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So it's only parking.
9:06:01PM >> Yes.
9:06:02PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I guess the only concern I have after
looking everything over is that if you decide not to build
phase two, all we have is a parking lot.
9:06:13PM >> And it will serve the Florida cardio building that's
there now.
There is a sidewalk -- there is a modification we have to do
to that, but there will be a connecting sidewalk and access.
9:06:26PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Right.
Well, but all on Deleon from south Armenia to South Tampania
will be nothing but parking.
9:06:38PM >> I'm sorry.
9:06:39PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm looking at the map.
I'm looking on west Deleon.
So the -- Abbye?
Put the map.
9:06:57PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
So you're saying for this block space right
here?
9:07:00PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.

It will all be parking, from one end to the other?
9:07:03PM >> Yes.
9:07:04PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's what I have a problem with.
Because if you decide not to build phase two, all we're
going to have a parking on that entire block.
And I thought the direction of the -- I know it doesn't
necessarily encompass this area, but one of the things when
I attended the ULI sessions for the envision plan and some
of the planning sessions held for envision were, and again
this doesn't affect this particular section, but just as an
aesthetic to an area, you don't want to have all of your
parking facing the street.
Because as people drive by, all they see is one large
parking lot from one end of the block to the other.
So, I don't know what my fellow Councilmembers are going to
say, but I'd be looking to maybe tie the -- if you are
amenable to it, to make a note on the site plan to tie the
time period of construction of phase two into, I don't know,
something reasonable, that CO has to be within two years of
the approval.
9:08:27PM >> Can I say something about the parking?
9:08:29PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sure.
9:08:31PM >> Right now, they didn't say this in the report, City of
Tampa, but talking with them, this is an issue with parking
out at this area for cardio.

They have an issue with parking in this area.
And that's the reason for the parking lot for the interim
for now.
I think it's under my -- that the building has to be
constructed within five years.
9:09:04PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, in five years the rezoning -- the
rezoning would expire.
If they didn't go forward?
9:09:15PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
The PD is within five years under, if
you don't substantially construct under your PD, then you
would potentially have to come in and -- the thing about it,
there is no obligation for them to build anything more than
the parking lot.
So if they do the parking lot, they probably have complied
with the PD.
If they after five years wanted to build the structure, they
may have to come back to rezone if there's new code that
would be required to be complied with.
9:09:48PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry, I have to step out for a
minute.
The lot directly to the north of this one, what is there?
Abbye, I'm sorry, I missed your presentation.
9:10:01PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
It's the stormwater pond for the parking lot
at the Florida Cardiovascular Institute.
9:10:08PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So it's stormwater retention right there?

9:10:11PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.
This lot is 64 by 139 feet.
I don't really know what else -- I mean it doesn't have
depth enough --
9:10:22PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I mean the site plan and elevations, it's
the eventual intention is great.
What I don't want to happen, I don't want to be stuck with a
parking lot on the entire block phase.
9:10:38PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
If I may.
All required -- there are no buffer waivers whatsoever.
So you will have an landscape buffer surrounding the
property, with plants, shrubs, they have not asked for any
waivers as far as the shielding and buffering of the
required parking lot.
So that being said, you know.
9:10:58PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me just say this.
Maybe I shouldn't say it but that's how I am if I got, you
know, I say way got to say.
But when I had surgery, the first time, then I had to have
surgery the second time about two weeks later, had to have
lung surgery.
And the doctor that did the lung surgery on me was renting
space I think at this building.
I don't know, there's no benefit to me here financially, so
I can express these things.

But let me say, as an individual who couldn't walk, not that
I can talk much better now, but couldn't walk, could hardly
talk, I believe there's, and times were there when there was
no parking.
It was Dr. Somers there at one time?
9:11:52PM >> Yes.
9:11:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So this is the same building.
I'm just looking at areas, flashbacks are going through.
Not that I like to have these tubes taken out of my side two
inches at a time.
But I can tell you individuals like me were full there.
It wasn't just me there.
There were just a continue use flow.
The elevator you walk in the elevator to the left, and the
first floor under that building is park also if I remember.
So, that's why I remember that, and I can understand the
situation from a patient that was not doing too well at one
time.
Not that I'm well now.
9:12:32PM >> I understand.
One of the keys for this parking, not necessarily, and you
were talking about having to walk to this building, but this
would be an opportunity for a lot of the staff to post
parking here and open up better parking closer.
9:12:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
There was parking all around, if I

remember, memory is coming back.
All around Deleon on the outside part of it.
You had to walk through bushes.
And I couldn't get through.
9:13:05PM >> Yes, sir.
9:13:06PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I remember that.
9:13:09PM >> In front of your pictures, it shows along to the east,
and I may have a picture it is their best intention for the
building to be built.
They do need the office space also.
So, with that, the questions intention is for a building to
be put there.
9:14:17PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
9:14:19PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
I live a few blocks just south of this neighborhood and a
lot of the doctors' offices that we use are up there and
memorial hospital is up there.
And back when there was all this residential being built or
being approved for building a few years ago, it was hoped
that that would, could become a residential.
And that's what it was zoned at before, right?
9:14:49PM >> Yes.
9:14:50PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Residential mixed use.
So it's just not going to happen in this market.
I think normally I would agree with you, you shouldn't have

all this parking on the street.
But frankly, this is turned into kind of a fairly
predominantly medical office use and hospital use, so I
don't see it as being inconsistent with this neighborhood.
And it obviously -- it sounds like there's a real need for
parking there already.
So I don't have a problem with it.
9:15:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 9,
please come forward.
I have a motion to close.
I'll have to ask petitioner if you want to rebuttal.
Even though there's no debate.
9:15:38PM >> I'll waive it.
9:15:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick has a motion to close,
seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion to close, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
What's the pleasure of the Council here?
9:15:52PM >> Move approval.
9:15:54PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez, would you read the ordinance?
9:15:57PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Presented and ordinance being presented, an ordinance
rezoning property in the general vicinity of 171 -- am I

reading the right one?
9:16:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
9:16:09PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Present an ordinance for first reading
consideration.
Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 512
South Tampania Avenue, in the City of Tampa, Florida and
more particularly described in section 1, from zoning
district classification, RM-16, residential multi-family, to
PD planned development, office, medical and parking,
commercial off-street, providing an effective date and
including the revision sheet Z12-42 as presented by our
staff.
9:16:38PM >> Second.
9:16:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Suarez, I have a
second by Mr. Reddick.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
9:16:51PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Montelione voting no and
Capin being absent at vote.
Second reading and adoption will be December 6th at
9:30 a.m.
9:17:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you all very much for attending.
We go to item number 10.
9:17:13PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item number ten.

Item number ten is Z12-45, it is the rezoning request.
It's located at 1711, 1715 West Platt Street, 213, 215, 219,
223 south Rome Avenue, 202, 210 south Packwood avenue and
1720 West Cleveland Street.
The request before you this evening is from CI, commercial
intensive and PD, planned development, the PD planned
development for residential multi-family.
There are four waivers being requested.
The first is to increase the percentage of trees removed
on-site from 50% to a hundred percent.
The second is to reduce the minimum amount of multi-family
green space from 350 square foot a unit to 195 square foot a
unit.
Total waiver of 40,267 square feet.
The third is to reduce the drive aisle width from 26 feet to
24 feet.
And the last is to reduce the number of loading berths from
two to one.
9:18:24PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hay again with
Planning Commission staff and I have been sworn.
We're again in the central Tampa planning district.
As you all are well aware, the district is planned to be the
city's most intensive district.
Off to the aerial.
Subject site is located within the center of the map.

You can see we have a lot going on with this aerial.
Post Hyde Park apartments directly south of the subject
site.
You can see the residential and light office uses located
west of the subject site 0 or on Cleveland and Platt
streets.
More intensive commercial uses can be found north along the
Kennedy Boulevard corridor.
And we have the commercial and even some light industrial
uses to the east.
Finally you can see Crosstown Expressway cutting across the
aerial.
Onto the future land use map, the subject site has two
future land use designations.
The west side along south Packwood is planned community
commercial 35, while the eastern portion along south --
excuse me.
The west side on south Packwood is planned at community
mixed use 35.
While the south Rome corridor assigned community commercial
35.
The light brown located west of the subject site is
residential 20.
Planning Commission staff found the proposed rezoning
promotes additional density within the central Tampa

planning district.
The proposed site plan provides for development that is
urban in character and provides direct relationship to all
adjacent public rights-of-way.
Also the parking is internalized within a structured parking
garage.
Overall Planning Commission staff found that the development
furthered the number of planning goals regarding urban
design, the creation of a local city with multiple housing
options and the development of structures that respect and
enliven our public rights-of-way.
One last thing, I should note they are utilizing their floor
area ratio square footage instead of unit count, which is
permissible within the comp plan and under the land use
categories.
And with all that said, the Planning Commission staff finds
the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
plan.
9:20:46PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
If I may, did you open all cases this
evening?
This does have a development agreement traveling with it as
item number 11.
9:20:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes, I did.
4 through 15.
9:20:58PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
They're utilizing far, floor area ratio.

The of floor area ratio under these future land use
classifications, you can have up to floor area ratio of 2.0
if you do three of the ten bonus provisions listed in 27328
of our code.
I'll talk a little bit about those when I make my
presentation.
The request this evening is really that block bounded by
Cleveland to the north, Platt to the south, Packwood to the
west and Rome to the east.
And it is 2.90 acres.
The 1.92 floor area ratio actually equals 259 multi-family
units, which is what they're seeking to do on the property.
This is one block south of Kennedy.
Surrounded by business professional office to the north.
Business professional office and restaurant to the east and
west.
Multi-family residential, restaurant and mini warehouse to
the south along West Platt Street.
The project proposes a five story multi-family building with
a structurally integrated parking garage.
The PD setbacks are as follows.
Zero foot all the way around.
Zero foot north, south, east and west.
The maximum building height has been proposed at 82 feet,
with maximum height of 64 feet to the top of the structure

parapet for the residential building.
T feet to the top of the architectural feature and 57-foot
for the structured garage.
The required amount of parking is 450 spaces and 452 spaces
are being provided.
Zoning atlas.
Site was actually PD with the piece just to the north of the
Cleveland where there is office building surface parking.
This PD further north is the Primrose school which we
referred to earlier.
It's currently under construction.
Broke ground I think just a few weeks ago.
To the south here is the PD for the Post Hyde Park
apartments, which David talked about.
Everything else, there's CI here.
CG here.
I'm going to show you some pictures.
There's a PD here which is some town home style development.
And that about sums it up.
I11.
Here's an aerial of the site.
Crosstown expressway to the southeast of the site.
Again Packwood to the west, Rome to the east, Cleveland to
the north, Platt to the south.
As you know, Cleveland are one way tiers in this area.

This is a rather large site and do I have a lot of pictures.
I printed out this aerial and what I'm going to do is try to
start up in this corner and work my way around the site.
Give you an overview which way I'm going so that you're
familiar with things.
This is the northwest corner of Cleveland and Packwood.
And this, this the PD I referred to that has town home style
developments.
This is one lot to the north.
This is the northeast corner of Cleveland and Packwood.
This is the office and surface parking portion of the
existing PD that was on this property, shared with that
property.
This is the northeast corner of Rome and Cleveland.
That's after kicks.
I'm going to come down south Rome now, so I am on the east
side of Rome running adjacent to the property.
This is office.
Keep traveling south, so at the end of this office building
is one surface parking lot and former Tijuana flats that is
referred to as stacks bar and grill.
On the west side of the street is the light industrial use
that currently occupies.
This is the subject site.
So we're on the west side of Rome traveling south toward

Platt.
This is at the northwest corner of Platt and Rome.
This is a look back up Rome.
This has the old Tijuana Flats building there which has been
repainted.
I'm down on Platt now across, this is the Hyde Park.
And then this is Hyde Park cafe.
This is looking a little bit to the west, which is the rack
and some other commercial uses.
This is the northwest corner of Platt and Packwood.
So now I'm going to come up Packwood, going to show you that
western side of Packwood.
So we just made it all the way around and then we're here.
Then the last pictures will actually show you the site.
This is older strip commercial that's there.
Two on the west side.
Heading north, looks like there used to be something there.
And this is at the corner, back up where we started, we're
just at the southwest corner of Packwood and Cleveland.
So this is the site.
This picture is actually from here looking back south toward
the site, south/southwest.
Toward the site.
This is -- this is right leer at the corner looking west
toward Packwood.

This is the northwest corner of Cleveland and Packwood.
And now I'm kind of moving south on Packwood, but looking
east toward downtown.
Here's some other pictures.
This is at the far corner, just north of Hyde Park cafe and
I'm looking back north, northeast of the site.
This is at the corner of Packwood and Platt.
And then Packwood looking east toward the site.
This is the Primrose site, which currently under
construction.
This is on Rome looking back toward the Packwood side.
Just showing that site has been cleared.
As I mentioned, there are bonus provisions are being
exercised, three of the ten bonus provisions.
Those three would be structured parking.
If 50% of your parking is within a structure, that can count
as a bonus provision.
There's a commitment for a transit stop in the development
agreement, or the provision of a transit stop in
coordination with HART in proximity to the site.
And then also enhanced pedestrian streetscape, which is
going to include street lighting every 50 to 70 feet on
center around the perimeter of the property.
Benches, dog stations, trash containers and bike racks
around the perimeter of the property.

And they're going to underground the electrical, cable and
phone utilities along Cleveland Street, from the northeast
corner of the property to the northwest corner of the
property.
That is currently the only side of the property that has
utilities actually on it.
The Cleveland -- the Packwood, Rome and Platt sides are all
on the other sides of the street.
I do need some modifications made, revisions to waivers as
shown.
Also currently the site plan states the building could be
90 feet.
But the elevations are showing it at 64 feet to the highest
part of the parapet and T feet to the architectural feet.
I would like the height on the PD to reflect that as well.
Solid with waste had one or two notations that needed to be
added on one of the sheets.
And also some modifications were requested by
transportation.
Lastly, there was a comment by stormwater due to fill and
past flooding of the area and localized flooding on abutting
streets.
The documented elevation at 18 and a half.
The finished floor elevation will be required to be at or
above 19 for this project.

So, along Platt there's going to be substantial change in
grade and probably a retaining wall of some sort.
That being said, staff analysis is on pages six and seven.
And we did find this request consistent.
Thank you.
9:30:16PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
9:30:19PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Also provided a letter of support that was
received by staff.
9:30:22PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner?
9:30:25PM >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Councilmembers, I'm Dave
Mechanik, 305 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
I was sworn earlier.
I'm here on behalf of Alliance Realty Partners, who is the
applicant.
I have with me with alliance John Zelldon, managing director
for central Florida, Tim Graff, development manager with
Alliance.
And Cindy Tarapani, who is vice-president of planning for
Florida Design Consultants.
As usual, Abbye did an exceptionally thorough job, so I'll
try not to repeat some of the things she had indicated.
And I would like to just state for the record that we agree
to all of the requested or recommended changes that Abbye
mentioned, so we will be making and we commit to making all
those changes between first and second reading, should

Council approve our request this evening.
What I'm showing you on the easel is the site plan.
Just wanted to show you that so you can get the feel for the
urban character.
It is 2.9 acres with 259 units.
So this is, we would like to suggest an example of a very
urban scale development, something that I think the staff
and the comprehensive plan have been encouraging in the City
of Tampa.
This is a terrific redevelopment opportunity to improve an
area of the city and of course enhance the tax base.
I'd like to also just show you the elevations of the eight
again to give you a feel for the urban character.
Unfortunately, these are two dimensional elevations and you
don't get the true feeling.
Do I have a photograph I'll show you on the Elmo.
This is not a representation of this project, but it is an
example of another development that Alliance had built.
Gives you a feel for the urban character that they're
interested in producing here in Tampa.
I would just like to mention, Alliance does have two other
projects here in Hillsborough County and is a national
company with a portfolio of over 55,000 apartment units.
As Abbye mentioned, we are seeking an increase floor area
ratio by virtue of the bonus provision and she went through

all of those.
As you can see from review of the site plan, one of the
things we have done is incorporated the garage into the
site, integrated it into the, full, the design and the
physical structure.
Which is one of the items specifically encouraged in tour
comprehensive plan.
The other bonus provisions again as Abbye mentioned, the
provision of a transit stop per Hartline's requirements.
And provision of pedestrian and streetscape improvements.
Finally I'd like to go through briefly the waivers.
And I would just like to say that justification for these
waivers all relate to the fact that we are seeking to build
a very urban type development here, which necessitated the
particular waiver request.
And I would like to just underscore because there was an
earlier waiver sheet that was presented that was inaccurate.
We are not seeking a parking waiver.
In fact, the we have two spaces over and above what is
required for parking.
And that includes your requirement for guest parking.
You know many of the apartment projects are seeking waivers.
So, I'd like to just emphasize that.
We had also originally sought a sign waive, but we are now
proposing to have signage strictly in compliance with the

code.
So the waivers that we're requesting involve removal of the
trees on-site again in order to achieve the urban character
that we're seeking.
Unfortunately, required us to ask for removal of all the
trees on-site.
The other request is to reduction of the green space from
350 feet per unit to 195 square feet per unit.
As we have mentioned on other apartment projects, this is a
very suburb, that is the city's green space requirement at
350 feet is a very suburban oriented requirement.
So when building in an urban environment, these are a
necessity.
And of course we have to pay an in-lieu fee to compensate
for the reduction of green space.
Third waiver is reduction of the drive aisles, which is a
waiver you typically grant, again for an urban site.
And finally the reduction, request for reduction of loading
berths from two to one.
Another variants that you typically grant, or very
oftentimes will grant.
So with that we'll be happy to answer any questions and
respond to any questions from.
9:36:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions by Councilmembers at this
time?

Ms. Montelione?
9:36:10PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I know, everybody is surprised.
9:36:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We are?
9:36:15PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Shocker.
Very excited that we have got building going on.
Let me say that so I don't take what I'm going to say as
wanting to discourage the project.
However, the size of the project is something that is maybe
of a bit of concern.
I talked over with staff, and from what I had calculated,
under -- if you were not going after the density bonus and
maxing out under what's allowable under the F.A.R., I think
you'd only be able to build 88 units here.
Without asking for any changes and going after the density
bonus and all that.
So, asking for 259 units is quite a leap.
And I know that you're asking for the absolute top of the
maximum number that you can get.
Which financially is a good thing to do, but it's a very
large project.
And with very large projects and asking for so much over and
above and Macing out at the top that you possibly can get on
this site, personally I just felt that the, the offerings of
the three or four things that you had agreed to to get that
density bonus, which is huge, seems a little pale in

comparison.
I mean especially, you know, there was -- let me find it --
two -- there was two dog stations, two trash containers, one
bike rack and nine benches.
That's not a heck of a lot.
9:38:28PM >> Well, and street lighting.
50 to 80 feet on center along the entire perimeter of the
site.
And undergrounding utilities.
9:38:40PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
You got me there.
Undergrounding utilities I think it's ironic that the
Primrose school that's on Kennedy, we couldn't get the
utilities undergrounded there because it was so expensive,
but this is an interior block and we're getting the
underground utilities there.
That's I would say the biggest offering is out of the entire
list, the largest would be the undergrounding of the
utilities.
But when I look at what could have been offered and it's
something that is in desperate need in this community, which
we spend a lot of time talking about, which is affordable
housing.
And with one of the provisions being 10% of the units being
offered between 80 and 120% of AMI, meaning median area,
median income, I think that would have been much more

enticing provision and necessitated or been equally -- I
can't think of the word.
I'm not feeling well tonight.
I apologize.
The cold medicine is kind of getting in the way.
But that would've maybe more appropriate item to say well,
you know, 10% of the units will be, you know, and it's not
even -- there's only affordable units from 80 to 120% of
AMI.
So, to ask for the top maximum number of units you could
possibly get on the site, so it's just -- that's what really
disappoints me about the projects.
It's a great, it looks pretty, it's something that we're
looking for density, higher densities near the downtown
core.
It's just that I think that that's a lot of units to ask for
in exchange for, you know -- in my view, not a whole lot in
return.
9:40:51PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers?
Ms. Mulhern.
9:41:01PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I think this is the first time this Council
has heard about density bonuses.
This current Council now.
We haven't had a lot, enough, a lot of development so that
this comes into play.

But back when we did used to hear about it, I often wondered
at the formulas for how you would arrive at trading this for
that.
So I agree with Councilwoman Montelione that it seems like a
lot to ask for the absolute maximum and you know, I have
question about the waivers of green space and the waiver of,
from a hundred percent reduction in trees.
And also about, you know, the transit idea makes sense if
you're on a transit route.
But is there even a bus route.
9:41:58PM >> Yes, there is.
9:41:59PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Where does the bus go?
9:42:03PM >> Just south on Platt Street.
HART was very interested in this.
9:42:11PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.
Good.
So it actually is something that would happen.
I don't know what to say other than I agree with
Councilwoman Montelione, that it seems like, you know,
maxing out without a whole lot to offer for it.
But that's something we need to look at it, those formulas
for density bonuses, I think this Council might do well at
looking at those, because back when we were doing a lot of
that, I really thought a lot of it didn't make that much
sense, that you were giving, you know, this benefit to the

builder and the developer and the investor, and not maybe
getting as much back in return for the public.
9:43:09PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
Mr. Chairman, should I respond?
9:43:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You have the right to respond.
9:43:14PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
With respect to the comments, and I
certainly understand them.
I think, at least as recommended by your staff, we have
satisfied the requirements of the code.
And the code does give the applicant the option of choosing
three out of I think ten choices.
But I think it's important for Council to understand that
this is still a very tight economic environment that we're
in and my clients looked at every one of the ten and arrived
at these as being reasonable under the economic
circumstances for what they are, you know, the market
they're trying to achieve and so forth.
I think the fact that this is a hundred percent structured
parking is an enormous expense for a developer, and I think
that maybe the, that fact alone is probably significant
enough to warrant favorable consideration under these
circumstances.
9:44:18PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Continue, Ms. Mulhern.
9:44:20PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
I think that -- could you tell us maybe was there ever
discussion about the affordable housing issue?

Because I thought that was a really great suggestion.
If I did some quick calculations.
I think the 120% area median income would be actually more
than we make.
120% is 53,210.
9:44:56PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
If you were to go with 10% affordable
units, we would qualify to live there.
9:45:01PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I wouldn't.
9:45:02PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Most of us would qualify to live there.
9:45:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Cohen?
9:45:10PM >>HARRY COHEN:
You wouldn't neither because you represent
district seven.
You know, it seems to me that -- here, let me let him go
ahead and respond to that.
9:45:22PM >> Good evening, John value Don with the -- 174 west
Comstock avenue in Winter Park, Florida.
To answer your question, we evaluated each of those that was
on, as an option.
And we obviously had to in certain cases figure out what the
cost benefit would be and we chose to put the, our
investment into the garage by taking the cars off the street
and putting them in the garage.
We thought would be beneficial to the whole neighborhood.
So we didn't have people parking on the street.
And that was the decision that was made.

And also, our primary business is market rate apartments.
That's what we understand.
We have done it for the last personally I've done it for
about 20 years.
We operate more efficiently.
By doing so we generate more revenue hand more tax base for
the county and for the city.
9:46:17PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me ask if I may, one second I'll get
back to the Councilmembers.
462 parking spaces at 15,000-dollar a parking space when you
build a garage?
9:46:31PM >> Simply with the garage structure itself, that would
probably little bit north of that, because concrete
construction.
As you go higher, gets more expensive.
You have to also count all the drainage and other issues
involved.
That's simply garage structure itself.
Doesn't include what happens outside the garage.
So it can go, as high as 20, depending how you get the water
off the garage and some other issues.
We are screening the garage.
And that's additional cost as well.
So you won't see the cars in the garage.
9:47:01PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
What's the final cost for a garage at

that rate, that cost if it's 15 is too low?
9:47:08PM >> We put all that on there, it's probably closer to 20,000
a spot.
9:47:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Close to $10 million.
9:47:17PM >> You're better at math than I am.
9:47:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Which Councilmember?
Any other Councilmember?
Mr. Cohen.
9:47:24PM >>HARRY COHEN:
You know, we spent a lot of time tonight
talking about the character of a lot of our residential
neighborhoods in this city.
And we heard from a lot of people that wanted to keep the
residential character of those neighborhoods intact with
single-family houses on certain loss sizes.
But the fact of the matter is in today's economic
environment, the demand is for rental housing.
And if we are going to be supportive of economic development
as we work our way out of this recession, what we're going
to be seeing are multi-family rental unit projects.
And the fact of the matter is, that this neighborhood, this
is not out of character for this neighborhood.
This is a place where you would want increase density and
you would want to increase urbanization.
You know, I'm comfortable that it is appropriate in
character to what's already there and is going to be a big

improvement to all of the things that are around it,
particularly with the parking structure the way it is.
So I'm inclined to be supportive of it for that reason
alone.
9:48:44PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers?
9:48:47PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I just want to say, I mean -- I agree
with you.
And I know the market right now is in multi-family.
I just think that for what we're giving, because under, with
the calculating the F.A.R., which I did earlier, there are
240 -- 249 units, 1.97 would be 248,475.
1.5 would be 189,486.
So we're giving a lot of density.
It's not just some.
I mean, this is a lot of density.
And I just don't feel that are would getting in return what
is commensurate with what we're giving.
So, and for me, the sticking point is we need affordable
housing.
I mean, there's no question, we need affordable housing.
And to have that many units and have affordable, 10% of
units is not a lot.
If I'm going to look at giving away that much density in an
urban neighborhood, near downtown, I would like to see a
little bit more, in this case what I would like to see is

some of the units being affordable.
9:50:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay, we go to the audience portion.
I'm sorry, Mr. Reddick?
9:50:18PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I just want to respond one time to what you
said.
I think if you feel that way, the appropriate place to
address it is in our code and in our rules, because we have
set a standard by which we expect people to conform if we're
going to give them the density.
And if they conform tow that, that's I don't think the
proper time to then start questioning whether or not the
standards are appropriate.
9:50:46PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We're going to go to the audience
portion.
Anyone in the audience care to speak in this item?
Time number 10.
Please come forward.
Don't disappoint us now.
[ Laughter ]
I see no one here.
All right.
I knew I'd get somebody up here.
9:51:07PM >> Name is Steve Barbas.
I own the law offices next door, 1802 West Cleveland Street
and all the lots next door, about an acre and a half next

door.
I had an opportunity to come to the meeting they gave us.
I had some concerns with regard to the parking because as
mentioned, the initial information sent to us showed
variance for parking.
I understand it's since been changed.
I'm excited about this place being built.
I think we're going to be good neighbors.
We have good neighbors.
They've shown a concern for what I.
I came her with the idea of objecting.
Some of the things I was concerned about they've removed and
I'm generally in favor of it.
9:52:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Ms. Capin?
Okay, anyone else in the audience?
9:52:06PM >> Move approval.
9:52:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner, you have the right to speak
for whatever you want five minutes.
I don't suggest it, but you have that right.
[ Laughter ]
9:52:16PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
Thank you very much.
Appreciate your favorable consideration.
9:52:19PM >> Move to close roo.
9:52:20PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Reddick to close, seconded

by Mr. Cohen on number 10.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay?
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Reddick, would like to have the floor on item number.
9:52:35PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move ordinance being presented for first
reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 1711 and 1715 West Platt Street.
9:53:34PM >>THE CLERK:
For the record, did that include revision
sheet?
9:53:40PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Will include the revision sheet.
9:53:42PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes, that would include the revision sheet.
Z12-42?
9:53:55PM >>THE CLERK:
Z12-45.
9:53:56PM >> I didn't get one.
9:53:57PM >>THE CLERK:
My mistake, there was no revision sheet.
9:54:09PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Abbye, help the chairman here.
That could be a new TV show, help the chairman.
9:54:18PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
You know where the revision sheet is?
Back at my office.
[ Laughter ]
9:54:26PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I know I didn't pack everything.
I tried to pack the kitchen sink.
9:54:51PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm going to do this.
I'm going to vote to reopen the hearing, let Mr. Reddick

read it again, with the revision sheet so it's clear record
on this statement and no one in 20 years can say that I made
another mistake.
9:55:06PM >> Motion to reopen hearing.
9:55:08PM >> Second.
9:55:10PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Reddick?
9:55:17PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'm sorry to make things even more
complicated, which I tend to do.
I would feel -- provide copies -- oh, you have copies?
9:55:44PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
He's got it all.
I think I'm sending one to devil and the God all at the same
time.
9:56:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick disa.
9:56:03PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Move ordinance for being presented for first reading, an
ordinance we zoning property from the general vicinity of
1711 and 1715 west flat street, 213, 215, 219 and 1223 south
Rome Avenue, 202, and 210 south Packwood avenue, and 1720
west Cleveland street in the City of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1, from zoning district
classifications CI commercial intensive, and PD planned
development to PD planned development, residential,

multi-family, providing an effective date and including
revision sheet Z12-45, dated November 8, 2012.
9:56:44PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Reddick, second by
Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you all very much for attending.
9:56:56PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried against unanimously.
Second reading and adoption December 6, 9:30 a.m.
9:57:02PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Item number 11 is an associated
development agreement with item number ten under the code,
in order to achieve the bonus density, there needs to be an
associated development agreement.
You will not take action on this development agreement
today.
That is, but there is required to have two public hearings,
so it's requested that we ask if there's anybody that wants
to speak to the development agreement.
If not, we'll go ahead and hear that as part of second
reading.
Thank you.
9:57:26PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So there will be no vote taken on item
number 11 is what you're telling me?
9:57:32PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Except to close the public hearing.

9:57:33PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I understand that.
All right.
Anyone care to open, to speak on item number 11?
At this time.
9:57:40PM >> Motion to close.
9:57:41PM >> Second.
9:57:42PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion to close by Mr. Suarez,
seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
All right.
Now, we go to number 12.
9:58:30PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item 12, Z12-46, it is located at 202
Caspian Street.
And the request this evening is from RS-75 residential
single-family to PD, planned development, residential,
single-family detached.
9:58:53PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hay with your
Planning Commission staff.
We are remaining within the central Tampa planning district,
this time within the Davis Island urban village.
Next we move on to the aerial.
You can see the subject site in the center of the map and
the single-family detached residential development pattern

that surrounds the site.
And then on to the future land use map.
The surrounding area including the subject site is
designated at residential 6.
The applicant is proposing to split an existing lot into two
to allow for the construction of two single-family detached
residential unit.
Planning Commission staff found a variety of lot sizes
within the surrounding area, which you can see on the map.
Planning Commission staff found that the proposed rezoning
allows for development in keeping with the character of the
surrounding single-family detached residential.
Proposed planned development also provides for development
below the density maximum six units per acre.
This development is being developed at 5.1 units per acre.
Therefore with that being said, Planning Commission staff
finds the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa
comprehensive plan.
10:00:08PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
As I stated, this is a request from RS-75,
residential single-family to PD, planned development,
residential single-family detached.
There are no waivers being requested.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 202
Caspian Street from RS-75 to PD to create two buildable
zoning lots.

Parcel A on the north will have a minimum lot width of
75 feet at the 25-foot front yard setback and 8603 square
feet in total area.
Parcel B will have a minimum lot width of 75 feet at the
25-foot front yard setback and 8200 square feet in area.
Pursuant to section 27100, minimum lot width shall be
measured at the back of the required front yard.
So at the rear of the required front yard and it shall be
maintained for a depth to meet 50% of the required minimum
lot area.
I'm going to go through this.
I'm going to go through this.
So, based on the lot configuration above, the maintenance --
the measurement can't be maintained.
What I'll do, I'll walk back through this, because it's like
where did the red blue map ga?
Because we have done two of these tonight.
There is no red blue map.
What this says, when you create a lot, the lot has to meet
minimum width.
And that minimum width is measured at the rear of the front
yard lot.
At the front yard.
So this is in my staff report on page three for those of you
who had an opportunity to read through it.

And it's important because what's before you this evening in
this case is not a question of compatibility.
Because it has the minimum lot width.
So this is no red and blue.
Red and blue shows you what's come pat annual, what's the
existing development pattern?
What this is is a question of measurement.
So here is the typical RS-75 lot.
75 by 100.
At the back of the front yard where this little DOT line is
where you are required to be 75 feet in width.
Both of these lots that are under this PD meet this.
They are both 75 feet at the back of the front yard.
That 75 feet then is required to be maintained until you
reach 50% of the minimum lot area.
Not 50% of your lot area, 50% of the minimum, which is the
75 by 100 lot.
So 3,750 square feet.
One of the lots that is on this PD does that.
The second lot does not.
Because the lot narrows.
So that little red triangle -- let me see if I can zoom in
there for you.
Is the area that falls outside, that is not maintained.
That red area is not part of the lot.

That's where it's short.
62 square feet.
Okay.
This is five foot there.
And then this remember was the 25-foot front setback.
And then a typical, you would be at a hundred feet.
This is -- I'm sorry, in a typical you would be at 50 feet
to reach half.
This is that 25 feet.
What the code says is, is if you cannot maintain -- if you
can't meet both those criteria, if you cannot meet the lot
width and cannot maintain it for the 50%, you have the
option to come before City Council as a planned development,
in fact, it's under section 27100, it says for those lots
that do not meet the specific criteria set forth in this
section, an application can be made for City Council
consideration through a rezoning.
And then, it goes on to tell you the intent of the minimum
lot width provision, at top, page three of my report, it
says the intent of minimum lot width provision is to
maintain a reasonable distance between structures for the
purpose of preservation of open space, adequate provision of
air and light, reduction of fire dangers, limitation on
density and aesthetics.
So, the question is a question of measurement and a question

of intent that is before you this evening as far as whether
or not this meets the criteria for the creation of a new
lot.
In my analysis, I did state that in consideration of a
buildable lot, zoning administrator must apply both these
standards.
This did come before Gloria Moreda, the zoning
administrator, as a formal determination.
Because on its face value it did not meet both those
standards, she cannot administratively approve it.
Then it gets turned for consideration by you and it could
have been considered as you asked me on a case earlier
tonight, it could've been considered as one RS -- they can
create one RS-75 lot here without meeting anything.
And then they could've PDed the other lot.
Their intent is leave those both and PD it together as one
zoning lot and create those two lots.
So, based on the subject lot dimension, the lot is deficient
by 62.5 square feet or 1.66% of the required 50% equivalent
at the point which the lot falls below the 75-foot minimum.
In relationship to the minimum lot width intent stated above
staff finds this request consistent with the stated intent
because all setbacks for an RS-75, everything else
applicable to the RS-75 is on this PD.
The setbacks are consistent with the RS-75.

The height is consistent with the RS-75 amount of everything
they're showing you except that little red triangle meets
those standards.
We have had this discussion in the past on other cases,
where you're going to shift a lot line or whatever.
And day glow yellow, that little red triangle is going to be
underneath somebody's structure.
You will not see it nor will you feel it when you're on a
street side on this property.
So, that being said, staff did find the request consistent
with that intent.
There are some corrections to the tree table required also
under the R 6 land use, you are required 7260 square feet a
structure.
And I mentioned to you that each of these will be over 8,000
square feet in lot area, so it is consistent with the
underlying land use.
And also I have provided you with findings of consistency
with the PD criteria on pages five and six of the staff
report.
I'm available for any questions.
10:07:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions at this time?
Thank you very much.
Petitioner?
10:07:48PM >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Council.

My name John Grandoff.
And my address is suite 3700 Bank of America plaza.
I have the pleasure this evening of representing Nancy
Brereton.
Nancy, please raise your hand.
And Alan Dobbs our planner of record.
Also Hilda and Larry Riordan are here.
They are going to build their home on the second lot that
was shown to you by Abbye.
Larry and Hilda, please raise your hands also.
Last but not least, Larry and Hilda and Nancy are joined by
many friends from their neighborhood.
I ask those friends also raise their hands this evening.
This is a kind of a case of first impression that I've ever
seen.
As Abbye clearly explained, we're basically a here over 62
square feet.
And to give you perspective, I measured 62 square feet in
the Council chamber this afternoon, and it's basically from
the dais to where I am, about right here, eight feet, I
rounded it up to 64 feet.
64 square feet.
Eight feet by eight feet is from here to about where I'm
standing and then from here to here.
10:09:06PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Should've been an architect.

[ Laughter ]
10:09:10PM >> I'm a frustrated architect and engineer.
That's it in a net shell.
You couldn't even fit an automobile in there.
Maybe not even a Volkswagen.
But anyway, Abbye has clearly summed up her report.
The reason for the rule, which I think you always need to
analyze what's the reason for the rule?
Was to provide some amount of character for the frontage of
each lot.
The intent of the rule Abbye has described.
And I'd like to summarize that briefly.
The bent is to maintain reasonable distance between
structures.
You have that with the setback that will be provided, seven
foot setback for residential RS-75.
Also chapter 13 tree and landscaping code provides for the
preservation of open space, adequate provision of air and
light, reduction of fire dangers achieved by the setbacks
that are provided.
Remember, we are meeting the 75 feet.
We are meeting all RS-75 restrictions -- excuse me, RS-75
regulations.
Tended to have a limitation on density as Abbye explained.
We are over the density count that is provided and.

And also aesthetics, setbacks being met.
We're meeting chapter 13, the tree and landscape code.
So everything fits, except when D. P. Davis laid out Davis
Island, one of these lot lines meandered.
If I can show you a reduced copy of the hotel section,
Mr. Davis planned to put a hotel in this area.
I'm not sure exactly where.
But when he drew the hotel section, you will see, Nancy's
lots are in green.
That many of those lot lines are not perfect squares.
So you can see the serpentine designs of Davis Islands, was
supposed to be a Venetian community patterned over an
Italian community, waterfront community.
Some of these lines meander.
I think zoning code cannot contemplate every situation and
every lot.
So you have what's called the law of unintended
consequences.
I think what Abbye has quoted to you is to avoid bad law
from applying and give some relieve, so they come before you
and say please give us the relief on 62 square feet.
I have nothing further to add.
I'd like to file a couple items into the record.
There is a, a very well written petition of support, three
pages long, with neighbors of Nancy.

Another separate letter, separate letter from Collette
Eddie, which I'd like to file.
She's also a neighbor.
Excuse me one moment.
Let me check my notes.
We also have elevations.
Elevations were required.
Those are available if you'd like to see those.
They will certainly be consistent with the character of
Davis Islands.
Nancy has lived there her entire life.
I can assure you she will do a very tasteful design.
I have nothing further to add.
I'd like to reserve the remainder of my comments for
rebuttal.
10:13:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Cohen?
10:13:14PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I have a question.
The reason I'm going to ask you is because I think you were
the attorney of record on the case that I'm thinking about.
But didn't we have a case here a number of months ago where
there was a very minimal amount of space that required --
that prevented two lots from being able to be
administratively divided?
It was in Gulf view, if I remember correctly.
10:13:37PM >> That was the case.

10:13:39PM >>HARRY COHEN:
And a former Council had voted against it and
a circuit court had reversed and remanded it back to us,
telling us that Council had been unreasonable in denying it.
Were you the attorney of record on that case?
10:13:53PM >> Yes, I was, Mr. Cohen.
10:13:55PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Is that a similar analogous situation?
10:13:59PM >> You have the same standard of review, which is competent
substantial evidence.
Judge Arnold found that had been violated by the Council.
Not this Council.
But he had issued his order accordingly.
Yes, that is correct.
And that was a one foot issue on frontage.
10:14:17PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I just wanted to thank Mr. Cohen for
reminding us of that.
[ Laughter ]
10:14:22PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's five lashes, Mr. Cohen.
10:14:26PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
And you know what, Mr. Cohen?
That was not the first time it came back to us.
It was the second time.
It was the third time.
10:14:34PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I was only here for the last time.
[ Laughter ]
10:14:37PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
It came in before.
Then I wasn't there for the first one, but I was the second

one.
And I voted appropriately then.
I want everyone to know.
[ Laughter ]
10:14:48PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I think it might be confession time.
Anyway, any further questions at this time of the counselor?
Go to public audience for any comments on item number 12.
Anyone care to speak on this item?
Number 12?
10:15:14PM >> I haven't been sworn, is that necessary?
10:15:17PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
He'll swear you in.
[Oath administered by Clerk]
10:15:23PM >> My name is James Alfonso, 4 Bahama Circle, Tampa,
Florida, 33606.
I'm just in favor of Ms. Brereton having the ability to
build on this lot and giving it an affirmative vote.
10:15:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much, sir.
Anyone else in the audience care to speak?
I have a motion to close -- yes?
10:15:51PM >> Good evening, Council.
Katherine O'Donniley with Singer & O'Donniley, 712 south
Oregon, suite 200.
And I'm here in lieu of -- there were some neighbors who had
some very strong concerns about this proposal.
Specifically what this would do to the character of the

existing structures that are there.
Some of the historical nature of what we see with larger
lots and the surrounding area.
Majority of which they are larger there.
And don't require any sort of PD zoning.
I think actually if I could put something up on the Elmo for
just one moment.
I'll try to get through this very quickly.
So you can see that the areas in green are lots that are
larger and actually represent some of the more recent
development and the trend towards larger lot sizes.
The subject site is in yellow.
So the concern has been, what does this do for compatibility
in the neighborhood?
And we talked about it being just a measurement.
But I think it's a measurement reflects that compatibility
and it affects how we should use the density and amount of
open spaces provided in the neighborhood.
But since then, this week, the Alan Dobbs, who is the
representative for the applicant of record, he went to the
civic association and talked about some of the plans in
details and specifically explained that the lots would be
built at 40%, rather than the maximum 50%.
And so with that knowledge, the neighbors who were not too
happy about this decided that this was sort of a minimum

that they could live with.
And I want to go ahead and just submit into the record.
We a petition with neighbors who were opposed to the
proposal and who have decided in light of that meeting this
week not to attend and oppose the petition.
But they would like to see that the site plans reflects the
40% that was discussed at the civic association meeting.
10:18:27PM >> If I could just add one other item that these neighbors
would like to see on the site plan between first and second
reading.
They would prefer that the air handler for the structure on
parcel B not be located next to, on the lot line between --
actually it will help if I put this up.
They would prefer it not be located on this side.
So it would be located to the north instead of adjacent to
the larger, more traditional development that's to the
south.
So if those two items could be added to the site plan, then
I think we have a compromise that is acceptable to those
neighbors.
Thank you.
10:19:17PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Petitioner, yes, sir?
10:19:21PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ms. O'Donniley, can I ask you just one quick
question?

This petition was signed prior to the understanding of the
40%, correct?
10:19:31PM >> Correct.
10:19:32PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You just wanted it as part of the record?
Yes.
10:19:36PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, thank you.
10:19:37PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Next?
10:19:41PM >> I'm Debby Bauerman, 192 Corsica Street and I am a deka
board member and I do not believe we voted on the 40%.
Actually we voted not to take any position on this item.
So it was mentioned but there were certainly no vote taken
with regards to 40%.
Thank you.
10:20:00PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Anyone else in the audience who has not pony who would care
to speak at this time?
Petitioner, you have for rebuttal.
10:20:16PM >> Briefly point out something on Ms. O'Donniley study of
different colored lot.
This is not a different colored lot test like you've seen in
other applications.
We meet the 75 feet of width.
So it's not a question of whether this lot or that lot.
We meet the width.
The 40% consideration limitation has been clearly considered

by my client, deeply considered with my client.
We cannot do that.
And we ask that we not be compelled to put that on the site
plan.
The air handler issue, let me explain that briefly.
We want to have the latitude to put the air handler where we
believe it should go in the design of the home.
The home has not been designed per se.
However, on that yard to the south, there's that neighbor's
air handler with a substantial hedge in between what will
become Nancy's home and Larry and Hilda Reardon's home.
So their air handler is there and then they have this hedge
that buffers the noise of the air handler.
So it's not an unusual inconvenience that you do not deal
with in urban living.
So we ask that those not be included and I respectfully
request your approval this evening.
10:21:52PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern, then Mr. Suarez.
10:21:55PM >>MARY MULHERN:
And why is it that you can't do that?
10:21:59PM >> Because the house design has not been laid out and the
air handler may have --
10:22:04PM >>MARY MULHERN:
No, no it the air handler.
The 40%.
You just said you can't.
10:22:08PM >> We cannot because that would limit my client's right to

the building envelope.
Of what they have within all the secs.
And it would limit her from potentially adding on to the
home in the future.
10:22:28PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Did somebody meet with the neighbors?
How did this 40% idea come up?
They seem to be under the impression there.
10:22:39PM >> Mr. Dobbs was in that conversation.
He can explain that to you.
10:22:44PM >> My name is Alan Dobbs, 5111 north Suwannee avenue.
It was an error on my part.
I offered that without consulting with Nancy Brereton and I
regret doing that now because that was not fair to them.
So, it was a mistake I made.
And I did consult with her and the Reardons afterwards.
And they didn't want to do it.
10:23:12PM >>MARY MULHERN:
How many square feet are these, the homes
going to be?
10:23:16PM >> Nancy wants to do a 2500 square foot home, four bedrooms,
which includes the master.
Rooms for her grandkids and like a den.
The Reardons want to do a little bit bigger.
3500, 3,000 -- 3,000 square feet.
The same size house roughly four bedrooms, maybe like a
family room or bonus room on the second floor.

10:23:45PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
I guess, can we hear from the neighbors again?
Can we do that.
10:23:56PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't know.
That's a legal question.
10:23:59PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I guess we have heard from them.
10:24:01PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We have already heard.
10:24:04PM >>MARY MULHERN:
I just want to understand the, if you're now
submitting this petition or.
10:24:17PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Grandoff, I think I'll speak for
Ms. Mulhern and maybe some other people on the Council, is
that we don't like these kind of he said, she said type of
situations when it comes to either agreements or
disagreements or things that are brought to us.
Obviously, Ms. O'Donniley was here with a petition that was
against your client.
And came under the understanding that there was some
agreement in terms of the 40%.
Now, Mrs. Dobbs has just told us that was a mistake on his
part.
We have to try to make a decision based on what everyone's
needs are and what is fair.
I know you the historian of zoning here in the City of
Tampa.
You have been in this chamber sometimes when you do not have

client.
And I know why you do that.
[ Laughter ]
10:25:06PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Because you know the history and you can try
and find consistency with what we do here.
Problem is now you're bringing something that's a bit
inconsistent with us because of the presentation you made.
And obviously I don't think you might have known what
Mr. Dobbs had done and that it was in agreement.
So I just want to ask you, I mean, you understand these
things more than anybody necessary this room, I think.
Can you give us a little bit of explanation on how something
of this magnitude could've happened?
, with you being the attorney on this case.
10:25:37PM >> May I ask the -- going to that issue, that was a meeting
that was Tuesday evening?
That was Tuesday.
I was not at the meeting.
That discussion was between Mr. Dobbs and folks with the
Davis Islands community association.
I became aware of the discussion today and Mr. Dobbs
regretfully did not have authority to make that overture.
Even if he had the authority to make that overture,
Ms. Brereton consciously considered it, looked at her site
plan, realized that she had not laid out -- Alan has not

laid out the home yet within the 20, 25, 7 and 7 setback.
And it would be premature to impose a square footage
limitation without knowing exactly where the house is going
to rest.
10:26:44PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I understand.
Let me interrupt you for a second.
That's not my point.
My point is that you are an expert on this.
By my standards, you're an expert.
10:26:53PM >> Thank you.
10:26:54PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And what is Mr. Dobbs doing on Davis Island
talking to the homeowners association at all?
With you being the attorney on this case?
That's what I have a problem with.
10:27:05PM >> Well...
10:27:06PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You understand what I'm saying?
You know how sticky and particular these cases can be.
Why would Mr. Dobbs be speaking at all about this case with
anyone without your knowledge?
That's what I don't understand.
10:27:20PM >> I knew he was going.
I knew about the meeting.
And the meeting was to meet with the board of the Davis
Island community association Tuesday evening.
And Alan did the site plan.

He's a site planner.
So it was decided he would attend to discuss the site plan
with the neighborhood board.
And that was the meeting.
It was not in my opinion, was not going to be an issue that
would require legal advice.
10:27:48PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I understand that.
10:27:49PM >> To me, there was the tender of a possible condition,
including 40%, and these things happen.
I think the gentleman has clearly apologized for what
occurred.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that had Nancy
wanted to consider it, she would've evaluated it with me and
I would've said Nancy, I don't think you should hem yourself
in on the square footage of the house, you have not laid it
out yet.
Very honest mistake.
I hope I've answered your question.
10:28:23PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You have.
You have.
And Mr. Grandoff, I think you know how I respect you.
I do think that you're a terrific lawyer and you've proven
in it this chamber several times.
And that's part of the reason why I'm a little bit perturbed
by this whole thing.

Mr. Cohen just presented earlier on some history of what can
happen when these cases are decided incorrectly.
And we do not want to be in that situation again.
It cost the city a pretty penny because of that issue.
So this is a curveball that's being presented to us and I
need to know how to pro proceed in this quasi-judicial way
without being prejudicial to anyone.
So I guess my point is that I'm a little bit confused
because this is not something we usually see from you and
your cases that you present.
10:29:10PM >> How about let me approach it this way.
If we could go back in time and I was there Tuesday evening
and privy to that discussion, I would've advised
Ms. Brereton, do not agree to that condition.
You have not laid out the home.
You are bound by the setback and that is what's required
under the police powers of the City of Tampa in their zoning
code Chapter 27.
That would've been my advice then.
That is my advice today.
I haven't read the petition yet.
I'd like to look it over for a second and respond to it.
10:29:43PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's fine.
10:29:44PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
10:29:47PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Ms. Cole -- I mean Mandell.

She's not answering anymore.
10:29:59PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Julia Mandell, legal department.
I do want to say, I've now had a chance to speak with
Ms. Feeley regarding this 40% condition that was discussed.
Nobody's ever come to staff, nobody's ever come to us, I did
hear about this today, to discuss the possibility of
amending the, their site plan to add that note.
Typically if there are these kinds of discussions that
happen, somebody will bring it to your 0 attention so we can
do revision sheets.
Abbye would have to analyze whether or not that could be
enforceable because, we're not -- we're having a hard time
figuring out exactly what that means.
I would encourage City Council, if Mr. Grandoff isn't going
to, on behalf of his client, agree to amend his application
to add any kinds of conditions relating to the structures
being placed on the site plan that we just look at this in
terms of what's in front of you.
And I think I know where Mr. Suarez is going to go with
this, which is, has there been a problem where a party or a
potential party to this has been induced not to come or to
induce to change what their position was going to be on this
for the purposes of whether or not they were going to come
in opposition today.
I will also tell you you have second reading as well.

But also I mean, we have to be very careful, these side
deals when they get made, if a property owner chooses not to
come and hopes that this condition will be effectuated, I
just -- I'm concerned that that becomes part of your
analysis if you're going to decide to approve or deny this
because that was a risk that the neighboring property owner
or somebody else may have taken with there was nothing in
writing to the city of Tampa for the purposes of amending
the application.
So -- I understand why you're a little uncomfortable
Mr. Suarez, because frankly I'm a little uncomfortable too.
10:32:03PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Ms. Mandell, I'm the one that called you up.
So thank you for answering the question I was going to ask
you.
And that is exactly it.
There is nothing to -- if the petitioner decides, there's
nothing to consider as far as the, other than what we have
here in front of us right now.
Thank you.
10:32:28PM >>JULIA MANDELL-COLE:
Keep in mind, if you do choose to
approve this you do have a second public hearing.
So, there will be ample opportunity at that point in time if
there's other objections.
10:32:39PM >> I just thought of something.
Let me put you at ease.

4:30 this afternoon I was in my office, Alan called me.
He says John, Katherine O'Donniley has contacted me, she'd
like to talk to you about three possible conditions.
This is 4:30.
What are they?
Number one, the air conditioner issue.
Number two, the 40% issue, number three, can you make sure
that they will comply with the tree and landscape code for a
tree near a driveway?
I said Alan, let's do this.
Yes on the tree, we can do that.
I recommend no on the air conditioner issue.
I recommend no on the 04% issue.
Call Nancy back and tell her that's my advice.
That's at 4:30.
He called Nancy back.
Got the answer.
He called Mrs. O'Donniley back probably 5:00.
Plenty of time that these folks are still adamant about that
issue to come to be heard.
Now let's talk about the petition.
The petition has a fundamental flaw in it.
It says we strongly object, City of Tampa staff has already
denied the petitioner's application to create two 75-foot
lots administratively because the properties lacked adequate

street frontage.
A hundred percent wrong.
We have the frontage.
So there's a flaw in the factual statement of the petition
that's been signed in opposition.
These people don't know what they're signing.
So I don't think it's worth the paper it's written on.
10:34:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez, you want the floor now?
10:34:15PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Grandoff, that's part of the reason why
when something like this comes up, which is atypical of
cases that you bring before us, it was a bit surprising to
me.
And I think you understand why I'm saying this.
Usually you know, every T is crossed and every I is dotted
whenever we deal with you.
It's not the petition itself.
It's the idea that there are issues between neighbors about
this particular situation, and I think that Mr. Cohen laid
it out fairly easy that it was problems between neighbors
over another case that made us come back and have to pay off
somebody.
And to me, I want to try to avoid that, I'm trying to make
sure we make the right decision.
I needed to make sure I heard from you what had happened
because this is something that obviously I think surprised

you, surprised us too.
So I'm glad that you were able to read that and give us your
take on the timeframe and everything else.
So thanks you.
10:35:18PM >> Move to close now?
10:35:21PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I hope so.
Have a motion to close bring Reddick, second by
Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Who wants to read this ordinance?
10:35:38PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I'll read it.
10:35:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item number 12.
10:35:41PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Ordinance being presented for first readings
consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 202 Caspian Street in the City of Tampa, Florida
and more particularly described in section 1, from zoning
district classifications RS-75 residential single-family to
PD planned development, residential, single-family detached,
providing an effective date.
10:36:01PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms. Capin, second by
Ms. Montelione -- Mr. Suarez.
It's getting late, I got the wrong side.
One's got dark hair, one's got a little lighter hair.

By Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you all very much for appearing.
10:36:27PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on December 6 at
9:30 a.m.
10:36:32PM >> Thank you for your time this evening.
10:36:36PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item number 13.
10:37:04PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item 13, Z12-47, located at 1601 and 1701
North Lois Avenue, 4120 West Spruce Street.
You'll see on your staff report this is currently a PD.
It's PD Z 0725.
It was a PD for residential multi-family and retail and the
request before you this evening is for PD residential
multi-family.
If I may just a moment, predominantly everything on this
project has remained the same.
They want to shift the perimeter setback from 77 feet down
to -- well, now when this was previously rezoned, it was not
under the auspices of the Westshore overlay district.
It is now.
They did come in for a substantial change in order to shift
that perimeter setback and under the provisions of 273237,

you cannot reduce perimeter setbacks through a substantial
change or administrative approval.
Therefore, this case is back before you this evening.
That being said, David and then I'll go over kind of what...
10:38:23PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hay again with your
Planning Commission staff and I have been sworn.
Well, for the next case we move over to the Carver City
Lincoln Gardens neighborhood within the Westshore Planning
District.
Site is located within the boundaries of the Westshore
business center and located within the mixed use urban
village as defined by the Tampa comprehensive plan.
On to the aerial, you can see the subject site.
In the earn ask of the map, the city of Tampa solid waste
department is located to the east.
Bay Gulf credit union building is to the forth.
Further north of off the air is International Plaza.
To the west we can see single-family detached residential
pad and typical of Carver City Lincoln Gardens neighborhood.
One last thing you can see the pool at the Loretta Ingram
center located west of the subject site.
Finally move on to the future land use map.
Surrounding area is designated regional mixed use one
hundred.
Properties to the south and west are designated residential

10.
Overall the Planning Commission staff found that the
proposed rezoning allows for additional residential housing
choices within the Westshore District.
Development also furthers numbers of policies regarding
urban design and redevelopment within the Westshore
District.
Based on all that Planning Commission staff finds rezoning
request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
10:39:50PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thank you, David.
This rezoning request is 1601 and 1701 north Lois and 4120
west Struhs is from PD, to PD, planned development
residential multi-family.
There are three waivers.
These waivers were previously granted under Z 0725.
They have not changed.
In fact, there were more waivers granted under Z 0725.
But this all we need now because of the modifications that
were made to plan and because of the Westshore overlay
district.
Those three are to allow for the reduction of required
parking from 875 to 645.
And that's called out from 240 to 80 for the affordable
senior housing portion of the site.
And from 128 to 62 for the, for guest park being.

The second is allow for reduction of minimum setback for
loading space, allow three foot setback.
Last is remove a hundred percent of the trees.
As you'll see, site is pretty clear.
Let me go ahead and show you that.
Here is the PD that was previously done.
You remember just a few, maybe two months ago we were right
over here at Spruce and Hubert.
There is a trend in this area of the city for multi-family
development.
Here's the site.
Now I got a little crazy and ripped my aerial.
Here's the site, as you can see.
Not too many trees, there's a couple little sprinkles down
toward the end.
That was previously approved for a hundred percent removal.
Give you just a couple quick views of the site.
This is from Spruce looking south at the site.
This is moving over just a little bit east, looking south.
Transworld building to the north.
An office building to the northwest.
Concord school to the southwest.
And as David showed you, there is a senior center just to
the east and then fleet and solid waste is also on Spruce
right there in close proximity.

The property was most recently rezoned in 2007 for 510
multi-family residential units, including 350 rental for
sale units and 160 affordable senior housing with structured
parking.
The proposed modifications to the western and northern
perimeter setback require consideration by City Council
through a rezoning, pursuant to section 273237 which I
talked a little about, substantial change criteria.
Existing western setback is approved at 15 feet.
The proposed setback will now comply with the Westshore
overlay with a minimum of ten, maximum of 20.
So we're able to shift the building up a little bit now on
both of those areas.
Proposed northern setback will also comply with the minimum
of ten, maximum of 20 the 6.85-acre site currently vacant
and surrounded by mix of uses.
Not listed on your staff report, but listed on the site plan
is a fourths waiver.
That waiver is no being lower required, so I'm asking that
that waiver be taken off in between first and second reading
an also natural resources is asking that the tree survey is
overlaid onto the site plan.
Other than that, staff did find the request consistent and
we're available for any questions.
10:43:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

Any questions of Councilmembers?
Petitioner?
10:43:52PM >> Good evening, Marilyn Healey, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard,
late evening.
I have been sworn.
Abbye as normal did a great job talking about the project.
We're very excited to be able to finally get our financing
to go through with the project.
We are only asking for the two setback waivers.
Both ironically put us in full compliance with the Westshore
overlay district.
So it's a win-win.
We have spoken to the Carver City Lincoln Gardens president,
Dr. Morris Harvey, and he's supporting this as well.
We have had no objections and I'd like your support for it
too.
We have our engineer and our planner and my client Phillip
Smith from NR Varela.
10:44:42PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone in the audience care to speak on
this item?
Yes, ma'am?
10:44:46PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
In addition to the revision sheet, I have
one notation that needs to be added into the site plan that
was agreed upon by Ms. Healey and transportation staff this
afternoon.

So let me find that.
10:44:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I want Ms. Healey to say yes for the
record.
10:45:06PM >> Marilyn Healey again.
Be are going to add the following note between first and
second.
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a
mitigation payment of $152,091 shall be paid to the
transportation division for improvements in the area.
Impact fee credit shall be granted in accordance with
chapter 25 of the City of Tampa code.
And we agree to that.
10:45:38PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
And do I have that in writing I submit to
the clerk.
10:45:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Do you need any time for rebuttal?
10:45:45PM >> No, sir.
10:45:48PM >> Move to close.
10:45:49PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close by Mr. Cohen, second by
Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number 13.
10:45:58PM >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I move an ordinance being presented for first reading

consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 1601 and 1701 North Lois Avenue and 4120 West
Spruce Street in the City of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1, from zoning district
classifications PD planned development, residential,
multi-family and retail to PD planned development,
residential multi-family, providing an effective date,
including the items referenced in the revision sheet as well
as the item that Ms. Feeley just submitted to the clerk and
Ms. Healey assented to on the record.
10:46:38PM >> Second.
10:46:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion on Mr. Cohen, second by
Mr. Discussion, all in favor of the motion, please indicate
by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you all very much for attending.
10:46:52PM >> Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be December 6th at
9:30 a.m.
10:47:01PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item 14, is case Z12-48.
This is located at 2204 Grant Street and 708 south 22nd
Street.
The request this evening is from CG, commercial general and
RS-50, residential single familiar had to PD, planned
development for residential single-family detached and

single-family attached.
10:47:38PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers, David Hay again with your
Planning Commission staff and I have been sworn.
Well, we are back in the central Tampa planning district.
The district provides the most opportunities for infill,
while also recognizing it's some of the city's most historic
neighborhoods, including the pimento beach neighborhood,
which this site falls within.
Next we move on to the aerial.
You can see the subject site in the center of the map.
See the large tanks, industrial uses associated with the
port of Tampa on the left or west side of the aerial.
We can see the mix of residential and commercial uses along
south 22nd Street.
To the east we see single-family detached residential uses
and McKay Bay.
Onto the future land use map, the subject site falls within
two future land use categories.
The eastern portion including property to the east of the
subject site are designated residential 10.
The western portion including properties lining south
22nd Street are designated community mixed use 35.
We move west and we run into Transitional Use-24 and then
the heavy industrial uses associated with the port on the
west side of the map.

Overall the Planning Commission staff found that the
proposed rezoning allows for additional residential housing
choices within the central Tampa planning district.
The applicant has designed the site to provide appropriate
transition and density between the intense uses along
22nd Street to the single-family detached residential
pattern along grant and Davis streets.
Based on all that, Planning Commission staff finds rezoning
request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
10:49:35PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
So this request is from commercial general
and RS-50.
I'll show you where that kind of the, to PD to do nine
residential units.
And what David just explained to you was, it has a split
land use, with CMU 35 that fronts on 22nd and then R-10,
which is adjacent and steps into the neighborhood.
That being said, they had -- what they're proposing is --
and it's two lots split by an alley.
So what they're proposing is three town homes and one
single-family on one lot and four town homes and one
single-family house on the other lot.
Sorry, it's approaching 11:00, I'm like losing it.
So the CG portion is this portion on the western part.
And the RS-50 portion is the portion on the eastern part.
22nd to the west, grant to the south, Davis to the

north.
You'll see there's CI, there's CG that runs the majority of
22nd, which is applicable to the CMU 35 land use
underneath.
David showed you the aerial.
I'm going to show you some pictures.
There's a lot of construction.
It appeared it was stormwater, I mean it was steady.
We were out there.
A large section of 22nd is closed and some pieces along
grant.
So, some of my pictures on this one are a little
discombobulated.
But I did the best I could do.
This was at grant and 22nd, so looking kind of
northeast.
This is actually from the alley looking back to the southern
parcel.
And I could not get down grant at all.
So I kind of took these shots from the alley looking back
because the road was closed.
And then I tried to come in from the other way, but as you
can see it was pretty much impassable.
So not good.
So this is from 22nd looking back north toward the site.

The site's on our right.
This is on the north side of Davis and 22nd.
So just to the north of the subject property.
And this is to the south.
So those are the commercial on 22nd.
This is on Davis, just to the east of the site.
This is still moving down Davis.
That CIP I showed you on the atlas comes pretty far back on
Davis.
In fact, past the property.
This is from the alley looking back toward 22nd.
I kind of zoomed in.
This is the south side of grant.
This is looking back that way.
This is from the alley looking on the north side of Davis,
where I just showed you that CI property.
So, when we looked at the property it originally came in
with two quadruplexes.
One on the northeast and one on the southeast.
Because of that split land use, we had to move the town
homes up to 22nd and put them in the CMU 35 and step
back into the single-family residential neighborhood by
putting a single-family detached house adjacent on the
eastern portion of the site in order to allow for that
compliance with the comprehensive plan.

This is the west side or the northwest corner of 22nd
and Davis.
Northern boundary of the site.
This is also the southwest of 22nd and Davis.
22nd is tore up.
Moving south.
This is the northwest corner of grant and 22nd.
And this is looking across on the western side of 22nd
on grant.
The southwest corner of grant.
You'll see very mixed kind of area there.
And I think this is north Davis, looking south toward the
site.
Those trees, Mary has been working with the applicant and
one of them is hazardous.
She's going to have removed.
But the other ones are going to be preserved through the
current design, which you'll see on your site plan.
So, the request for the north lot is, with setbacks will be
five foot north, five foot west, four feet east and 20-foot
south.
And that's where the retention pond will be.
For the northern lot, the access will be off of Davis.
For the south lot, it has a zero foot north, five foot west,
four foot west and two foot south.

And the access on that one will be both off the alley and
off of grant.
And the maximum building height is proposed at 40 feet.
Thereby some site plan modifications required from land
development, natural resources and transportation, as well
as a comment from stormwater.
Other than that, my analysis is on pages four and five.
Did I find the request consistent.
It will put the town homes on to 222nd.
Provide more urban field, infill, step it back into the
single-family.
That then is about two blocks long till you hit the water.
Staff is available for any questions.
10:55:28PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
10:55:30PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Sorry.
I don't want to take up too much time.
But because I love this little neighborhood and from looking
at your, the photographs you showed us, it just seems odd
that these three story kind of town homes in this little --
they're all small single-family homes.
It feels sort of out of character.
10:55:59PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I think -- it's hard to get this whole thing
up here, obviously.
I agree with you.
That's why -- but when you look at the character of

22nd, you wouldn't necessarily put a single-family home
on 22nd, given the commercial uses.
So, that is why we stacked the town homes toward 22nd,
they'll have their fronts there and they'll be rear loaded
garages.
And then stepped down with a single-family home next to the
other single-family home.
So it's going to be kind --
10:56:37PM >>MARY MULHERN:
Oh, part of this is a single-family home?
10:56:41PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yeah.
The north, the north lot you have three units and one
single-family house.
Which would be a single three story unit.
10:56:55PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Wait, we're not going to have a give and
take here.
He's going to have a shot right now.
10:57:01PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
So those will be one single, single unit.
10:57:11PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner, you want to come up?
I apologized, sir.
10:57:19PM >> David Vasquez, I have been sworn in.
125 south Arrawana.
Just add what the question was and what Abbye was commenting
on.
The flood elevation was so close to the water, it's 11 feet.
So it would look kind of silly if you propped up a house

another seven feet, eight feet and then put two stories on
it.
So mainly the bottom is just garage.
Not living space.
Because you got to build up so high.
Secondly, the reason the streets are all torn up is
thankfully we're getting new water mains.
They're replacing the city's replacing all of the water
mains going down 22nd and all of the laterals.
And new fire hydrants.
Which is great.
Because we'll get a new street there now too.
So it will look really nice.
What she couldn't see is, this is across the street on
Davis.
And basically, you know, when they moved all the traffic
over to the new 22nd Street, that commercial corridor
died.
And in fact, I can show you picture after picture.
This is grant and 22nd across the street.
You know, they're vacant.
Business there, you know, the you have a few struggling
convenience stores that are still in business.
This is 22nd and grant on the other side of the
property.

And basically, like I said, most of the businesses there
have shut down.
They're mostly vacant properties.
We love the neighborhood too.
In fact, I refer to it as Channelside east because when you
say Palmetto beach, nobody knows where it is.
You know, you tell people time after time, there's Palmetto
beach, you got to check it out.
Where's that?
But if I said Channelside east, oh, it's close to
Channelside?
And really, that's all we have.
We think it's going to be a great project there.
And revitalize that area.
10:59:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't know where West Tampa came from.
[ Laughter ]
10:59:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone in the audience care to speak on
this petition, item number 14?
Come forward.
Not all at one time.
[ Laughter ]
10:59:54PM >> Motion to close.
10:59:55PM >> I have motion to close by Mr. Suarez, seconded by
Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Suarez, will you kindly read number 14?
11:00:05PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
I present an ordinance for first reading consideration, an
ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2204
Grant Street and 708 south 22nd Street in the City of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly scribed in section 1
from zoning district classification CG commercial general
and RS-50 residential single-family to PD planned
development, residential, single-family detached and
single-family attached, providing an effective date and
including the revision sheet Z12-48 as presented by staff.
11:00:40PM >> Second.
11:00:40PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Suarez, I have a
second by Mr. Reddick.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you all very much for attending.
11:00:51PM >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously with Capin being
absent at vote.
Second reading and adoption will be on December 6
at 9:30 a.m.
11:00:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you all very much.

We go to item number 15.
11:01:59PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Okay, this is item 15, Z12-53 located at
4010 and 4100 Boy Scout Boulevard.
To many of you, this is known as the met west project.
This was rezoned back in 2007 for a mixed use development
office, commercial, multi-family, residential and hotel.
And they are here this evening to add a few uses that were
not contemplated back in 2007 when the plan was originally
done and entitled for this property.
As you may know, pursuant to 27323, substantial change you
cannot add a use to a PD that was not previously approved by
City Council.
Which is what brings us here this evening.
In addition to that, they are adding some minimal square
footages to the site as well, while we are rezoning to add
the uses.
And I'll go ahead and let David complete his brief
presentation and then I'll complete my very brief
presentation.
11:03:10PM >> Good evening, Councilmembers.
David Hay for one last time from the planning city
commission staff and I have been sworn.
While we end the night over in Westshore Planning District,
the subject site is located within the Westshore Business
District and the mixed use urban village as defined by the

comprehensive plan.
Next we're on to the aerial.
You can see the subject site in the center of the map, Tampa
International Airport is directly to the north.
We have International Plaza to the west.
We have the International Drive apartments to the south and
we can see the Dale Mabry corridor on the east side of the
aerial.
Finally, we have the future land use map.
The site falls within the regional mixed use one hundred
future land use category, which is one of the most intensive
land use categories in the city.
Planning Commission staff found proposed rezoning would
allow for additional uses that are in keeping with the high
intensify urban district envisioned under the regional mixed
use one hundred future land use category.
And based on all that, the Planning Commission staff finds
the request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
11:04:23PM >>ABBYE FEELEY:
As I mentioned, this was rezoned in 2007 for
met west.
Included a million 42,650 square feet of office, 74,342
square feet of retail restaurant, 270 hotel rooms and 254
residential units.
The subject application seeks to add alternative uses to the
development to meet current needs and allow flexibility for

the future.
The proposed uses are equivalent to commercial general type
uses and are indicated below.
In addition to the inclusion of alternative uses, the
application seeks to increase overall uses on the site by
35,000 square feet or 2.2% from what was previously
approved.
The applicant came in to us looking to do what we would
consider a recreational facility commercial, a gym, or a gym
type, it's called the barre method.
Gloria thought it was a bar, so it was okay.
I said no, it's not a bar.
It's actually a personal fitness facility.
So, that required us to come back.
They've added some other uses on the use table.
Including office, centrally restaurant, hotel residential.
They added clinic, club, college, day care, public cultural
facility, a school, including university, vocational,
business and trade, bar, lounge, bowling alley, appliance
and equipment repair, bank, catering shop, laboratory, the
microbrewery, these would all be elective uses that could be
there.
Main of you are familiar with met west.
And I know the hour being late, I do want to show you some
pictures though.

The development is really coming along.
And they're just finishing up other office tower here,
additional office tower.
Met west is the home to Kona grill.
And also Texas De Brazil if you haven't eaten dinner yet.
Some of the older traditional pieces of the development.
They just finished another one of their garages back off of
Grady.
So it's continuing to be developed.
I don't know if you remember, if you were sitting on
Council, did this church addition.
Saw they had constructed this.
Close to proximity to Selmon, International Plaza.
This is the eastern side of that Main Street.
Hopefully one day the other side of that will get built so
that when drive in, there will actually be retail on both
sides.
This is also in proximity to the without walls.
There's another little piece shot of that.
Shot back at the new, I guess that's Price Waterhouse
Coopers building.
I think what we're finding and you may see another few in
the next coming months, some of these big TDs done back in
'06 and '07, they entitled and had thoughts of what uses
would go in there.

Many uses are now changing in reflection of the markets.
Staff did find the request consistent.
There are no modifications required in between first and sec
reading and we're available for any questions.
11:07:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Petitioner?
11:07:44PM >> Good evening.
My name is Elizabeth Abernathy, a planner at Wilson Miller
stand tech, 2205 north 20th street in Tampa.
I have been sworn.
I have been fortunate to have worked on this project since
2006.
The previous zoning was CI way allowed for a variety of
commercial uses.
We needed to do the PD in order to exceed the 45-foot height
limit so they could build 11 story office towers.
At that time, the retail area was envisioned to be a mix of
uses on the PD, we specified retail, office, hotel,
multi-family.
When the tenants came in to finish out one of the retail
spaces for a boutique fitness studio, it was determined by
staff that take was not considered retail, but that is a
commercial recreation facility and because that was not
specifically called out on the PD, we needed to come back
before you to get that as an approved use.

And really that retail area, we always envisioned that there
would be a mix of tenants that would support the office and
support the multi-family on the site and the office area.
So this is a use that supports those office workers.
It is a fitness studio that will, caters to the adult market
in the area.
Sorry, it's late.
I'm stuttering a bit.
We always wanted to have flexibility for somebody else
wanted to come in and do a hair salon or day spa or a medal
office, that we would have that flexibility.
It is a large site.
A lot of internal capture.
Plenty of parking.
And we're here before to you request that, those additional
uses.
11:09:32PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you.
Anyone in the audience care to speak on this subject matter?
11:09:42PM >> No.
11:09:44PM >> The tenant, Jean Dupay.
And Ken dwelling with Taylor Mathis with me here today if
you have any questions specific to those.
11:09:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by
Ms. Montelione.

All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Want to read it, Ms. Montelione?
11:10:14PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sure.
To cap off the night.
I move -- whoops.
I move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 4010 and 4100 Boy Scout Boulevard in the City of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1,
from zoning district classifications PD planned development,
mixed use, office, retail, hotel and residential, to PD,
planned development, mixed use, office, commercial,
multi-family residential and hotel, providing an effective
date.
11:10:49PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Ms. Montelione, I have
a second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
[ Applause ]
11:11:00PM >> Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on December 6 at 9:30
a.m.
11:11:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Information reports.

We go from right to left.
Mr. Suarez?
11:11:14PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
None.
11:11:15PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
11:11:17PM >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, I have three motions.
They all pertain to the same place, but they're different
dates.
I'd like to present a commendation to the housing, Tampa
housing authority and it will be presented at their
groundbreaking ceremony trio at Encore December the 4th.
Would you like me to make all these motions together even
though they're different dates?
Trio at Encore groundbreaking ceremony, Tuesday,
December 4th being presented at the ceremony.
Ella at Encore ribbon cutting ceremony, Wednesday,
December 12th and Reed at Encore groundbreaking ceremony,
Tuesday December 18th.
11:12:03PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms. Capin, second by
Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed I nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Anything else?
Mr. Reddick?
11:12:17PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
No.

11:12:17PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
11:12:18PM >>MARY MULHERN:
No.
11:12:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Cohen?
11:12:20PM >>HARRY COHEN:
No, sir.
11:12:21PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Montelione?
11:12:23PM >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'd like to make a motion to present a
commendation to Spencer task for his, joining and elite
group of Tampa electric customers that produces more energy
than it uses.
Last year, Mr. Cass became one of the first of Tampa
electric's customers to get a rebate, enabling him to
retrofit with solar the building where his companies have
operated for the past 10 years.
He now has a bill from TECO that is one big zero.
So it is a tremendous feat and I know that he has been
committed to running a sustainable office for many years.
And I congratulate him.
I know it's been a long road.
11:13:09PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Ms. Montelione, second
by Ms. Mulhern.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
I need a motion to receive and file.

11:13:20PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, second by
Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nigh.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Anyone in the audience care to come up?
None of you?
Okay.
We stand 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.