Tampa City Council

Thursday, December 14, 2017

6:00 p.m. Session



DISCLAIMER:

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




06:06:17 >> YVONNE CAPIN:
Good evening.

I call this meeting to order.

Clerk.

06:06:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.

06:06:23 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.

06:06:23 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.

06:06:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.

06:06:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.

06:06:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Here.

Present.

On the agenda, there is one item.

06:06:36 >> Move to open the public hearings 1 through 12.

06:06:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Cohen.

Second by Councilman Miranda.




All in favor?

Opposed?

All right.

They are open.

06:06:47 >> Move to remove them number 8 from the agenda.

06:06:51 >> Moved by Councilman Cohen to be remove number 8.

Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you.

All right.

Items 1 through 12.

If you are planning to speak on those items, please stand

and be sworn.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

06:07:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Okay.

We move on to -- yes, thank you.

Mrs. Feeley.

06:07:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

Item number 1 on your agenda this evening is REZ 17-43.

It is located at 505, 507 and 509 South Dakota Avenue.

This is a continued public hearing from September 14th.

The request before you this evening is from res 50 to PD

residential, single-family, semi-detached and shared




parking.

There is one waiver being requested, and that is to reduce

the building side yard separation from 14 feet to 10.5 feet

for the main structural wall, and 6.5 feet for the chimney.

And I will discuss that with you further in just a few

moments.

06:08:21 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn.

We start the evening out in the central Tampa planning

district.

It's one of our three targeted growth areas in the city.

There is transit located approximately 2,400 feet to the

northeast of the subject site on West Platt.

That's served by Hart route 19.

It is no level C vehicles zone, and the closest recreational

facility is Hyde Parks which is approximately 1,800 feet to

the southwest of the subject site.

Onto the aerial.

The subject site right here in the center.

Dakota. You have the Crosstown, Selmon expressway to the

west.

Across you can see the post Hyde Park apartments.

To the south, this is Hyde Park village.

Goody Goody on the corner there.

To the south, there is multifamily, and single-family




detached, town home.

This detached single-family residential unit to the east.

And then to the north is an office use, CI and multifamily

uses further to the north.

Onto the future land use map, you can see the subject site

again in the center.

The subject site and the properties all within that block

are residential 10.

To the south, you get into some residential 35.

And then you have got some CMU 35 in the village.

You have got some recreation open space with green.

And then the red is community commercial 35.

And then the post Hyde Park apartments across the Selmon are

REZ 6.

The applicant is seeking approval through the rezoning

petition to rezone approximately 10.45-acre site to planned

development to allow for the development of four

single-family semi-detached residential units and for a

shared parking area to serve both the residential uses and

the adjacent commercial uses under common ownership.

With conditions ensuring the shared nature of the parking

area committed in the site plan, and due to its limited

size, Planning Commission staff has determined that the

portion containing the parking area can be counted towards

residential acreage, thus allowing consideration of four




residential units on-site.

The proposed planned development provides for appropriate

in-fill redevelopment within the area of the city that

currently contains a mixture of housing types and uses.

The planned development is adjacent to single-family

detached and residential units while multifamily residential

is located in proximity to the north.

Also a number of office uses are located within the

surrounding area, and old Hyde Park village approximately

600 feet south of the subject site.

In keeping with comprehensive plan policy guidance,

residential units are already in South Dakota Avenue with

vehicular access via the adjacent public alley toward the

rear.

Overall the proposed planned development provides an

opportunity for additional housing choices within an area

within proximity to transit and commercial uses, and based

on those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the

proposed planned development consistent with the provisions

of the Imagine 2040 Tampa comprehensive plan.

That's my presentation.

06:12:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

06:12:10 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land development coordination.

As David stated, the request is tonight to allow for four

residential dwellings, two semi-detached buildings, with two




units apiece, and I'll put the site plan up for you.

One item I did want to mention, David's presentation, he

mentioned that the land area of the parking to be counted

toward the density.

Recently, we had transmittal of planned amendment to allow

this occur without consideration of the area, and the

density would be compliant.

So this came in a while ago back in April and it taken some

time to get before you tonight, but I did want to make a

point of clarification on that item.

The request before you tonight on that is currently RS-50 to

go to PD for the residential single-family semi-detached,

and that shared parking area that's shown there, that's

adjacent to the commercial property just to the north.

As David mentioned, the units are oriented to South Dakota

Avenue with vehicle entry off of the alley, along the west.

The proposed setbacks are as follows: Front on the east, 20

feet to the main structure, 12-foot tote porch, 18-foot to

the architectural gate, rear west, 20 feet to the 2-car

garage entry corner south 5 feet and side north 19 feet.

Proposed height is 37 feet.

A total of 9 parking spaces are required.

That's two spaces per unit and one guest space and a total

of 20 spaces are being provided through the accommodation of

the two-car garages and 12 surface spaces.




Each unit is proposed to the 2 car garage and 2-car parking

pad.

The property is surrounded by commercial and residential

uses to the north.

Existing office building and multifamily residential,

commercial to the west, across the alley and residential to

the east across South Dakota Avenue.

And south single-family attached and multifamily.

I will go ahead and show you some pictures of the site.

The zoning atlas.

Here is the zoning atlas.

The site is shown in green.

So we are onto the south.

Dakota to the east.

The Crosstown expressway to the west.

You will see there is a mix of zoning categories within the

immediate area.

The large PD to the south is Hyde Park village.

The PD to the northeast was the bakery conversion years ago.

Also, there is a PD directly across the street for

single-family detached residential.

And RM-24 immediately to the south across the street from

the subject property which does allow for consideration of

semi-detached and attached and multifamily residential.

So it allows for consideration of all housing types




immediately in the vicinity of the subject property.

I will go ahead and show you an aerial of the property.

As David mentioned to you, there is an office building to

the north, office building to the west as well,

single-family residential.

You can see the platted lots, the single-family attached,

town home style immediately to the south.

That's six units in a row there.

And to the southwest, and then along the east side of South

Dakota Avenue, there is a single-family detached unit as

well.

I will acknowledge when I show you the subject property, the

Crosstown in the back.

There looking north.

This is moving east onto DeLeon towards Dakota.

This is now approaching -- this is the subject property.

So the alley would be off to the west here and the subject

property.

This is approaching the subject at the corner of DeLeon

and Dakota.

This is now Dakota looking west and moving north.

This is the subject property as well.

Approaching the commercial.

This piece right here is parking.

That's within a residential section.




That was a special use that was granted for parking to be

allowed on this property.

And then this is the commercial property immediately to the

north.

This is looking down Horatio towards the Crosstown.

This is the north side of Horatio.

Now coming back down Dakota, this is directly across from

the commercial piece.

This is right here at the corner, and now I am going to

bring you down the street on the east side.

And then to the south across from the subject, the

single-family.

Then a little further down, there is another single-family

semi-detached type of structure dwelling on Dakota as well.

Staff had some modifications that needed to be made to the

application site plan in between first and second reading.

That included some corrections to the setbacks, the title

block, the site data, and then in the general note, that

note number 16 be corrected to indicate that the 12 proposed

parking stalls located on the northern side of the subject

lot are for shared use by the commercial office use to the

north, which is under common ownership with the subject

zoning law.

They shall be clearly marked signs for residential, visitor

parking only, and shared use of the parking stalls shall




comply with 27-132, special use criteria for parking

off-street commercial.

Natural resources has some modifications in relation to the

southwest corner which requires a minimum radius of 10 feet.

The queen balms that are not protected.

The tree tables need to be removed and adjusted and there

are two hazardous grand trees removed on site under permit

TRE 170441235, and mitigation trees will be required.

Lastly, transportation had a modification related to a note

for a utility or right-of-way work and stormwater needed

them to add a note that the stormwater would be accommodated

in an underground vault.

Staff's findings in relation to the application can be found

on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the staff report.

And we did find it consistent with City of Tampa Land

Development Code.

[Rustling papers]

06:20:11 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Petitioner?

06:20:20 >>TRUETT GARDNER:
400 North Ashley Drive.

I have the pleasure of representing Nancy Turner.

She's a life-long resident of Tampa, and a lifetime friend

of mine and my family, and I'm honored to represent her.

This is a project for her that I think you will see coming

across and also with us are Joe hacker, project architect,




as well as Mark Sullivan, the project engineer.

And just -- and Abbye did a great job going over the

request, but it really about two things.

One is the request first of all is for single-family

unattached units which are still single-family, not

multifamily, but as opposed to them being detached, there's

a party wall, and in this situation there's basically two

units connected by party wall, and then another unit

connected by party wall reflected in the site plan.

We feel this is appropriate.

Both David and Abbye touched on some of these point.

But just to go over them one more time.

There are just some very unique aspects to this property.

Just to orient you.

This is swan on the south here.

The Crosstown expressway here.

Then this is the old bread factory, now the Seybold Lofts,

this is Dakota.

Nancy's holdings, which she's assembled over time,

basically, or actually do occupy this entire block here.

And so the situations are totally unique to this property

are, one, it abut the Crosstown, where you have transition

from the Crosstown to the neighborhood at large.

Two, she has CI zoning with an office building on the north

which is here, as well as RO-1 zoning, the commercial zoning




as well on the west side here.

Then when you look both to the south as well as to the

north, she's sandwiched between the Valencia, which is a

six-story mid rise condominium development, and then all of

this property from the Crosstown heading east, and from

Horatio heading north is the old bread factory, now the

Seybold Lofts.

I haven't done the math on this but I would venture to guess

it would probably be the most dense and intense development,

multifamily development in Hyde Park, and then lastly, just

to give you a flavor of the neighborhood, outside of your

screen here -- but everything you see in purple -- and again

this is Swann starting here going north, and it's basically

just north of the people, and everything in purple is

multifamily.

That's the flavor of the neighborhood.

Again we are not asking for multifamily.

We are single-family attached but I thought that was

important just to show what's around there.

And then the second part of this request is this parking

lot, and the whole idea was -- and Nancy can elaborate more

on it -- borne out of the complaints that you have received

on on-street parking, the elimination of 1543 in the code.

And so what Nancy wanted to do or wants to do is this.

Abbye showed you the picture of the existing parking lot.




That was approved as a special use.

Currently you already have this curb cut.

You already have this drive aisle.

You already have spaces on the east.

What she would like to do is add the 12 spaces.

They will be buffered from the street, heavily -- backyard

landscaping.

One of them is a guest space for the four units.

The other eleven are commercial office here, the RO 1 piece

over here, and she can remove that pressure from the street,

and maximize the off-street parking for others.

So those in a nutshell are the two requests.

There's nothing different.

There's nothing more.

The only other thing I would add, there is one waiver, and

that is, none of the setbacks for the neighborhood, but

solely the setback in between these two buildings here,

required at 14, and she provided 10.5.

So she is three and a half feet away from.

That but again that's internal.

With that I will turn things over to Nancy.

And then I believe Joe wants to speak to the development as

well.

06:25:52 >> Nancy Turner, 205 Davis Island.

This is the lot, taken about 15 years ago.




But peoples is over here.

And this lot goes here.

This was a building that I bought 30 years ago, and right as

I bought it, it was in front of City Council being changed

to ROY because you and 30 years ago no one want to live next

to the Crosstown.

And this is what is there now.

You have already seen one picture of that.

As you come around the -- this is parking, equipment.

And then over here is the 501 Dakota, CI office building.

This is one at the end, that's what it looked lake to begin

with.

And this is what ifs today.

This is what it looked lake to begin with.

You can see the building right here.

There's a woman that rented there, she had 13 boys.

Apparently the boys would go in and out of that building.

I forgot to mention there were prostitutes next to the

vagrant town to begin with.

And then this is the side view of 501 Dakota.

This is what it looked like.

This is what it looks like now.

This is 505 Dakota.

Frances, one of my dear friends, she died about 15 years ago

and nobody lived in that house at that time and you can see




a light came on in the back.

And we were scared to death it would burst into flames.

There's a vacant lot next door an architect owned for 24

years.

But what I want to do is build them like I think all houses

need to be built now, living in great houses that you can

live in them all your life, and you get carried out feet

first, and having a full bedroom, elevator, door 36 inches

wide so you can get through with a walker or wheelchair,

backing behind all the bathrooms that you can put in grab

bars.

And I'll be carried out feet first out of one of those.

06:28:52 >> Joe Hafner, architects.

We have an office at Swann for 51 years and we have been

part of the Hyde Park long before it was a historic

district.

When Nancy first came to us to design a project for us, she

was very determined to make it an upscale development that

was historical style of the neighborhood.

And we designed Georgia style buildings, I'm sure we will

get some pictures up here.

And that was the intent from the start.

Instead of doing the traditional townhouses that you find

scattered throughout Hyde Park she wanted to do something a

little better so came with the detached single-family homes




where there would only be four units, where technically if

we wanted to push the box maybe could have squeezed five in

there.

But we wanted to go with four so we could have windows all

around both units and make it more residential in

appearance.

The project is designed to RS-50 single-family setbacks in

terms of front yard, side yards, backyard, height

requirement.

The only place we have asked for a little waiver is for the

very high point of the bridge, on the two-story roof section

so you don't very much to flatten it off.

It's far enough away from any property line.

It pretty much irrelevant to any neighborhoods neighborhood.

And we are available for comment to answer any questions

later.

Thank you.

06:30:50 >> 400 north Ashley drive.

I just wanted to conclude with with Nancy, this has been a

labor of love for her for 30 years.

Everything she's bought she's improved.

This is a legacy project for her.

Its really the last piece.

And as you can see, I don't think Nancy is capable of dying,

I don't think she's ever going to, but this is where she




wants to be and not only a legacy project for her but others

as well.

And there were two findings in the staff report that I

thought were just right on point.

And I wanted to really speak to the appropriateness.

Really one in particular which is directly from the

comprehensive plan, land use policy 9. approximate 3.5,

which states, generally the location of single-family

unattached houses what we are requesting shall be limited to

the periphery of established single-family detached

neighborhoods.

However, single-family unattached housing may be considered

if it can be demonstrated they can be integrated with

single-family detached residential uses by mitigating their

negative impact.

So what that's saying in a nutshell is you can't have

single-family attached within a neighborhood, but where it's

definitely appropriate on the periphery of the neighborhood

which when you look at the location of the Crosstown, this

neighborhood itself, the plat, everything indicates it's on

the periphery.

And I think this policy speaks to -- this is dead on point,

appropriate for the location.

Then secondly, this is from land development.

The correct area for a PD.




This is one that was most germane to this project.

Promote and encourage development where appropriate in

location, character and compatibility with the surrounding

impacted neighborhood.

And located just east of the Crosstown expressway, one block

north of Hyde Park village.

The property is surrounded by mix of uses including

residential single-family, residential multifamily,

residential single-family attached, and commercial.

The property is not within the Hyde Park urban village

boundary or the Hyde Park historic district.

The proposed design is consistent with the character of the

surrounding area and will provide a compatible in-fill for

redevelopment of the residential lot with the surrounding

area.

I think those two really speak to exactly what we are

requesting.

And with that we are happy to answer any questions.

06:33:29 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.

One question.

Can you explain again the concept with the parking lot?

My understanding of what's said is basically that these

residences and the commercial building are going to share a

lot?

Is that the vision of how it's going to be --




06:33:50 >> Correct.

Just to be clear, with the exception --

06:33:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
And what's there now?

06:34:00 >>TRUETT GARDNER:
You see I have highlighted the green area.

Everything east of that is currently there.

So the ingress-egress point is there.

This drive aisle is there.

These parking spaces along the east are there.

This is Nancy's commercial office building here.

And as you know, with these developments, you have got to

provide a .25 spaces for visitors.

So the only thing that's required is we indicated right here

one guest space.

So there are 12 total in this row.

One is for guests, which satisfies code.

We use 11.

Those 11 will be utilized by tenants at the office building

here, as well as any guests that come to visit here, and so

with the point being -- and I believe, also, the office

building to the west of this, that you can allow those

people to use this lot as well.

Any people of that would have been parking on the street,

Nancy will direct to park in this lot.

Does that answer the question?

06:35:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Any questions for petitioner?




Okay.

Anyone in the public wish to address us on item file number

REZ 17-473?

If you do, please come up now.

Come on up, sir.

Yes, sir.

06:35:38 >> Okay.

Good evening.

My name is [Coughing] on behalf of Spanish town creek.

Our new neighborhood association in that area is the

boundary is the ratio. So the bakery project is part of our

community association.

Our new association on the west side down to the Bayshore

with Platt sort of our Main Street there.

On the Spanish town creek, we object to the rebuilding to

allow the parking lot, and the entrance on Dakota.

We perceive Dakota as residential.

And we perceive the parking lot as a nonresidential

intrusion.

Added now to ensure future commercial and office development

near the Crosstown on the vacant property currently owned by

the applicant.

We come to the interest of the single-family homeowners who

now live on Dakota.

Thank you.




06:36:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Next.

06:37:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Willis has three names.

George Deacon.

Barbara deacon.

Patricia Summerville.

Thank you.

Three additional minutes. A total of five. Six.

06:37:08 >> Good evening.

Bryan Willis, 608 South Orleans.

I want to start with a map of our district.

Mr. Gardner put up a map that was north of Swann, and one of

the recurring thoughts -- and I lived a couple blocks away

from this house of the project now.

It's funny.

I'm north of Swann, and I always say I had to go south of

Kennedy to realize that I still live north of Swann.

It's really true here.

And I can't believe we are having a debate about a parking

lot in a predominantly residential neighborhood.

And you asked, Mr. Cohen, what was there.

That 12 feet or 15 feet of parking lot, six or eight months

ago was a single-family home.

What at the beginning of the year was a single-family home.

And what I put up on the projector is a map that I prepared




of the current land use, and everything in green is within

one block of multifamily.

So this is actually the second time we have come to you and

we have been facing this argument, well, my project is close

to multifamily. Everything in my neighborhood is close to

multifamily.

So the council is saying proximity to multifamily or

proximity to the Crosstown is grounds for rezoning to

duplexes, multifamily, then you are saying that all of the

single-family in our neighborhood is open to rezoning.

And I also looked at this, and you can see here is Swann

Avenue.

These are all single-family homes along the Crosstown.

So the idea that nobody wants to own a single-family home

next to the Crosstown or adjacent to the Crosstown is crazy.

These homes next to the Crosstown are selling for 500, 600,

$700,000 and more.

And there's no demonstrated perfect where these couldn't be

single-family.

What's frustrating on the parking lot elementary, the shared

parking, and I appreciate her saying that it's commercial,

but it's clearly been commercial the whole time.

There is one lot, one lot or one spot that is going to be

used for parking for visitor spot.

The only reason you need that spot, and the only reason you




can't use the driveway, because these are four double wide

garages.

Normally, you would be able to credit the parking space on

the driveway, additional parking.

Because of the size of the structure, it's so big, it's so

close to the alley that you can't get the parking

requirements on-site like both sets of properties would.

And so if you go to the parking, the parking is really

unnecessary.

It's really to serve both the large size duplexes as well as

the commercial parking lot.

I watched the pictures that the applicant put up, and what I

saw through the context of this from the neighborhood

association standpoint is two single-family homes on this

block, and she's expanded over the past 20 years the

commercial use on this block.

The commercial building that's there now, much bigger than

the commercial building she started with.

And so we have a pattern of the applicant in this area

expanding the commercial use and shrinking single-family

residential use.

And that shouldn't be allowed to continue.

These properties can be used as single-family.

One of the single-family homes across the street recently

sold for $700,000.




There's no economic hardship in developing these and using

them as single-family.

One of the other concerns we have that deals with the

parking lot is the original approval which I am showing

done. This was in 1975 which was an elementary school then.

There's supposed to be a buffer.

It was supposed to run along the entire buffer because right

here, where my finger is, was the single-family residential

home that's now been demolished.

That is not there and never been there for years.

And so again, consistent with the pattern of taking away

residential in this area,

And making it more commercial.

We wouldn't be talking about demolishing a single-family

home to turn it into a parking lot, and I'm shocked that we

are talking about it here.

I also want to touch on the size of the duplexes.

Together these structures are 14,600 square feet.

14,600 square feet for two units.

Each one of these units alone is bigger than all of the

single-family on the block.

These are huge.

They are 37 feet high.

There is a waiver being sought for the size, and it's two

identical structures, 14,000 square feet total.




There's simply no reason for them to be this big.

They are really McDuplexes, McMansions. I don't think

how you can have a 2-story building 37 feet high.

I looked at mine which was recently renovated and my two

story house is 25 feet high.

We have ten foot ceilings.

So I don't think in addition to all of the issues with the

parking the scale of these buildings alone, it doesn't fit

with the rest of the neighborhood.

There are some issues.

There are some issues.

There have been some issues by this developer with the

adjacent owned property.

We have had to call code enforcement because -- and I sent a

letter that shows the investigation for the single-family

home.

And I want to show this for argument about parking.

(Bell sounds).

06:43:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

06:43:24 >> There's simply no need for parking at these office

spaces.

The offices have enough already.

06:43:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

06:43:29 >> Thank you all.

06:43:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Next.




06:43:32 >> Thank you for letting me speak.

My name is Suzanna Grady and I have lived in Hyde Park for

more years than many of you in this room have been alive.

I moved there in the early 50s, and I lived on south

Delaware, south of Swann for just short of 50 years after

living on South Dakota, and I now reside for the last year

at 1303 west DeLeon.

I have lived through changes in Hyde Park when I moved there

I was told how can you move there?

You will be raped in that neighborhood. Houses were being

subdivided and multiple family units. The neighborhood was

in a horrible decline, and over the years, many people,

including myself, have worked very hard to bring changes to

the neighborhood and improve it.

If you drive south of Swann now, you can barely get your car

through.

The parking is abysmal.

However, I appreciate what Nancy is trying to do because

she's trying to take the cars off the street and provide

some parking.

I appreciate that she is trying to create a buffer.

It is within the keeping of the guidelines.

She is out of the architectural review district.

She will be doing a great service to our community and

providing all that's needed in the parking and for the




offices that are there.

There is a lot of building that is going on.

And a lot of it is not appreciated.

There are huge high-rises going on.

Bayshore Boulevard.

There are more high-rises proposed in old Hyde Park village.

And the building is incredible.

But she is not impinging on the life that we enjoy.

She is improving the life.

And as a long-time resident I speak on my husband Tony and

myself, and we are very much in support of what Nancy is

endeavoring to do and hope that you will see her way to

approving the zoning.

Thank you.

06:45:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Next, please.

06:45:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Four names, five names.

Cynthia?

Beverly Hanley?

Kenneth Eldridge.

Christine Marcy.

Paul -- okay, got you.

Okay.

Five additional minutes for a total of --

06:46:23 >> Thank you.




My name is Dr. Patrick Chamino, 604 south Oregon Avenue.

I have a passion for historic preservation.

Long family history in Tampa.

I have lived in Hyde Park for 26 years overspending on my

third house.

I want to start with a brief story.

In the past, I recruited, I have done hundreds of

interviews, and some would ask me questions about the

historic areas and they say things like, you know, I love

the historic homes but right around the corner there's a

duplex.

Now I am looking at right around the corner a huge duplex.

I would like to address three relevant areas to this

proposal.

What does it mean to live in a historic neighborhood?

How have the historic neighborhoods in Tampa been marginal

sized?

Why do these past marginalizing decisions continue to be

used to justify more negative impacts?

And thirdly, and I don't mean to be offensive, but what is

Tampa's plan?

I'm saying that as an honest taxpayer.

So what does it mean to live in a historic district?

Hyde Park was developed as predominantly single-family

homes.




This is the character most people find so appealing.

Tree lined streets, sidewalks, hallmarks of this appeal.

There's a large representation of renowned bungalows and

craftsman homes.

The front porches welcome people into the neighborhood.

As they are -- ARC describes in its guidelines, the items

that contribute to the historic character of a neighborhood,

I think they say historic district, but I live in a

neighborhood.

I don't live in a district.

The scale, the height, the massing, the building form, the

design, the setback, proportionality.

That's why we want to live there.

Those are the characteristics.

That's why we overspend.

So this is really the more important part of what I want.

Why have so many historic areas been systematically

marginalized?

Hyde Park suffered like many other areas from neglect, poor

planning, lack of code enforcement, detrimental

transportation decisions, and these decisions seem to

perpetuate themselves.

Take the Crosstown.

It had a very negative impact on the area, just like I-4 did

in Ybor City.




And now that is being used to justify further imagine

naturalization of our historic district.

While it's exciting to see the village coming back, the

village resulted in the destruction of 50 historic homes,

and it's great it's come back but it had many years of low

occupancy.

There's been a lot of floods there.

That kind of change has not all been positive.

Of course, we support it now.

It exists.

I lived 25 years south of Swann.

Actually, I was Susan's neighbor and had concerns about

moving north.

On one side of my new street there are single-family homes,

some like mine undergoing improvement.

Across the street are three houses, and four lots with 20

town homes.

My view of the four townhomes is bare walls.

Absolutely no relevance to the historic district or historic

neighborhood.

But I accept that.

I knew that when I bought the house, and that's not going to

change.

But why would the neighborhood want more of this type of

inappropriate building when we are trying to preserve the




historic character which includes both aesthetic and

monetary value?

In-fill like this proposal undermines this desire to

preserve.

If I lived in of a deed restricted community, this wouldn't

even be a discussion.

Single-family -- or residential lots, residential lot and

that's that for single-family homes.

And there are principles of preservation.

You all heard them and it should apply to a historic

neighborhood.

The neighbors across from the proposal, we have already

heard mention of this, single-family homes, and that use is

quite viable in our area.

There are good examples of compatible homes that have been

built in the last ten years.

And I think that we don't compromise with other in-fill with

this.

The proposed site coverage, Bryan already mentioned, which I

do think 15,000 square feet compared to what was a maximum

8,000 square feet really changes the character of the

neighborhood, especially the people across the street but

all of us.

There's not one historic area in Tampa that has not been

significantly marginalized.




I was in grade school at our lady of perpetual health in

Ybor City was decimated.

Now, there were lots of problems there.

There was a historical sometimes racist and bigoted

Department of Transportation decisions to go through the

area, but I witnessed that, and there was more to Ybor City

than -- like Hyde Park, had a lot of dilapidation that was

destroyed.

So recently, an RS-50 lot on my block sold for nearly half a

million dollars.

There was a vibrant market for lots like the ones on Dakota

with current zoning use of single-family homes.

The proposal described is not consistent with reasonable

historic guidelines that support the character that makes

the area appealing.

I had never heard anyone say they find Hyde Park charming

because of multifamily in-fill.

If somebody hears that let me know but I don't think that's

what the charm of the area is.

The marginalization negative impacts those of us preserving

the historic homes and investing significantly in the

neighborhood.

It compromises Hyde Park as one of Tampa's gems.

So I have to say, and I don't want to be offensive, but I

have a lot of concerns about the planning.




I think there's a lot of lack of attention to

transportation, parking, drainage and utilities for new

development.

I guess one thing I can say, Houston is not alone.

One can look at the Tampa -- I will characterize, I have

heard this before, hodgepodge and conclude that sometimes

there's not meaningful planning.

And right now we are sitting at a time, there's no

transportation plan.

They have cut public transportation fund.

There used to be a bus line on Howard that a lot of the

people going to the village who worked there would take on

Swann is gone, there's one on Howard that's gone.

So transportation is receding, it's not expanding.

And there's no parking plan.

I know there's one in the parks but there's not one in hand.

And parking is a problem.

And I don't think creating commercial parking for more

density is going to be the solution.

(Bell sounds)

So, in summary, this proposal is not in character with the

historic neighborhood and mass scale density, et cetera.

The project perpetuates marginalization in a historic area.

Tampa has really no plans for supporting more and more

density.




As a homeowner, I want to see that.

So I strongly urge you to oppose this proposal.

Thank you.

06:54:23 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much.

Next.

06:54:30 >> Good evening.

My name is Trevor Money, and my wife and I live at 607 South

Dakota Avenue.

Approximately 200 yards south of the proposed site.

To be frank tonight, my wife and I are against this proposed

development for the simple reason the precedent we fear it

will set and that precedent is the destruction of a

historical home replaced by commercially zoned parking lots

and duplexes or what appear to be duplexes.

I we at the airplane about five years ago.

My wife and I fell in love with the Hyde Park concept.

We bought a historic bungalow on South Dakota, and we

appreciated the urban development north of Swann.

We plan to raise a family here.

So, therefore, I'm a little angry, a little confused being

new to the area to see another historic bungalow, 505, very

few homes torn down, actually left to rot, not torn down.

Now I understand this preexisting structure technically not

in the historic guidelines but the rurals are different.

However, personally, it doesn't seem like things add up or




really make sense that when homes south is local historic

line don't do to architectural review to make improvements

and above the street historical home of equal historic value

can be left to rot and torn down without any apparent review

or attempt to salvage.

That said that historic home is gone, and I understand that.

But to turn around and replace it with what appeared to be

duplexes, and rezone portions of the immediate area of the

commercial zoning, seems completely contrary to what the

city stands for within Hyde Park.

This is nothing personal.

This is Mrs. Turner and her property and her vision and I

respect that.

However, the attempt to make the area better as she said at

a past meeting that see construction consist of

single-family homes congruent with the surrounding

architecture and within the current zoning within the

current zoning would be the appropriate choice.

Thank you.

06:57:01 >> Good evening.

My name is Steve Reynolds.

I live at 5810 south Gordon Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33611.

I'm here to support this petition.

I think it important to remember that this property is not

in the historic district.




I think it's also important to remember that many of the

multifamily or semi-detached dwellings that are in Hyde Park

within the historic district were created after the historic

district was created.

It's hard to listen over the years to people complain so

much about the overparking on the streets, fairly narrow

streets in Hyde Park, and then listen to complaints about

the creation of more offstreet parking.

The entry into this off-street parking, the off-street

parking exists on one side, the north side of that property.

And the proposal to add an additional 10 or 12 spaces of

off-street parking has got to be beneficial to the overall

parking situation and not two or three block part of Tampa.

The people you all rely on are city experts and land use and

planning for your city have all told you that this proposal

is in conformance with all of your guidelines, all of your

proposals and all of your foresight.

I would hope that you would see to follow their guidance and

approve it.

Thank you.

06:59:01 >> My name is Luisa Vanderpool, in South Tampa.

It is my privilege to present two letters to the City

Council tonight in support of Nancy Turner's Hyde Park

project.

The first is from Mike Gurett.




He's a neighboring property owner in Hyde Park.

He started improving the North Hyde Park area in 1984.

And he is known to have a keen eye for urban development,

and he's very supportive of the neighboring community.

This is what he had to say.

This memorandum is to endorse and support the rezoning

application.

The application is attractive and consistent with the pat

density pattern of the neighborhood.

The additional parking over and above code requirements is a

benefit to the development and the neighbors.

I hope that you will vote and approve this application.

Respectfully.

In addition, Bryan SULK who lives in the condominiums,

actually 610 south Rome since 2007 is writing in support of

the project proposed by Nancy Turner, which is 505, 507 and

509 South Dakota.

And many of you know he spearheaded the renovation of the

Swann palm project.

He states: For the additional one unit requested, she is

going to add 12 spaces of off-site parking.

This is 12 more than what would have been added to off-site

under the current allowed usage.

Put differently, this is 12 spaces needed.

As a property owner in the immediate area this seems like a




net benefit.

He goes on to say in terms of style, existing uses in the

area to contemplate a variety of uses, and this project

exceeds the quality of design for many of the existing

precedents in the area.

And then Bryan notes -- and this relates to the character of

the applicant.

Although Nancy lives in Davis Island, I have known her to be

a hands-on owner, very much a part of the neighborhood as

anyone else.

She sells Christmas trees every year and uses that money for

improvement projects in the area.

She has get-togethers in the neighborhood, I am grateful to

have Nancy Turner as a neighborhood and friend.

If anyone cares about how the area lives, it should be her,

and she is

Thank you very much.

[Rustling papers]

07:02:05 >> My name is Susan Hines Baldwin, 3306 west San Nicholas.

I'm here in favor of the project, talks as a lifetime

resident of South Tampa and also as a realtor with Keller

Williams real estate South Tampa which I have been employed

for 17 years.

I was born at the old saint Joes, which is pretty run down

so you know how old I am.




You know, those of us who have grown up in Tampa feel like

Hyde Park is ours.

Everyone's grandmother lived in some of the most historic

places.

With great respect for the residents in Hyde Park.

And they love that neighborhood.

We all love that neighborhood.

And it's a part of all of us.

I hung out at Bernshakers in the 70s.

So what I would like to say R say, they have already told

you how many multifamily, how many what I call townhouses,

single-family or whatever, in that area.

So what I did was a quick market analysis like what's

happening in that area, what would the value of the property

be?

I already heard 500,000.

That would mean a home that would be built there would have

to be valued at 500,000.

And there is -- in the last six months, there's no history

of a house selling for that much over in that neighborhood.

So of the 17 homes that have sold from that Crosstown, cross

street, Boulevard and Swann, which is how we would compare

properties, 17 single-family houses were sold, only two of

them were single-family, one of them was on Swann, and the

other one was on Willow, and the one on Willow sold for




725,000.

So that neighborhood to date is not warranting the same

price point as they are south of Swann.

The other thing, I do believe as we all remember the bread

factory that has been around long enough and how much that

neighborhood has improved, there was some time in the 80s

where there were a bunch of townhouses up there, and some

apartments.

There's one apartment that sold for 100,000 in the same

neighborhood, that just changed the face of the whole

neighborhood.

I personally believe as a realtor and as a resident of South

Tampa that these townhouses are reminiscent to me of like

Georgetown or something like that, a wonderful historic

district.

They are not adding too much density.

Thank you.

(Bell sounds)

07:04:45 >> My name is Gabriel Picone. I live at 907 South Packwood.

I live down toward the Bayshore property.

I am speaking in opposition of this. Nothing against Nancy.

I understand 100% why she's trying to do this.

I think that the scale is just too big.

And I also have a problem about every time of that we see

the zoning going from single-family to multifamily, there's




a person next door that say, well, you already do one, why

don't you do the same thing for me, and then we keep going

like that.

And then you are transferring from someone to someone else,

right everybody? Some young gentleman spoke before me and

did an excellent job, and she lives right there, right?

I think you can still do a very nice job, we think the

zoning that she's got right now.

She doesn't need to build such a massive building.

07:06:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

07:06:10 >> My name is Jen McDonald. I am the immediate past

president of historic Hyde Park neighborhood association

where the property is located.

I wanted to just recap a couple of things.

One, on the parking situation, each resident has two

interior parking and then space behind the property where it

appears to be additional parking.

It cannot be counted as additional parking because

technically overdevelopment, the properties are too close to

the property line, therefore they had to ask for the

additional parking along the side which is again creating

additional commercial space in a residential neighborhood.

So we are opposed to that.

One of the things that I was -- Nancy Turner referenced

earlier was drug dealing and hookers on this property.




And she's referencing the Hyde Park 30-plus years ago.

The thing that this neighborhood association and historic

district has worked so hard to overcome.

So we would like to continue to move away from that towards

the good quality things that continue to keep this

neighborhood the gem that it is.

One of the things I wanted to point out is there's a

residential structure in the corner of this picture here.

There's a residential structure located right there.

That's one of Nancy's properties.

It is actually a single-family residential home.

After some research this summer it was discovered that this

property is having a code violation because it is actually

listed -- there's code violation in process as a local

business in a single-family residential home that Mrs.

Turner currently owns.

As the Hyde Park neighborhood association meeting this

summer, we were informed by Mrs. Turner that she was aware

of this at the time but she did notice it was not a

single-family usage going on.

I would like to ask that everybody in this room who lives in

historic Hyde Park neighborhood please stand up.

And I would ask that everybody who opposes this development

that's standing, please remain standing.

There's a good number of people in of this room who support




both the neighborhood and Mrs. Turner.

Many of Mrs. Turner's supporters do not live in this

neighborhood.

And I ask that you remember that.

People who should be making decisions about what's going on

to you should be you and those who are closest to you.

And not somebody who is on an island nearby.

Thank you.

07:08:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You're welcome.

Next.

07:08:51 >> Can you hear me?

07:09:01 >> Just give us your name and address.

07:09:01 >> Okay. My name is Rebeca Palacio, 1206 south Albany

Avenue in Hyde Park.

Earlier this year I came because one of my neighbors at

Watrous bought two single-family adjacent lots and wanted to

convert the land use designation to allow the property to

accommodate a large parking lot.

I never imagined that the city would even consider such a

change in a designated historical district.

So it feels like déjà vu to be back here again with yet

another investor trying to change the single-family zoning

for profit, and they'll get another multifamily property and

parking lot in a predominantly single-family lot in Hyde

Park.




The first time I was here, we heard the same arguments to

justify the requested change.

These lots are close to other multifamily properties.

Thankfully this very same council unanimously rejected the

developer's argument the first time, and I hope you will do

the same again for the very same reason.

You can go to almost every block in our neighborhood

association and find a mix of uses.

Some of them are historic.

Others came more recently.

But before the historic district.

Over 70 single-family homes are within a block of the

Crosstown and Hyde Park.

Section 27-136 of the city code says the purpose of a PD

zoning category is to provide zoning districts that

recognize unique conditions.

There is nothing unique about this block.

Multifamily cannot justify a change to the rezoning.

Having multifamily property on the next block over like

rezonings in Hyde Park and every block in our neighborhood

is vulnerable to rezoning.

Allowing even one exception would adversely affect the

integrity of the entire Hyde Park district and the old Hyde

Park and the City of Tampa historic preservation.

Building a 64 wide parking lot across from a single-family




home is not appropriate.

Allowing this would set a precedent.

There is nothing about this property that prevents it from

being developed very profitably as a single-family home

using the current zoning.

There are three new single-family homes across the street.

One of which sold for over $700,000 in 2013.

While technically this property is not in the historic

district, guarantee it will sell because of the neighborhood

outcry.

When my family moved to Hyde Park we understood it was a

diverse neighborhood with a mix of uses.

(Bell sounds)

Why families buy into this neighborhood is because it is

family centric with a flavor of historic Florida.

The city needs to adjust its request and send a message it

is going to protect the remaining single-family homes and

his character and integrity of the whole Hyde Park.

So that I and we all don't have to keep wasting your time

coming down here to revisit the very same issue.

Thank you.

07:11:54 >> Michael Morris, 510 South Dakota Avenue.

I'm one of those that does live in the neighborhood.

I actually live directly across the street from the proposed

development and my house will face the building.




And I support it.

I'll tell you. I have been there since 98.

I have been there almost 20 years and I have seen many

transitions go through.

I remember when the Wonder Bread 18 wheelers were parked

outside of my house all the time so I have seen this

neighborhood transition many times.

And I think this is just a natural course of urban renewal

that's going on in Tampa that people are now moving back to

the city core, and become more dense.

I know there's parking issues.

I understand my neighbor's concerns with that but I think

that's a responsibility to address.

And I looked at the plans.

They look well thought out.

I have in a problem with it being across from my property.

So I hope that you will approve it.

And I support it completely.

Thank you.

07:12:55 >> I'm candy Olson.

I live at 610 south Rome Avenue, less than two blocks from

the property.

That's the property they kept referring to.

And I'm in support of the petition.

I have lived in this particular building for about ten




years.

And involved in the neighborhood association, have served on

the board, have been a couple of times and offended by the

criticism.

I am some that some of you have heard from when I have

complained about parking.

It's crazy making but that's the character of the

neighborhood.

There's really not a lot you can do except encourage

responsible developers to provide a little extra parking.

I love the idea.

I wish more people would do it.

As far as scale, I have to tell you, I was at the Tampa

Theatre and I watched how they are renovating.

I was stepping into the 21st century.

As I walk through my neighborhood, I walk past this lot, and

to the south there's a town home complex.

I think there are 12 units.

And look understood a very pretty courtyard but they turn

their back on the sidewalk.

If you drive by, and this is not the only one.

You see privacy fences and be blank walls.

Not a criticism.

This is different.

This is going to be houses, there are also duplexes in my




neighborhood, that just feel more friendly, more part of the

neighborhood, more inviting.

So I really like the idea of what we used to call common

wall houses, share a wall, but have enough space that

someone that is looking to maybe move and die in their house

could actually do that.

I think it's a great idea.

Yes, there are single-family houses in one direction.

But there are townhouse as cross the other street.

There are townhomes.

So this is not a huge change.

It is not the single-family.

We don't look out at Bayshore.

We look out at the Crosstown.

I look directly at the Crosstown.

So I support this.

And I hope you all will, too.

Thank you.

07:15:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Next.

Excuse me.

If there's anyone else that will be speaking, please stand

up now.

And stand in line so we know how many more.

Okay.




Thank you.

Please continue.

07:15:26 >> Bobby Sanchez.

I have a business.

That commercial building that they keep talking about. I

look out one window and I see the Crosstown expressway.

I look at another window and see six-story.

I look to the back window and it's industrial property.

So I'm very much in support of this.

I have been in this area, my business has been in Hyde Park

since 1989.

I know these changes that we are all talking about.

This is a responsible, consistent project.

When we look at those photographs, they said everything.

Those photographs said everything.

When you look, there's only single-family on one side.

Everything else is commercial or slash industrial.

So I don't think the issue is whether it's consistent with

the neighborhood.

The description of that bungalow there as an architectural

gem is laughable.

It was junk.

When it was removed it enhanced the neighborhood.

That's reaching to me.

And I want to say something else too about reaching.




My dad used to teach me, if you throw dirt you are going to

lose ground.

Any insinuation that Turner is somehow a deceitful person is

insulting.

I'm a long-term tenant.

I love it there. I plan on staying there as long as she

lets me.

The issue is parking.

Everybody knows, I have had meetings with the city.

I'm on commercial property.

And they want to put residential and parking in front of me,

which is preposterous.

So I have been meeting with Cathy Durden, and what this

does, it actually addresses one of the problems, the biggest

problem we have in Hyde Park right now.

You all know it because I know you heard about it all the

time, is parking.

And she's doing -- put my staff there, take them off the

street.

I have parking.

Ten spaces are my office.

So she's actually addressing the problem.

She's giving a solution.

It's responsible.

And when you see this coming up Gasparilla, and you see the




USF Tampa, it will be following the Gasparilla ship, it will

be the 100 year anniversary since it was sunk in World War

I.

She's responsible for that.

And anyone who thinks she doesn't have respect for this

community is really kicked.

Thank you.

07:18:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Next, please.

07:18:12 >> I'm Del Acosta.

I have lived in Hyde Park for 21 years.

I was born in Tampa and I have a great passion for Hyde

Park.

And I am only talking about the part of Hyde Park, not any

people or personalities.

We have to look at the long-term Hyde Park.

I understand it was stated this is not in a historic

district.

It's in the Hyde Park historic district.

Just how West Tampa sew historic district.

It is not in the local district but it in the Hyde Park

national historic district.

That's important.

Immediately south of this property is a local district.

You just throw a rock to it.




Immediately north, that's a local landmark district.

So there is a historic district.

All the districts immediately north of it.

So it is in a historic district.

The parking is not to alleviate the parking problem in Hyde

Park.

That's just additional commercial parking.

The gentleman before, I don't know who he is.

That office building, I did an unofficial survey over a long

period of time and I heard about this parking.

That parking lot is at most 50% empty day and night.

Nighttime it's empty.

So there isn't a parking problem over here.

The property immediately east of where his office building

is, that's a single-family home and zoned single-family.

So there are more single-family homes in that block than

anything else.

Immediately adjacent to or across the street from the site,

there are five single-family homes.

Three of them are new.

Two of them are historic.

To the north -- and I'm kind of having to go -- to the north

is multifamily, but it's a historic multifamily.

And it's important.

It was a rehab project, a historic building.




To the south not only do you have attached multifamily but

to the south you also have single-family homes.

But you have to look at the immediate block.

You find mixed uses throughout the Hyde Park historic

district.

Across the street there are five historic homes, and the

person before me said -- I don't see why we need to have

more duplex development in Hyde Park.

Also, there's been a lot of comment about it being adjacent

to the Crosstown.

How do I get this to work?

(Bell sounds)

Thank you.

Okay.

This is one -- this is on Spruce Street.

You can see the Crosstown sign there.

This backyard -- this is the Crosstown.

Here is another house.

These are all houses that you are selling for over 600 and

$700,000.

You see the Crosstown.

This is Swann Avenue.

The backyard of this house is the Crosstown.

(Bell sounds)

Another house.




This is my home.

My backyard is the Crosstown.

I didn't realize I was a second class citizen of Hyde Park

because my property backyard was the Crosstown.

Let's look at the -- we have worked a long time.

I have been at this for 40 years.

The goal for Hyde Park is to revert it back to single-family

nature.

And this is a block for single-family homes.

Thank you.

07:21:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Anyone else wish to address us on item REZ 17-43?

Thank you.

07:21:56 >> My name is Lee Leavengood.

I live at 610 south Rome Avenue.

This is the same block that is just adjacent to the block of

Nancy Turner owns and is looking at a change for the

building.

I live in a condominium with parking underneath.

Right behind me are five townhomes that are like duplexes.

They each have parking on property.

Nancy has worked out the parking for her.

This is not about parking.

She's arranged for parking.

I have known Nancy Turner since she was just a girl, a young




girl.

She is a mature woman, a citizen of this town, and she loves

Tampa.

She is going to do the best she can to improve where she

lives.

As a responsible citizen, she maintains the directives that

are legal and proper and follows the directions with what

she wants to do.

There are five townhomes in the next block.

I see in a reason why she cannot build a town home on her

lot to rent, because the parking, I don't think, is the main

problem.

I think the main problem is that she has allowed for the

parking.

And she is no block which she owns most of the block

herself.

She lives in the area next to a block that has the same kind

of buildings, with parking taken care of.

I think if she wants to improve the neighborhood, the house

that she tore it down, was an eyesore in the neighborhood.

What she wants to build will certainly be an improvement in

the neighborhood.

And an excellent example of how to do parking.

Thank you.

07:24:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.




Anyone else wish to address us at this time?

Okay.

Rebuttal?

07:24:42 >> Sure.

You guys have a long night ahead of you.

The three objections that had the most merit to them.

I just wanted to take them head on.

07:24:52 >> Excuse me.

Did you have a question?

07:24:55 >> No.

07:24:58 >> Unfortunately, parking can always go away but it's a

necessary evil.

I can't think of a better way to provide parking when you

already have an ingress-egress, you already have a drive

aisle, and you already have parking stalls on one side.

All she's doing is adding parking stalls on the other side.

Not creating new parking lot.

Just merely adding to it.

Secondly, there was the reference that this isn't proper

because it's multifamily.

Again, at the very beginning of this presentation, the one

thing I want to be clear about is this is not multifamily.

This is single-family attached.

That's what the code classifies it as.

And all it is is two units with a party wall or Mrs. Olson




said a common wall between these units.

These are single-family attached homes.

And then lastly, with respect to the height and the scale --

and I don't know whether you can see it from here, but all

code right here allows 35 feet.

All we are requesting is 37 feet.

There's a line right here.

It is literally two feet.

So two feet.

And given the location of this property, its proximity to

the Crosstown, its location next to commercial property, its

location sandwiched between two of the densest multifamily

projects in Hyde Park.

I'm not saying these types are appropriate throughout Hyde

Park but I think they are definitely appropriate in this

location.

And I would request your approval.

07:26:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Anyone wish to address?

Councilman Cohen?

Okay.

Councilman Suarez?

07:26:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a couple questions.

A couple of questions about the units themselves.

What's the size of them, each one of the units do you have




here?

07:26:54 >>TRUETT GARDNER:
About 3,000 square feet per unit.

07:26:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's without the garage.

About 3,000 square feet.

Okay.

And with was the historical home demolished there to -- was

there something that was there that was part of the --

07:27:09 >> Not part of the historic district but contributing

structure.

07:27:12 >> I don't think it was a contributing structure.

07:27:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think that's the one that was mentioned

during public comment.

07:27:27 >> I don't need the history of the building.

I just wanted to know if that was a contributing structure.

07:27:37 >> I don't believe it was.

I believe Nancy bought it after it was demolished?

07:27:44 >> Already happened.

07:27:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Let me ask staff about that.

Staff, would you come up?

We know staff wants to talk when we start looking at you

with raised eyebrows.

07:27:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

All structures over 50 years in age in this city are

reviewed by the HPC at the time that demolition permit is

made for application.




So there was a demolition permit that was applied for on

this property.

It was reviewed by HPC.

It was determined that it was not a contributing structure,

was not historic.

So it was issued, the demolition permit per our standards.

07:28:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.

We have a parcel that is going to have two single-family

attached units there.

07:28:38 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Can I clarify one thing?

These are by code called single-family, semi-detached.

Okay?

A detached is the house.

Two units is semi-detached.

You don't get to attached until you are at three units or

more.

Three to eight is attached.

I just want to be clear.

I have heard a lot of things floating around tonight.

07:29:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Co-joined homes but that's okay.

07:29:08 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
We don't call them duplexes either.

07:29:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I wanted to make sure I get the right

terminology.

Okay.

So we have this parking lot that is really -- the nexus of




this whole discussion, to be honest with you.

The only way that you can add additional parking there,

because it looks like on the lot that is closest, or the

property that's closest to the homes themselves, you are

going to be able to provide the acquired nine parking spaces

without much problem at all, it looks like.

But the other portion of it is to add additional parking for

other purposes.

But the only way you can do it, it has to have a structure

that is next to it for the use.

Is that the way it works?

How does it work?

07:29:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Let me take a step back and try to answer

all --

07:30:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I hope I didn't make any terminology

mistakes.

07:30:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
No.

You are great.

First of all, the accommodation of parking on the site.

As shown here, you have two units and each of the garages.

There is also a parking pad in the rear.

Those are 16 feet in depth.

Okay?

Standard spaces.

9 by 18.




Compact 8 by 16.

So those would qualify as two additional spaces.

A comment was made earlier that there was not accommodation

on the property, so that's why they were parking over here,

which was not an accurate statement.

There is actually two in, two out.

That would be two, four, six, eight, 10, 12, 14, 16 spaces

total to accommodate automobile parking for this portion of

the property.

07:30:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I was just asking because the petitioner had

made the comment, the additional space along the side.

So I was following his presentation, not what was done by

the public.

07:31:07 >> So what was approved, the CIP -- I hope you can see -- is

this piece here.

This piece just south of that is an RS-50 piece.

That piece was approved by City Council in 1995 for a

parking lot that was shown I believe by Mr. Willis in his

presentation.

So it came before council.

It was a special use.

It was appropriate for a parking lot to be there.

Other things have been built across the street like

single-family, but that parking lot has been there since

1995 when it was constructed to accommodate.




07:31:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Could I ask you a question?

It looked like it was on undeveloped piece of land.

It was a bunch of cars there.

Is that what you are talking about?

Or which one are you talking about?

07:32:02 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That is what is currently in existence.

07:32:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's an already-developed parking lot.

I just wanted to make sure because there was another shot

during public comment that showed self vehicles parked on a

grassy area.

07:32:17 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
This is the parking lot that was approved

through special use in 1995 bring City Council.

07:32:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Got it.

07:32:31 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
So if they want to expand this, they would

come back to you for another special use or modification to

the special use that was already there, and then add the

other row of parking on that south side of the existing lot.

So that's still an option for modification for that lot.

But that lot was created through a special use.

You are familiar with on Kennedy, and some more recent ones,

and other ones where you do commercial off-street adjacent

to the commercial criteria conditions that run with those.

07:33:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I wanted to make sure that I am clear on

this, which is what is set on the site plan, that is not the

parking lot that's set on the site plan.




Is that right?

07:33:22 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
It was the boundary of this PD -- the

boundary of this PD is that block dotted line which has a

portion of those spaces on the southern side.

That does not include what is currently in existence, and

through that special use for the parking area there.

And the CI line for the commercial piece comes up here.

07:33:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So again back to the nexus that I was

talking about is the line of cars that are along there

within the boundary, correct?

07:33:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
A line of cars within the boundary?

07:34:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Right there the line of parking that they

want along the boundary.

That's it.

I wanted to make sure I was clear about it because it would

be more confusing because I think the whole parcel is owned

by them.

I may be wrong.

And they made it a little bit confusing.

We were talking a lot about parking but there was no real

discussion about which parking you were talking about.

So I wanted to make sure I was clear on that.

Thank you.

07:34:24 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you for that, Councilman Suarez.

That answered some of my questions.




Let me ask you first of all, there were some comments made

about alleged code enforcement violations.

Are those something that are relevant to our determination

here tonight?

Feel.

07:34:55 >> No.

07:34:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
Is that --

07:34:57 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

The short answer is no.

As I told council many, many times, what you are asked to

identify is whether the rezoning that is presented to you is

consistent with the regulations that the city has adopted.

If there are any violations, that's handled separately.

And it is not a legitimate legal basis for approval or

denial of the application.

07:35:19 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mrs. Feeley -- first of all, there's been a

lot of discussion about the various rules governing historic

districts.

So can we be clear on what this property is actually subject

to, and what it is not subject to, and what type of review

is appropriate given where it's located?

07:35:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes of the I'll answer that.

If I am not correct, Ron Villa is here from historic

preservation with me on another case this evening, but I

would ask if he would be so kind to correct me if I am




wrong.

The property is within the national district which is not

governed by the ARC review.

07:36:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
So if we want to go on with that, Mr. Villa

can talk about the national standards.

But it's only the local district that is going to be

reviewed by the ARC?

07:36:16 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That's correct.

07:36:17 >>HARRY COHEN:
Okay.

There was a comment made earlier, there was an objection to

the ingress and egress of the parking on Dakota.

Is that even part of this application tonight?

Or was that actually part of what was approved in 1995?

07:36:35 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That's correct.

It is not part of the application this evening.

That ingress-egress was approved by City Council in 1995

through the special use which still governs that property

today.

07:36:46 >>HARRY COHEN:
So that is not a basis for anything that we

are going to make a decision about tonight?

07:36:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That's correct.

07:36:54 >>HARRY COHEN:
Can we just ask if anybody Mr. Villa can

come up very briefly and give us --

07:37:02 >> I am going to owe him big time.

07:37:05 >>HARRY COHEN:
A distinction between the standard for




review in a local historic district versus national?

07:37:11 >> Ron Villa, staff for historic preservation.

City of Tampa.

We have the boundaries that define the local historic

district.

If you are outside the boundaries of the local district, and

you are in the national, you have recognition but there's no

jurisdiction so there's no review.

So that's where our boundary ends and where we start our

review within the local district.

Outside of the local district, we give guidance a lot of

times to the neighborhood, but there is no covenant that

holds them to a higher standard within the guidelines of

Hyde Park.

07:37:44 >>HARRY COHEN:
So you give guidance.

07:37:45 >> We do.

07:37:46 >>HARRY COHEN:
And tonight, I'm looking at the guidance

that we have been given by the staff.

And our staff report is telling us that this is consistent

with the surrounding area.

So, I mean, I am not getting any feedback from the staff

that this piece of property should be treated in some sort

of a special way because of anything related to historic

significance.

Do you agree with that our not agree with that?




07:38:20 >> I do agree with that.

And I think staff has done a wonderful job providing you

with guidance tonight.

If we were to look within the boundaries, we don't

dictate -- what we do, we look at scale and rhythm,

alignment and setbacks within the district to have

conformity and consistency.

07:38:37 >>HARRY COHEN:
So my last question then because you did

talk about scale, and that was one of the major comments

that was made tonight, and this might be for Mrs. Feeley,

but they keep referring, the petitioners keep referring to a

two-foot height waiver above the 35 feet that's allowed,

they want to go to 37, and I don't see any waiver request on

this application for an additional two feet.

So I'm wondering what is the story with that?

07:39:06 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land development.

Typically, on land developments we do not list the setbacks

or the height of waivers.

07:39:15 >>HARRY COHEN:
Well, waiver for the side yard separation

here.

07:39:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
That's for when you have two principal

buildings on a property there's a formula in the code that

requires that there is minimum separation between those two

buildings.

And they are not meeting that formula.




So they are asking you for a reduction in that separation

between the two principals.

But you will see on the other PDs tonight when a PD puts

for the setbacks we review those setbacks for compatibility

with the surrounding area.

I believe Mr. Heffner mentioned.

That they comply with all of the RS-50, except in

residential single-family, it's a 35-foot height limit.

So they are asking for the 37 feet.

But typically we have not ever put that on as a waiver when

something is going from an RS to a PD district.

07:40:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
Because use of PD, it's site controlled and

therefore that's no longer a waiver because wire just making

the determination?

Is that what you are basically saying?

07:40:18 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.

07:40:20 >>HARRY COHEN:
Got it.

Thank you.

07:40:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Anyone oles?

When you asked about the parking, the petitioner, so they

could add parking would encroach onto the property where

these residences are located.

In order to add more parking to that parking lot, which I'm

just looking at it, that it really has nothing to do with

what we are going to do tonight, but I'm curious as to what




is proposed which would be additional parking would go past

the property line.

In order to accommodate it.

Right?

There's a line.

And there's the parking.

07:41:10 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
There's always lines.

She owns -- is the line really -- we used to add another

waiver of the line, if she could give what's in this to this

lot, and draw that big black line here, then they could come

back to you and do a special use, and the new special use

could ask deport same extension of that parking.

A special use line on the parking now.

And with this lot.

The density here in these four units is not contingent.

07:41:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Correct.

I know that.

07:41:54 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
They could move the PD line to here, or

they could move the PD line, but the way that they have done

it is the ingress-egress is through the other lot, and they

are asking that those spaces will be there.

So there's a number of different ways that you can propose

it to get to the same end.

07:42:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
All right.

Thank you.




Any other questions?

Petitioner, would you like to --

07:42:31 >>TRUETT GARDNER:
I was going to address your question.

I think it's interesting.

I wish I could take credit for it.

What the architect and engineer figured out is they could

put these units, they could provide all the green space, all

the buffers, all the BUA and still have surplus property and

tagged to that special use to provide that additional row of

parking, while still giving all the required green space,

BUA and buffers.

07:42:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.

It's proposed, maybe it's not something that is going to

happen.

This is not part of why we are here.

07:43:11 >> Well, it is.

It's a part of our PD.

Two things.

One, the single-family semi-detached.

And then, two, the parking within the PD.

So just as one additional space on the west.

07:43:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.

I got a little bit confused there because I thought maybe

it's not.

But yes, it is.




All right, good.

07:43:35 >>TRUETT GARDNER:
I wanted to clarify that.

And then Mr. Heffner gave me this.

This is from the side angle.

What's in green is all we are requesting.

That's all we are requesting.

That's the difference between 35 and 37 from the side view.

That's all I have.

07:43:57 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's all you have?

Okay.

Motion to close by Councilman Reddick.

Seconded by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor of closing?

Opposed?

All right.

What's the pleasure of council?

Mr. Suarez, would you take item 1?

07:44:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I present an ordinance for first reading

consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

vicinity of 505, 507, and 509 South Dakota Avenue in the

city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in

section 1 from zoning district classification RS-50

residential, single-family, to PD, planned development,

residential, single-family semi-detached and shared parking,

providing an effective date.




07:44:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
There's a substitution.

07:44:48 >> I did read the substitution.

07:44:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's what I thought.

Thank you very much.

07:44:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Is there a revision sheet associated with

this as well?

I believe there is.

07:44:57 >> And including the revision sheet as provided by staff.

07:45:08 >> Second.

07:45:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Suarez.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor?

Opposed?

07:45:18 >> The motion carried unanimously.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11th,

2018 at 10:15 a.m.

I'm sorry, 9:30 a.m.

07:45:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
9:30?

07:45:30 >>THE CLERK:
Yes.

07:45:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you very much.

Excuse me.

[Sounding gavel]

We are not -- please.

Excuse me.

Get out.




If you want to talk, get out.

We have got to finish our meeting here.

Thank you.

07:45:54 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item 2 on your agenda this evening is

SU-2-17-18.

Located on 4004 north Riverside drive.

The request before you tonight is for a special use for a

professional residential treatment facility.

There are no waivers being requested.

07:46:16 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

07:46:20 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn.

We remain in the central Tampa planning district for this

next case.

More specifically, it is located within the Seminole Heights

urban village.

It is also located in transit, it is located on the

Hillsborough River so it is in an evacuation zone A.

Here we have an aerial of the subject site.

This is Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the south and

riverside drive.

Of course, the river.

We have the aqua apartments, senior living facility across

the river.

There's single-family detached to the south.




Multifamily to the east.

And north.

Of the subject site.

Onto the future land use map.

The subject site and the property to the north and east and

some to the south are all that community mixed use 35.

This is the river.

You have got some residential 50 across the way of the

river.

And then south, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, you

have residential 10 land use.

The applicant is requesting approval to the special use

request to use an existing rehabilitation facility as a

residential rehabilitation treatment center, 15 hospital

beds is proposed for this portion of the facility.

Planning Commission staff reviewed the applicant's request

and found the proposed use of the existing rehabilitation

facility as a treatment center comparable and compatible

with the existing land uses in the surrounding area.

And the existing facility is in the coastal high hazard area

so Planning Commission would encourage the applicant to work

with city dealing with adequate shelter space, and based on

that, Planning Commission staff found the proposed special

use and request consistent with the provisions of the

Imagine 2040 Tampa comprehensive plan.




Thank you.

07:48:31 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Mrs. Feeley.

07:48:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

This special use request before you tonight at 4004 north

Riverside drive to allow for the use of a portion of the

existing convalescent and extended care facility to be

utilized as a residential treatment facility.

The property is bordered as David said by the Hillsborough

River on the west, multifamily residential on the north,

office and multiple family residential to the east and

Columbus Drive to the south.

This property was constructed in 1970 and was the charter

hospital of Tampa Bay.

It been vacant for over 20 years and was recently

established as a convalescent and extended care facility

with 135 beds.

All the site improvements, I am going to show you some

pictures.

Everything was recently conducted and approved through BLB

1606471 shows the permit building permit did receive a

certificate of occupancy, 135 bed extended care facility.

Through the state licensing they are asking for additional

form of treatment within this existing facility, and that

does require the special use that is before you tonight.




07:49:56 >> Mrs. Feeley, what's the different special use that they

are asking for?

Because obviously I am looking at this and thinking what's

the difference between what the charter was and what they

are trying to do.

And the special use that you just mentioned.

07:50:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Resident treatment facility.

07:50:24 >> What was it allowed for before?

07:50:27 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
It was historically allowed for hospital.

07:50:29 >> So hospital did not include that particular special use?

07:50:32 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.

It's a different type of license treatment that they have to

receive from the state.

My understanding, allowed for like level one and two. This

is level three.

And they need to come before you.

07:50:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Got it.

They needed the special use to get the license.

Thank you, chair.

07:50:52 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
This is the zoning atlas here.

Property shown in green.

Seminole Heights PD continues along the north side -- CG

continues along the north side of Martin Luther King.

As David mentioned to you the aqua which is directly across

the river.




SH-RM.

And the aerial of the site.

Here are some photos. This photo is from Riverside looking

at the property.

As you can see, mentioned to you recently was completed to

be reoccupied.

He this is the northern boundary.

Residential multifamily.

Oh, sorry.

Residential multifamily.

This is from inside the property down in the parking area

here at the south end looking back toward the building.

I am going to show you some pictures.

Beautiful Hillsborough River.

That's the western property boundary looking north.

This is the western property boundary looking southwest.

This to the north.

This is district directly across on the east side of

Riverside.

Just north of that, residential, multifamily.

Again on the east side of Riverside.

There are no waivers to the special use criteria being

requested before you this evening.

Land development did have a couple modifications.

The first is to add existing use to the site plan as




nursing, and extended care, 135 beds.

Correct the proposed special use, to say professional

residential treatment facility within existing 135-bed

facility.

Remove the required parking and provide parking calculations

and add that the parking was as approved per BLB 160443071

and any further modifications to the property will require

compliance with section 27-283.7.

Staff did review the request and we did find these

modifications are made that it's consistent with the City of

Tampa Land Development Code.

I'm available for any questions.

07:53:47 >>TRUETT GARDNER:
I am going to be extremely brief.

You are probably tired of seeing me.

But Mr. Suarez hit this on the head.

It's merely a technicality.

There are three aspects to this facility.

One is medical detox.

The other is outpatient care.

The third is inpatient residential care.

They currently are operating with all three of those.

But this is a state licensing issue.

Gloria Moreda is the one that grandfathered as a hospital

but we went back with this one final aspect.

She felt like she had gone as far as she could and requested




that we request a special use, and that's why we are here.

Nothing is going to change at all with what they are doing.

It's a licensing and insurance issue and that's it.

Happy to answer any questions.

07:54:28 >> [Off microphone.]

SU-2-17-18.

All right.

Seeing none.

Motion to close by Councilman Miranda.

Seconded by Councilman Reddick.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you.

Councilman Maniscalco, would you read item 2?

07:55:05 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for

first reading consideration, an ordinance approving a

special use permit S-2 approving a professional residential

treatment facility in SH-CG Seminole Heights commercial

general zoning district in the general vicinity of 4004

north Riverside drive in the city of Tampa, Florida and as

more particularly described in section 1 hereof providing an

effective date.

07:55:28 >> Second.

07:55:29 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Maniscalco,

seconded by Councilman Suarez.




All in favor?

Opposed?

07:55:36 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried unanimously.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11th,

2018 at 9:30 a.m.

07:55:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Item 3, which is file number REZ 17-64.

Mrs. Feeley.

07:55:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

Item number 3 on your agenda this evening, REZ 17-64,

located at 5815 south 6th street and 3217 west Wyoming

Avenue.

The request before you tonight is from RS-60 residential

single-family to PD residential single-family detached.

There is one waiver being requested, and that is to reduce

the vehicle use area on the south end of the entry drive

with payment of the in lieu at a time of permitting and I

will show you that in a little bit on the site plan.

The request before you tonight is to develop the site with a

new subdivision containing single-family detached

residential units.

07:56:44 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

We move down to the South Tampa planning district for this

next case, more specifically the Gandy Sun Bay South

neighborhood.




The subject site is located within evacuation zone B.

The closest public recreational facility is sky view park.

And there is transit within the area located on south Dale

Mabry.

Onto the aerial.

You can see the subject site is outlined as Wyoming, and

MacDill to the east, a block to the east.

This is Himes.

Elementary.

It's predominantly single-family detached.

There is some single-family attached residential along

MacDill, and some further west on west Wyoming Avenue.

Onto the future land use map.

You can see the subject site and all the properties around

it.

All that residential 10.

There is some residential 20 where those townhomes are

further to the west, down Wyoming.

Then you do have some town home development along

MacDill where that community mixed use 35 is, actually

some commercial Interbay and MacDill.

Overall, the comprehensive plan supports appropriate

residential in-fill within these residential 10 areas.

Planning Commission staff found that the proposed PD would

be comparable and compatible to that development pattern and




this portion of the Gandy Sun Bay South neighborhood.

Based on that and the policy direction and the plan,

Planning Commission staff recommends to you this evening

that the request be found consistent with provisions of the

Imagine 2040 Tampa comprehensive plan.

That concludes my presentation.

07:58:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

07:58:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I actually have revised the revision sheet

that I need to provide you.

Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.

The petition is proposing to rezone the property at 5815

south 6th and 3217 west Wyoming Avenue from RS-60 to PD

in order to develop the site with a new subdivision

containing single-family, residential detached units.

All of the ten residential lots will face a one-way internal

private roadway.

This is a two-acre site.

It's currently zoned RS-60 and allows for detached

single-family use as seven dwelling units per acre.

The proposed planned development setbacks are less than the

RS-60 allows [Rustling papers]

The proposed application seeks to establish minimum lots

before 50 by 100 and minimum setbacks of 15-foot front,

15-foot rear and 7-foot side.




There are also perimeter setbacks of north 15 feet, south 15

feet, west 7 feet, and east 7 feet.

The property is currently vacant and is surrounded by

single-family detached on all sides with the RS-75 zoning

district to the north, RS-60 to the east, west and south,

and RS-50 to the south across west Wyoming.

Ingress and egress will be located off of the one way drive

with ingress on Wyoming and egress on 6th.

There is a 53-inch grand tree on the site that will be

preserved along the entrance on west Wyoming.

This is the site plan.

Wyoming here to the south.

6th to the east.

It will be a one-way drive that comes in.

And then exits out onto 6th.

There are ten lots.

Lot 8 and 10 have some development regulations that are on

that revision sheet related to the protective radius of

other large grand trees, not grand trees, I'm sorry, other

large trees that are located in the rear of those two lots.

The 53-inch tree is here.

And we were waiting on some documentation for the allowance

of the R of the removal of these two offstreet site trees in

order to allow for this configuration as shown to move

forward.




I will go ahead and show you the aerial of the property.

Those large trees that you can see pretty clear on there.

And then the 53-inch here.

There is single-family residential surrounding the property.

As mentioned in the staff report, here is the zoning atlas.

There is RS-75 directly to the north.

There is RS-50 immediately a butting the site, at the

southeast corner.

Some PDs, subdivision to the east.

And then RS-60 to the south and RS-60 is also currently on

the property as well.

08:02:40 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just out of curiosity, what is this?

This was never platted at all?

08:02:49 >> Not platted.

Huh-uh.

I am going to show you.

There's three single-family residences here.

There's one here.

Then there's a couple more.

There's one over here.

And there's single-family along south of Wyoming here when

you visually drive the street, it like a platted lot

situation but it's not platted, no.

08:03:11 >>HARRY COHEN:
Ignored?

08:03:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I don't know if it was ignored.




Of there are metes and bounds, legal descriptions.

So my pictures for you are going to start on 6th and

show you the property.

And then the house immediately to the north faces Lela, and

there's actually two that are under construction right here.

There are lot splits.

So I am going to start on 6th and show you that and then

come around on Wyoming.

This is from 6th.

And you can almost follow on your site plan because a lot of

those trees are going to be retained, that egress drive is

going to come through here and it will keep several of these

trees.

This is the northern boundary of the property.

This is the property to the north.

Immediately adjacent to the subject.

The one that faces on Lela.

This is the property to the south.

And you will see several on your site plan also.

This is a smaller one.

Here you will see the protection of the off-site trees.

That large one there that I am showing you in the picture on

these easement properties, and then there are several along

the back.

This is that property to the south.




The house faces on 5th but it's a square lot that is on

Wyoming as well.

This is now coming down Wyoming.

There are four.

And then this is where the entrance will be.

And there is nice big trees that will be saved.

This is immediately to the west.

Also on the north side of Wyoming.

And then these are along the -- oh, no.

This is directly across the street at Lela.

And now I am going to come down the east side of 6th.

And then I will show you the south side of Wyoming.

On that east side.

And then I mentioned to you that there's one vacant and one

currently under construction there.

Then on the south side of Wyoming, single-family

residential.

In your staff report and in the revised revision sheet I

just gave you, there were some outstanding items related,

some off-site trees.

There's two, a 17-inch and 21-inch.

They are in hazardous condition.

The applicant has obtained written and notarized

notification from that property owner that they will allow

for the removal of those trees, because if not we could not




put the road where the applicant is proposing to put the

road.

And asking the ingress driveway. I'm asking that a

condition be added that prior to the issuance of any size

bidding or clearing permits for the subject property that

those off-site trees are removed.

And they will be removed pursuant to the city's tree removal

policies and appropriate permits will be pulled.

Additionally, there was a plan that was reviewed by staff

but was not officially submitted.

That has been attached to your revision sheet, modification

in between first and second reading.

This is predominantly for protective radius around the

trees.

Being shown, and also those setbacks on lots 8 and 10.

Right now, these setbacks are setback off of the protective

radius of the trees.

I need them to be corrected to be from the property line

like they are on the lot 10.

It also has protective radius but has the building set back

off the property line.

And off of the property line, and then in the front as well.

So I am asking that those modifications be made.

The revised revision sheet has been reviewed by the

applicant, and the applicant is in agreement that these




modifications would be made in between first and second

reading.

If they are, then staff will find that the application is

consistent with the City of Tampa Land Development Code.

[Rustling papers] I'm available for any questions.

08:08:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Petitioner?

08:08:50 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
Representing the applicant on this

petition.

As one of the council members pointed out, how do you end up

with these large tracts of vacant land seemingly in an area

that should be developed?

There are a lot of these little pockets that exist,

particularly south of Gandy.

And this is one of them.

That we would like to develop.

Would like to develop ten single-family homes.

And you can see this is the entry drive here.

And we have set aside a nature preserve here in the front

part of the property that protects those larger grand oak

trees that Abbye referenced.

And then on this side of the property we have pervious

pavement, that's also protecting two additional off-site

trees on this side.

And we have been in touch with the other property owner as




Abbye pointed out for the removal of this much tree here.

And then there's another one over on this side.

Here.

And staff has already determined that they can be removed.

So the property is a little over two acres in size.

And we are not requesting any tree waivers.

And basically, we have met the intent.

This entire entry area is about 10,000 square feet, which

you could accommodate a lot, and we have given that up to

protect those trees, provide drainage and a one-way drive

through the property.

It's a unique piece of property, and we believe that it

warrants full scale development of single-family homes.

This will be very upscale and you see a lot of properties

south of Gandy are starting to redevelop in these

neighborhoods are going to receive a lot of the

infrastructure improvements that come along with

developments of this size.

So we'll have to put in all the water and sewer lines.

Anyway, we are respectfully requesting your approval.

And we will continue to meet with the staff, and provide the

endment requested on the site plan.

And our arborist has been down there so much he thinks that

he's got a be new home on this property.

But anyway, we are going to continue with that effort, and




we would appreciate your support.

That concludes my presentation.

08:11:31 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Any questions for petitioner?

Anyone in the public wish to address us on item 3, which is

REZ 17-64?

08:11:44 >> Move to close.

08:11:47 >> Second.

08:11:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion to close by Councilman Miranda.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor to close?

Opposed?

Thank you.

Councilman Cohen, would you read item 3?

08:11:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much.

Move an ordinance being presented for first reading

consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

vicinity of 5815 south 6th street and 3217 west Wyoming

Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly

described in section 1 from zoning district classification

RS-60 residential single-family to PD planned development,

residential, single-family detached, providing an effective

date.

08:12:27 >> Second.

08:12:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
With the revised revisions.




08:12:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a meteorologist by Councilman

Cohen.

A second by Councilman Miranda.

All in favor?

Opposed?

08:12:41 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried unanimously.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11th,

2018ality 9:30 a.m.

08:12:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

We are on item 4.

REZ 17-67.

08:13:02 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land development.

REZ 17-67 is located at 4201, 4217, 4219, 4221 West Cypress

street, 4204, 4208, 4212, 4214, 4216, 4222 and 4224 west

grace street.

The request before you tonight is from RO 1 residential

office and RS-50 residential single-family to PD planned

development, office, business professional, retail,

restaurant, residential, single-family detached.

There are nine waivers being requested with the application

tonight.

And several of them deal with the Westshore overlay.

The property is located in the Westshore overlay district,

and the first is to increase the building setbacks from 20

feet to 90 feet along Lois Avenue to recognize the existing




building.

There is an existing building at the southeast corner of

this property that is scheduled to remain.

The second is to decrease the building setback for the

eastern proposed building from 10 feet to 5 feet along a

portion of West Cypress street, frontage due to the

variation in the roadway right-of-way line.

So it's actually to bring the building closer.

The third is to reduce the separation of the vehicle use

area from the adjacent residential from 25 feet to 3-foot

and 5-foot adjacent to 4202 grace street and to adjacent to

4206 grace street, and that is for existing surface parking

area that goes with the existing building that's at that

southeast corner of the site.

We will be able to show that to you as well.

The fourth is to reduce the landscape buffer adjacent to

4204 and 4206.

I am going to ask that this waiver be removed because the

waiver before it actually took care of it.

So you wouldn't need waiver number 4.

Waiver 5 was to allow commercial driveway access to a local

street, north Hubert Avenue.

The sixth is to be allow commercial parking to be separated

from the building which it serves by a public street

right-of-way.




Let me just address that for a moment.

This waiver 6 and 7, the parking garage is being proposed

with this development is being proposed with extra parking

spaces to provide parking for the office building that is

located on the south side of cypress.

So the commercial off-street parking standards run with the

request because they are asking for commercial off-street

parking to serve a property that is not adjacent to this one

that's sprayed by right-of-way.

So 6th is to address that the parking is across the

street.

7th is to address that it says that in the commercial

off-street parking you may not extend more than 100 feet

from the nearest boundary of the commercial property, and

this is 285 feet from the commercial property that it serves

so it's asking for that waiver to that standard as well.

The 8th is to reduce the required number of loading

berths from one to zero and the ninth to allow trucks to

maneuver within the public right-of-way of Hubert Avenue to

provide solid waste collection services to the project site.

So the waivers.

I am going to let David do his presentation and then I will

come back and give you the rest of my presentation.

Thank you.

08:16:54 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.




I have been sworn.

We move over to the Westshore planning district for this

next case.

The Westshore planning district is one of the city's

targeted growth areas.

It is -- the subject site is located within the Carver City

Lincoln Gardens neighborhood.

The closest transit stop is located adjacent to the subject

site, Hart route 45 serves that area connecting it with the

Westshore plaza, university area transit center.

It is located within a level C evacuation zone.

And the closest public recreational facility is Loretta

Ingram complex which is about 2 that you feet to the north

of the subject site.

Onto the aerial.

You can see the subject site in the center there.

This is Cypress Street running east-west.

And here is Lois.

Of course this is 275.

You have got Jefferson high school further fought west.

The development pattern on the north side of grace street,

all this is single-family detached.

Directly south of cypress it becomes that very 100 so you

have office development, hotels and everything else on the

south side of cypress.




Onto the future land use map.

It kind of shows the difference.

The site has two future land use categories.

It's a 2.37-acre site, roughly 1.2 acres of that total is

residential 20.

The remaining 1.17 acres is the residential 10 that's in the

back.

So we have got residential 20 on the north side of cypress.

We have got residential 10 making up the residential portion

of Carver City Lincoln Gardens.

Then directly across the street is that regional mixed use

100.

These that same category and Channel District.

So it's very intensive.

Then you have the public quasi-public.

Planning Commission staff reviewed the application.

The applicant is seeking to construct 18,750 square feet of

commercial use was a maximum of 387 parking spaces.

Like Abbye said, some of that parking will be utilized for

the usage to the south of cypress.

The proposed development is sensitive to the adjacent

existing single-family detached residential development.

And provides an appropriate transition between the less

intense development to the north on grace street to the

intensive nonresidential development located to the south,




on the south side of West Cypress street.

The applicant has mitigated for the placement of the

structured parking garage by providing architectural

fenestration and landscaping along the west grace street

frontage.

We talked about that with he we were meeting with the

applicant.

They improved the look of the garage on that grace street,

and originally proposed vehicular access point along west

grace street was also removed after staff discussed their

concerns.

The comprehensive plan is supportive of off-site parking in

the city's intense neighborhoods.

The applicant is encouraged to work with City of Tampa

transportation staff to ensure that the pedestrians

utilizing the parking garage can safely get to the

nonresidential uses to the south.

Also, there's policy direction in the plan that talks about

the placement of the buildings closest on cypress.

The applicant has complied with that policy direction of the

And as you are well aware, the comprehensive plan is very

supportive of in-fill development especially within our

urban neighborhoods.

Based on all that and the policies and the plan, Planning

Commission staff recommends to you that this request be




found consistent with the provisions of the Imagine 2040

Tampa comprehensive plan.

That concludes my presentation.

08:21:16 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

08:21:17 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thank you, David.

Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.

The request before you tonight is to rezone from RO 1 and

RS-50 to PD to allow for the retention and future expansion

of an existing commercial building, the development of a

mixed commercial retail center with a extraordinary parking

garage including parking spaces to serve the existing office

use on the south side of cypress.

And the development of one single-family detached

residential home.

There's a lot going on on this property.

If I can break down this part of the Q.I went over all the

waivers with you.

The first ones were related to this existing one-story

building here, and the placement of the parking, and the

proximity of the parking area to the residential in the

Westshore overlay.

It does say that you have to be 25 feet from there, and then

you have to have a 15-foot buffer in there.

So several of those waivers that I went over are related to

the existing configuration of this building and the




associated surface parking.

The other waiver is related to where cypress comes in, and

the building placement for the structure that is proposed to

go in this location, and setback.

Other waivers related to the access being proposed on

Hubert.

As David did mention, when this started out at a CRC meeting

it was far different than what you are seeing today.

There was actually a service drive that came through with

the solid waste on this side of the building, and access

onto grace, and the DRC was very much opposed to that

configuration, and intrusion into the neighborhood.

(Bell sounds)

(Laughter)

So what's before you tonight is tremendously different than

what came in in the original review.

I wanted to go over a couple of those items with you and

also the commitment that has been made on the site plan

related to the elevation that you are seeing that we do not

typically see on a PD site plan.

So the two retail centers are here in the front.

David mentioned the development of this is 18,000 some

square feet.

A little less than half of a Publix combined.

The structured garage is to the rear of that entry to the




garage.

A right-in right-out would be on cypress.

And then entry here on Hubert.

And then the compacter is located on this side, the garage,

and there was a waiver there for maneuvering in and out for

the service of the compacter.

On the second page of your plan, that David talked about

that we put on, the primary -- on the grace street, setback

is 20 feet from grace.

You will see that this is amassing diagram of that building

with the height, that first row at the 20 feet is 20 feet,

and then the garage height as you come back towards cypress.

There are cross sections of that that are provided from

cross section D here.

A and B are for the grand trees and the cross sections of

the building here.

So there was strong staff concern related to the project as

orientation, and compatibility with the single-family

residences along grace.

We did try to pull that building back there, and set it back

even further.

And then provide for the landscaping as well as mid block

pedestrian pathway that would allow for residents who want

to use that area to actually come through.

The big trees, there are several of them along the front.




One grand.

Then you have large tree here being saved.

And then a large tree on the single-family residence.

To go back, this property does include all of this area, and

this one single-family residential lot was excluded.

08:26:36 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mrs. Feeley, so the way this is designed,

there are going to be four single-family houses remaining on

this block.

Three already exist and one is to be built?

08:26:52 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.

These are not in the Pinellas County owner's.

This one is.

I am going to show you some pictures of the surrounding

area.

08:27:05 >>HARRY COHEN:
Show us the remaining --

08:27:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.

Absolutely.

So as David mentioned, this is these lots are 20 on the

cypress, side yard 10, on the grace side.

The RO portion as shown here to you, that existing office

building and associated surface parking.

And then there's an interesting here that is vacant.

It looks like it's used as an access point.

The grace.

But everything else remaining outside of that red box is an




RS-50.

Here is the aerial.

There is also one existing single-family residential

structure on the property that will be demolished.

So I am going to show you the full block, and also side of

the block as well.

There is place of religious assembly right to the west of

north Hubert at the corner of cypress and Hubert as well.

I am going to start at the corner of grace and Lois.

And I am going to come down grace and show you the south

side, and then I believe I come back around, and then work

myself down to cypress.

That is the peace I referred to as the dog leg, that goes

down grace and connects them.

This is one of the existing single-family residences.

This is the vacant, which will be single-family residence

with a nice large tree.

This is the other single-family residence on the north side

of the project.

That would be here.

So there will be a 30-foot setback there, and the pedestrian

walkway would be just to the west of this.

This is the subject from grace looking back towards cypress.

Then I don't know how they have got this.

This is in the surface parking lot looking back up toward




grace.

And that small piece that is included in the PD.

This is the existing office building.

This is again existing looking west showing you those large

trees.

This is from cypress.

This is one of the trees.

The second paper on the site plan that shows you the cross

sections, that actually shows how the expanded building will

retain the trees and provide the required protection.

And there is a shot of all three of those trees from

cypress, now this is from cypress looking north of the

subject.

The property.

This is the structure that will be removed.

And then this is the north side of grace.

Now at the corner of Hubert and grace.

And I am going to take you westbound -- I mean eastbound

across that north side.

These are the single-family residences on the north side of

grace.

This is at the corner of Lois and grace.

This is the southeast corner of the property looking back

toward I-275.

This would be looking toward the southeast corner of Lois




and grace.

And now this is the south side -- Lois and cypress.

This is the south side of cypress.

And then this is directly west of the property, the short

piece added at the northwest corner of Hubert and cypress.

Staff has strong concerns related to massing of this project

and the unit face that it had with the single-family

residences along grace street.

The elevations have come back.

This would be that north elevation that would face the

residences, and it is set back 20 feet, and then it is

stepped back further, and that diagram on that second sheet

showed you that.

Staff had the applicant add that the massing and the

materials as shown on these elevations is what will be

constructed.

If it is not going to be constructed like this, it will need

to come back to land development and urban design for

consideration, or furthermore it will need to come back to

you.

So we did have a notation added to the plan to that effect.

[Rustling papers] let me just go through now in my report --

and I'm sorry, this presentation is taking a bit of time but

this is a large project with multiple components that I want

you to really understand the different sections of it.




That existing commercial building at that southeast corner

is currently 4,777 square feet.

They are asking for an allowed expansion of 3,223 square

feet.

The setbacks are north 5 feet, south 20 feet, west is

internal to the other structure, and east 90 feet.

As I mentioned to you, several of the waivers, the first

couple in that waiver table are related to this existing

building and its existing placement under the Westshore

overlay.

The new construction is for 18,750 square feet.

It is within two buildings.

And those are single-story retail that would be oriented

towards cypress with an integrated multilevel garage.

The garage has 387 spaces.

The setback for the proposed commercial center are north 20

feet, and that would be on grace, south 5 feet, that would

be cypress, west 30 feet, that would be the Hubert side, and

also adjacent to the single-family residence, and then east

30 feet.

The massing is back from grace as I just discussed with a

building highlight of 20 feet.

That then increases to 26.6.

The plan includes amassing diagram and commitment to the

mass.




That should say scale setbacks and upper floor buildings

setbacks as well as materials and ground level elements.

It is a 30-inch tree located along grace and the proposed

location of the building speaks to retain that and provide

adequate protection.

The commercial off-street parking.

The proposed development requires 225 spaces, and there are

a total of 387 being proposed.

The application is requesting that these additional parking

spaces serve as commercial offstreet parking for the

property on the south side of Cypress Street.

The use is proposed within the garage, and special use

criteria for this have been incorporated into this review.

And I did mention to you they needed two waivers.

One was the adjacent and the second was the distance than

from the property that it serves.

The special use talks about being within 100 feet and the

back of the garage technically is at 285 feet from the

office building.

And lastly, there is one single-family residence that is

being proposed on that one lot that we talked about, and it

will meet all RS-50 standards, and then even a little bit

more due to that large tree that is on the front.

There are several site plan modifications that need to be

made.




The removal of the waiver I discussed.

Adding a note related to the operation of the gate on the

parking garage on Hubert.

Labeling the clearance on the garage.

Adding a clarification of the permitted uses.

And then a correction to waiver number 1.

It refers to west Lois.

And there is no west Lois.

Urban design had a couple notations that they needed to be

added.

One for the buffer trees.

That will be planted along cypress.

They also would like the sidewalk width of the pedestrian

path dimension and wanted to clearly depict the pedestrian

connections from the sidewalk along cypress to the arcade.

Transportation found this request inconsistent.

The access to Hubert is a waiver for access to the local

street, and they do not support that.

And they have concerns about the pedestrian safety people

who are going to the office building using the middle of

cypress and not going to the crosswalk.

As you can see on your site plan, the applicant is

requesting to make modifications at the intersection of

Hubert and cypress.

I will let them speak to that, as a way to, I believe,




direct pedestrians in that location.

However, transportation did find the request inconsistent.

They also had some notations that they needed added on the

site plan.

[Rustling papers] lastly, natural resources, the

recommendations that were presented by the arborist, they

found, were good.

They had a couple notations also that needed to be added.

About the tree planting radius for grand trees, correcting

misstatements, correcting the tree table, and also stating

that the parking garage would be 80% opacity, butt

elevations that are being provided, and set those elevations

including the treatment on that garage would be committed

to.

If it is the pleasure of council to approve this

application, the associated waivers, there are site plan

modifications that must be completed in between first and

second reading.

And staff is available for any questions.

Again, I apologize for the lengthy presentation.

08:39:23 >>HARRY COHEN:
Any questions from council members of

petitioner?

Petitioner.

08:39:38 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
305 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

I'm here with -- and I'm here on behalf of the applicant,




realty limited partnership.

I'm here with Dan Woodward who is vice president of Tampa

Highwoods property, Chase Collier, who is manager of

acquisitions and dispositions Florida, Highwoods property.

Randy Coen, certified planner, and he will be speaking in a

few moments.

And Gina Grimes with the law firm of Hill, Ward and

Henderson.

You have heard a very thorough report from Abbye just now,

and I will try to keep our comments as brief as I can.

However, as you have heard, it's a complicated project.

And I guess I wanted to start by saying Highwoods proposed

the two buildings across the street that we are discussing

building this garage to serve the parking, and you are

probably wondering why we are doing that.

Those buildings were built, I guess, about over 20 years

ago, and at the time the parking standards in Westshore --

and they of course met code -- but that code was 3.3 parking

spaces per thousand feet.

The demand now in the Westshore area is more like five

spaces per thousand.

That's what office tenants are demanding for their

buildings.

And so Highwoods is attempting to provide this additional

parking on this property that is the subject of the zoning




application.

But they did not want to simply build a garage.

They are wanting to build a mixed use project, and that is

why we are proposing restaurant uses and retail uses, and

these are neighborhood retail.

That is all that could be put in that piece of property.

Also, office quo be located.

So these are all uses that could serve to benefit the

neighborhood, and we potentially did that to establish some

sort of benefit to the neighborhood with this project.

I would like to just state for the record that all of the

changes that Abbye said are required to be made between

first and second reading.

We agree with all those changes, and will, if it's the

pleasure of council to approve this, we will make all those

changes between first and second reading.

You also heard that I think we worked very hard, and I think

we addressed every staff concern other than the

transportation comments which Mr. Coen will address.

I would like to also point out we have met twice with the

Carver City Lincoln Gardens neighborhood and we heard some

concerns, and Mr. Coen will also address what we are

proposing to address those concerns.

So at this point I am going to ask Mr. Coen to give you an

overview of the project and also talk about the issues we




have discussed.

08:42:44 >> Randy Coen.

Coen and Coen, 4121 West Cypress street.

I am literally on the other block from this property.

I have been sworn.

I will walk you through the site plan and provide some

explanation of what we are doing.

A lot of things going on.

Want to first talk about the parking structure and really

what's facing cypress. This is cypress itself.

We have the existing office building here, 4,777 square

feet.

We are proposing to put in a partial second floor above that

to bring that building to a total of 8 that you square feet.

There is a 5,500 square foot retail building proposed here

and a 5,250 square foot retail building proposed here.

Main entrance into the parking structure is right here.

Between the two buildings.

These particular uses are limited to office or

community-serving neighborhood retail.

Basically service entities, very small-scale retail,

et cetera.

That's why we got the loading berth because you are looking

at two or three small storefronts, providing various

services and sundry of needs that you may have in a




neighborhood whether it be an office neighborhood across the

street or residential neighborhood itself.

The office building can be an office building or restaurant.

We are hoping to have a neighborhood-serving restaurant

there both for the offices across the street and the

neighborhood in this area in general.

We are restricted.

We do not have drive-through.

We cannot have drive-through, anything of that nature.

So very small-scale neighborhood-serving retail or office

use.

We also have the pedestrian connection that literally goes

from grace street over to cypress itself, provides for

pedestrian access.

We are also upgrading all of the sidewalks to bring them

into the Westshore standards.

Lois is an 8-foot sidewalk.

Cypress is a 10-foot sidewalk on Hubert.

A 6-foot sidewalk.

Not owned by this particular property.

Owner itself.

And Highwoods is looking to purchase this property to do a

development.

When we move around to cypress this way, basically, Abbye

had shown you this area.




Right now people are driving through trying to gain access

to grace.

That goes away.

We are landscaping that area and using that as a buffer.

This is an existing residence.

This is an existing residence.

We are proposing a single-family home there to make sure

nothing else goes on that property.

Whether the home is built or not is subject to market trends

but it's to keep that in the neighborhood itself.

Moving along the back we have a 20-foot setback from the

right-of-way line.

From edge of grace to the right-of-way line at 20 feet.

So in essence the parking garage sits back 40 feet from

grace.

Also you will see the different color here.

This is the first level of the parking structure.

It is 20 feet above grade.

Typically the height is story and a half, perhaps two

stories at the most.

The upper level of the garage is right here, about 26 feet 6

inches.

An increase of 6 feet 6 inches.

Still lower than the 35-foot that's provided by RS-50 zoning

in this entire area.




We have actually a 30-foot setback over here, and this

exhibit doesn't show the compacter.

Another exhibit will show that.

This is actually a 06-foot setback from the right-of-way

line to the parking structure itself.

That is what we have going on around the site.

So 5500 square feet.

5200 square feet.

An existing 47.

4,777 square foot building.

And then in addition on the second floor is 8,000 square

feet.

Substantial landscaping which is committed to for the

project as well as the elevation.

Talk about the elevation just a little bit.

Abbye showed you on the overhead.

This is a little better picture. This is the south

elevation which will be facing Cypress Street.

In the middle is a development, small scale retail on both

sides.

And then over here where the restaurant is and we'll show

you that in a minute.

This is the same kind of idea, same quality of materials,

and really change into something that looks like some

residential units of a more eclectic modern feel.




Very contemporary, with green screening as well.

Remember this is the 20-foot mark here at the top of this

particular building.

So that's 20 feet.

That's 40 feet back from Gray Street.

This particular level is set back another 18 feet.

So you are talking almost 60 feet of setback for that facade

itself.

That is -- we do have a couple of places where we are 39

feet, and that's the towers for the parking structures.

Where the stairs are which is actually here on the corner of

southwest corner of the structure and right here mid block,

which are 39 feet because of the stair towers.

This is the building which is currently a restaurant and

that's what we are hoping happens there.

This is the south elevation that would be facing cypress.

This is the east elevation that would be facing Lois.

This is the west elevation.

And this is the north elevation.

We purposely kept the north elevation with no windows, no

protrusion.

We did not want to impose anything on the residential

neighborhood.

So we kept all noise, light, et cetera, away use this.

Turn now to the overhead, if I can, for a moment.




We had two meetings with the neighborhood.

And we have heard some of their concerns.

While I do not believe there will be much of any cut-through

traffic as a result of this project, we wanted to mach

absolutely certain of that.

And we heard from the neighborhood that they were very

concerned.

They have existing cut-through problems in the neighborhood.

We are trying to assist them with that as we can but we

wanted to make sure that we didn't add anything to the

problem.

So what we have is Hubert here.

This is the signal at cypress and Hubert.

This is the driveway into the parking structure.

As you see when you come in, you can only come in to make a

right.

You cannot come in and make a left.

When you leave, you must make a left to come out.

This will keep traffic away from the neighborhood.

I worked with the transportation division as well as the

solid waste division to make sure we design something that

met their standards and provided particular protection.

Talk a little more about the building.

69% of the parking provided on this, 226 spaces, is for the

use of the restaurant, retail and office on this property.




The other 31% would be parking for the offices across the

street.

That being 4200 cypress and 4300 cypress.

Sits on the corner of Hubert and cypress.

Parking entrance here.

Parking garage entrance here.

Stairwell here.

As you can see, we have pedestrian crossing here and

pedestrian crossing here.

We have a condition to work with the City of Tampa to

provide the pedestrian crossings on the other two legs this

much intersection, upgrade the traffic signal.

Parking over here and using 4300, there's no doubt, the

entrance to their building literally directly down Hubert.

For the 4200 building, still using this stairwell and

elevator system because what happens is the actual path of

this building while this is cypress, what's used to access

this building by everyone is the entrance on the western

edge of the building that connect the parking structure.

So we are providing a path down Hubert.

The parking structure into the building so there is as much

covered walkway as possible.

This way, we do not believe we will have people crossing

this line.

If in fact we do, we can't control everyone, but we believe




they will all find eventually and very quickly that it is a

very safe and practical movement, parking garage structure

right here with the stairwell and the elevator when the

project is developed.

Our waivers that we talked about primarily result from the

Westshore overlay and the fact we have an existing building

and existing issues, as well as the parking from across the

street, the representation that you would have commercial

parking and wouldn't be adjacent to the property.

We have a road between us.

We have a safe pedestrian crossing on that roadway.

But we have a roadway between us which is a waiver and then

our distance is greater than what's allowed in the code

because of the right-of-way to parking.

And office building to the south.

And with that I will turn it back over to Dave.

Thank you.

08:52:07 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
Thank you.

The condition that Mr. Cohen referred to, which would

prohibit the turns from the garage onto the -- into the

neighborhood on Hubert street, I handed Marty a few minutes

ago an addendum to the revision sheet, which I would like to

enter into the record and pass out to City Council.

This would be in addition to the other revision should

council be inclined to approve the zoning application this




evening, and we would be prepared to make this as a

condition of the rezoning.

This also, by the way, this condition also addresses the

other transportation staff comment about providing access

onto a residential street, because this curbing that we are

talking about would in fact preclude traffic from entering

into the neighborhood.

And with that, we'll conclude our presentation and we will

be happy to answer any questions.

08:53:13 >>HARRY COHEN:
Any questions from council members before we

go to the public?

All right.

Is there anyone in the public that would like to address

council on file REZ 17-67?

And has everyone that's going to speak been sworn? Yes?

08:53:34 >> Good evening, council.

Chairman.

My name is Patricia Gibbons.

I live at had 202 west Laurel street at the corner of Laurel

and Hubert in Carver City.

I am the president of the Carver City Lincoln Gardens Civic

Association and I'm here representing the members of the

association.

We do have many members here this evening as well.

Some of the members will be speaking as well.




After meeting with the representatives for the project, at

this present time we do not support the project of Highwoods

development rezoning, nor the proposed parking garage

project at the northwest corner of cypress and Lois and the

corner of Hubert and grace street for the following reasons.

We understand growth.

However we believe that our community has been encroached

upon too much.

Many of you may know all of the situations within Carver

City Lincoln Gardens with all of the development that's been

going on.

We have seen major shrinkage of our neighborhood with new

development projects.

As I stated before, apartment complexes which have bombarded

us with a lot of traffic.

This encroachment will cause us to lose more single-family

residential property on grace street.

We have in a problem with the property on cypress being used

for the project.

Because it's already zoned commercial.

Grace street property that abuts the cypress property should

remain residential.

That is our main concern.

We would like to see our community restored with

single-family homes on grace street as they were.




Traffic is always a problem in our community.

And placing the garage on the property would add even more

traffic.

We already have cars existing onto Lois Avenue and Hubert

with would maneuver in and out of our community because of

the light at the corner of Hubert and cypress.

And our fear is with the garage going there that's going to

limit us even more getting in and out of our community.

And we know the nature of the beast here.

People will find a way to get around -- they will find a way

to take shortcuts to get out from the garage.

And I know the representatives tonight have made, but we do

have that fear of having more traffic coming through our

community, and a lot of times in the street in front of

their homes, and we have had too many accidents, because of

car accidents, especially on Lois, where our residents had

to cross over.

And we don't want to see that coming into the community on

Hubert which is another main street for our residents.

(Bell sounds)

Our suggestion was, was to Lois.

This can be done by tailoring -- down the business --

08:57:04 >>HARRY COHEN:
I apologize but your time is up.

08:57:07 >> Okay.

Would you consider this and help us to prevent further




encroachment.

Thank you.

08:57:13 >>HARRY COHEN:
And if anyone that is planning on speaking

could identify themselves.

That way we'll know how many speakers we have left, and if

anyone needs to be sworn, please identify yourself.

Thank you.

08:57:25 >> Good evening.

My name is Jamilla Darleen Johnson, a resident of 4207 West

Gray Street.

I'm here as a person who lives where all the new development

are planning and the rezoning to take place.

I'm here in support.

I appreciate the planning, all the statistics that has been

provided to us, but I am here as a reality of a resident who

lives on Gray Street who experience it is traffic on a daily

basis.

The reality, I want to share with the committee, with the

board, when I leave in the morning to travel to work, for

the last seven months, I have allowed myself 15 minutes

extra because there's already the impact of the traffic for

me to leave to go on to Kennedy and Dale Mabry to get to my

place of employment.

What I am experiencing is the reality part of it.

I'm the person honor is cut there you go different streets.




So I can alleviate some of the traffic.

So that's happening now.

It will be more of an impact if we allow this rezoning and

the garage to take place.

Again, as a resident of Carver City since 1969, my parents

built their first house there, and then I myself built my

first home there in 1990.

I'm asking us to please reconsider the residents of Carver

City and not allow the traffic and the congestion that will

take place in Carver City to happen.

We talked about the many accidents.

A new reality.

I'm the person who is there day in and day out.

We have had several accidents where because of the heavy

traffic that we lost some lives.

I personally know every single person who has been impacted

by the traffic, so I ask you to please consider, and again,

I'm saying as a resident of grace street -- and I'm directly

across the street from where the parking garage, I'm

directly there, and a neighbor who came with me tonight who

is actually on the north side.

I feel we are going to be boxed in.

And when I built my house there and I decided write wanted

to be, that's not what I even imagined.

So I ask you to please consider the nonrezoning of the




garage on cypress and Lois.

Thank you for your time.

09:00:07 >> How are you doing? I'm Alpheric Wright.

I want to talk about the development.

Since the developers came, we had traffic impacts.

Developers always want to talk about their game and never

talk about our loss.

We had a peaceful neighborhood before the development.

They never talk about the impact that it has on our

community.

Since developers have came, sinkholes from the pounding of

the building have put cracks in our driveways and in our

homes.

They had a flood problem in Carver City but it backs up

because of all the development.

The city says it's going to spend $10 million and always

engineers, even from the D.O.T., and you can see that 275 is

still impacted, and Hubert, if you are on grace, you got a

buffer wall.

That's what they don't want to tell you.

The buffer wall, all the other businesses, put commercial,

and on this side of the buffer wall, is for residential.

We want to keep it residential.

We want to keep this side of it less residential.

And if you look to come out Hubert, we can't get out that




way sometimes.

If you live on grace, you have to go to arch, and Hubert,

sometimes to get out of your own neighborhood, and if you

put that parking garage there, you can't get out Lois, and

the depth that has happened on Lois is unaccountable.

And one of the Mann things that happened on Lois because of

the impact was my mom.

So it's personal to me.

In the last couple of months, we had two other deaths right

on Lois because of the impact of the traffic.

But the main thing, the impact of this neighborhood, we

can't get out of your own neighborhood, and we want to keep

this side of the wall commercial, and the north side of that

wall residential.

If you can't put apartments like you say you would do for

us, the townhomes, to cut down part of it, I heard that the

city, just like you said, the city did see it was hazardous

on Hubert right there.

It's going to back that traffic up from same res, from Lois

to hype res.

It's going to back all that traffic up and come off the

interstate and everything.

(Bell sounds)

And you guys know that.

You always want to talk about your gain but never talk about




our loss.

The quality of life.

The quality of our neighborhood.

09:03:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to address council?

Are there any questions or comments from council members for

staff before we move on to the petitioner's rebuttal?

09:03:54 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
I think most of the comments revolved

around transportation.

So I would like to ask Mr. Coen to come and attempt to

address some of those comments here.

Thank you.

09:04:05 >> Randy Coen.

Let's talk a little about traffic.

A lot of misperceptions.

When you have cut through traffic in your neighborhood you

assume anything that's going to happen in and around or

adjacent to your neighborhood is going to add to that

cut-through traffic.

We provided a driveway connection designed for the Hubert

entrance that will keep the commercial traffic off of

Hubert.

It will not back up traffic on Hubert because, frankly, the

only traffic that would back up would be leaving the parking

garage.




You would have to take a left out of that driveway onto

Hubert.

If the queue R queue of traffic extends past the garage

driveway you cannot pull out onto Hubert so you will not be

blocking Hubert.

Let's talk about traffic volumes for a moment.

And I hate to get into a lot of numbers.

But basically, 80% of the traffic to this project based upon

the existing office buildings and our surveys in the area do

not use Lois Avenue.

15% comes along cypress from the west.

40% comes along cypress from the east.

25% of the traffic comes along Lois Avenue from the south.

None of those directions have any reason to go through the

neighborhood, nor going through the neighborhood for even

anything close to a direct route to get to this facility.

So we are talking about 20% of the traffic.

In the morning that's 37 new trips.

In the afternoon that's 47 new trips.

But since if you are coming south on Lois and you try to

turn into the neighborhood to get to the parking structure,

you will get to the driveway of Hubert.

But you cannot make a left from Hubert into the driveway for

a parking garage.

So once again, why would you be cutting through the




neighborhood?

We understand there are issues in the neighborhood, and that

there is cut-through traffic in the neighborhood.

This project simply has been designed not to allow that.

We tried our best not to have maneuvering in the

right-of-way, et cetera on Hubert.

However, solid waste came to a point where we had to put our

solid waste facility over on Hubert so we did.

We did it in a very sensitive fashion.

We conformed to every up with of the Westshore overlay

criteria as it relate to solid waste facility and

residentially zoned properties.

We placed it substantially away from the roadway.

We placed it substantially away from the residential home to

the south of this particular site.

We have used it as a buffer actually for the driveway coming

into the parking garage to keep as much noise, light and

issues away from the neighborhood as we can.

So we had a very small traffic problem.

Will there be someone to figure out and do a 3-point turn to

get into the driveway?

Probably.

But they will probably learn very quickly that's just not a

good thing to do.

Coming out will someone try to run over the raised concrete




island that we have there to pro prevent them from turning

right?

I'm sure someone will try to do that and someone will

probably succeed in doing that.

But it won't be often and it will probably stop pretty

quickly after they have tried it once and realize that it

doesn't work very well for their automobile.

So we don't see there being cut-through traffic from this

project.

What we do see is that there is an issue in the

neighborhood, and Highwoods has committed themselves to

working with the neighborhood to try to resolve some of

these issues.

From a traffic standpoint, we just don't have it.

From a driveway standpoint, we designed the driveway to

minimize and mitigate for any potential of impact into the

neighborhood from this project.

We have worked a good stent extent with solid waste and

transportation to make sure we provided something that would

work and would also be functional for solid waste and we

have achieved that.

Not a small task.

With that I will be glad to answer any questions that you

have.

09:07:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
Councilman Reddick.




09:08:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Coen, I recall about a year ago another developer stood

before us and said basically what you are discussing today,

and there was plenty cut-through traffic going through that

same neighborhood.

If you ever pass through there, or visit someone out there,

you see that same cut-through off of Boy Scout, and into

that neighborhood.

09:08:35 >> Yes, do you.

09:08:36 >>FRANK REDDICK:
You can state numbers, but you can't

factually state the reality.

09:08:44 >> They do cut through today, you are absolutely correct.

09:08:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So you can put the number and you can put

a wall where people want to get through, they can find a

way.

09:08:56 >> Yes, sir.

09:08:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And that's the reality.

That's not the numbers.

You can say you are going to have 10 cars or 15 cars.

But the reality is going to be higher and greater.

So there's no guarantee that you can give to these people

that it will not be any cut-through.

There is no guarantee.

Because you were just stating data.

But you are not stating the reality.




Because you are not out there every day.

And I have seen -- I have a relative who lives in that

neighborhood.

And when I visit them, because they live in that

neighborhood, I see the traffic problem.

And it's getting worse because there's a lot of development

that is going on into that area.

And it's getting to the point now where some people, senior

citizens, been out there 50, 60 years, are selling their

property because of development.

So I don't think -- and there is no guarantee that there

will not be cut-through, traffic congestion, to these

neighbors.

Unless you are there 24 hours a day, there's no guarantee.

You can't guarantee that.

But you can give data analysis, but as I state, you can't

give the reality of what you witness personally.

And that's the problem I am having, because when we go to

Loretta Ingram out there, you can see the traffic cutting

through.

And with programs that they are having out there at the

facility out there.

So I can't support this project, because I know the reality.

And what triggered me to fall in line more, when I read the

comments from the transportation department, when they spoke




about pedestrians, and the problems that pedestrians could

encounter,.

And when I look at their report and they talk about that,

and they are talking about the safety of those pedestrians,

that's a problem.

09:11:46 >> I understand.

09:11:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So there's no way to justify the safety of

these kids and these people that their life is in jeopardy.

And when I'm hearing that from the transportation report,

that bothered me.

09:12:12 >> Yes, sir.

09:12:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So I just wanted to make that known here

at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

09:12:18 >>HARRY COHEN:
Councilman Suarez.

09:12:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a quick question.

I don't know of hop would answer it on the petitioner's

part.

You have got -- it sound like you are going to be building

387 parking spaces.

09:12:32 >> Yes, sir.

09:12:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think the building, you have three

separate buildings.

You have one that's 8,000 square foot.

One is 5250.




And one is 1 though I 200, something like that.

09:12:45 >> very good.

09:12:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have been reading Mace.

That's what I do sometimes.

I read this stuff.

So obviously that's more parking spaces than what is

necessary for the square footage of those buildings for the

most part.

What is the differential?

It was mentioned during the presentation for the spaces, for

across the street.

09:13:06 >> Yes.

Code requires parking garage have 387 spaces.

Code requires for the development that's on this property

those three buildings, 226 parking spaces.

So there's 161 spaces.

That would be for the offices across the street.

That breakdown is basically 69% for the development on the

property.

31% for the offices across the street.

09:13:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Has there been a discussion?

Because it sound like there's a lot of need across the

street for parking.

09:13:35 >> Yes.

09:13:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
About expanding the parking upward where




they are at.

I don't know if you are able to.

09:13:42 >> I am about to show my age.

I was involved in the approval of those three buildings

across the street.

Ironically, Mr. Mechanik was as well.

09:13:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I am going to show my age.

I worked in one of those buildings in one of my first jobs.

Okay?

09:13:56 >> Okay.

The parking structure that sits on Hubert cannot be expanded

upward.

Structurally it cannot happen.

The other parking structure, which is way down the street,

actually many years ago, had one or two floors added because

it was designed to allow that to happen.

4350.

4350.

So Highwoods finds themselves in a situation that the market

has changed for office.

That they cannot provide any more parking on cypress.

So they have had to do something across the street.

But they certainly didn't want to come in with a proposal,

let us put a parking structure across the street.

They wanted to comply with the Westshore overlay as they




could.

And they have for the new development and the parking

structure.

09:14:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Did you all look at -- obviously, because of

the massing, and I know that you are trying to your best in

design to kind of go above, to not have an impact on the

neighborhood.

09:14:58 >> Yes, sir.

09:15:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Obviously this large of a project is going

to have an impact regardless.

I think everybody knows that.

So was there a thought of like cutting back those 161 spaces

in order to develop those particular buildings?

You know, obviously, the corner lot will be developed and

look a lot better than what's there now.

I think almost everybody in this room would say that.

But with this new project, the one that's going to be next

to it, it's going to be a much larger -- just look at the

picture, it's a pretty overwhelming look at it, you know

what I mean.

09:15:34 >> Doesn't have a lot of height that frankly makes the

length look even longer than it actually is.

Because we are really compressing the height because we want

to be a good neighbor to the resident to the north.

09:15:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Has there been a thought about pushing back




the parking from where the neighborhood is at?

I know that it a 40-foot based on what was described, that

if you wish it back even more it might be closer to having

even more space down there.

Now, not saying that's a design that you necessarily want.

But it definitely would solve some problems that the

neighbors might have.

09:16:12 >> Well, it has been a challenge and a struggle.

And here is what happened.

The parking structure on the second floor actually comes out

here.

It actually is over top of the two retail buildings.

The reason for that is you must have parking on one ramp

that goes up.

Then it has toe turn around and come back and go up again.

We have made the depth of this parking structure as small as

we possibly could.

We fit the maximum number of compact spaces in the structure

to make it as shallow, if you will, the distance between

cypress to grace as we can.

We brought it as far forward to cypress as we can.

We actually asked for a small waiver from 10 feet to 5 feet

for a portion of the cypress frontage because the

right-of-way dog leg is actually right here.

So we pushed everything as far forward as we possibly can to




cypress, kept that depth of the parking structure as shallow

as we possibly can.

And then actually cut off part of the parking structure.

That's why we only have parking on the first floor,

extraordinary floor.

And then the second floor we don't to give that additional

18-foot setback and to provide solely a link.

But we can't make the garage any narrower.

We would just be in surface parking at that point.

09:17:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You can't make it any nor o'er even if you

were limiting the 1617 spaces.

09:17:43 >> No.

Unfortunately we couldn't because you could go up but you

could never get back down.

Just wouldn't work right.

09:17:51 >> Sound like some of the parking garages here in Tampa.

I appreciate it, chair.

09:17:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, sir.

Go ahead.

09:18:03 >>HARRY COHEN:
I just have one question.

It hard to tell from the rendering.

If you look at the rendering, it's an awfully massive thing

to be staring across the street at from your house.

Here on this plan it looks as though there is a lot of

buffering with the use of landscaping and trees and




greenery.

09:18:26 >> Yes.

09:18:29 >>HARRY COHEN:
On here though, it looks like a massive

structure staring in the face of the residents.

You can you put some of this in context?

09:18:38 >> Yes, sir.

I can very well.

The particular elevations that you have in your package from

the zoning site plan, the city requested that we provide

those elevations without landscaping so you could see the

true front of the building, how it looked, et cetera.

When you look at grace street, this is the only existing

tree.

It is a very nice, very large tree.

We are adding substantial trees and vegetation along grace

street in this 20-foot setback that we control as well as

whatever may happen to the 20 feet in front of it.

So when you begin to look at the elevation here, we have

only shown the existing trees, but in fact, as you can see,

we have about 24 trees along that frontage as well, right in

here.

It buffers that and breaks that up quite a bit.

We also have portions in that particular facade where we

have greenery even on the wall.

I believe once we have our landscaping in place, it will




tone down the building quite a bit.

09:19:50 >>HARRY COHEN:
And what's your commit ment in terms of

maintaining all of that?

09:19:55 >> Highwoods maintains all of their property.

One of the things I have enjoyed working with them is they

own and manage their properties.

They do not build projects and typically sell them.

They manage them.

And they really do -- they have owned the buildings across

the street for a substantial amount of time.

They own another building where the bank of Tampa is down

the street on cypress.

They tend to be very long holders of property and maintain

them extremely well.

And they have made that commitment that they will treat this

just like everything else.

09:20:26 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
There is a code requirement that

landscaping that's installed on a new project has to be

maintained.

I defer to the staff.

I don't know how long that is.

But --

We can a sure you Highwoods maintains all of their

properties in perpetuity.

And they keep their properties.




They don't sell them as they build them.

09:20:50 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.

09:21:03 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
If there are no other questions I had

about one more minute to our presentation.

I would like to complete that.

09:21:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Please do.

09:21:11 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
Okay.

Again for the record, my name is David Mechanik.

I would like to clarify what I think is a misconception

about the objections from the transportation department.

One objection about the pedestrians had to do with the

office workers crossing cypress from the two office

buildings.

It has nothing to do with pedestrians in the neighborhood.

And we are again doing everything we can to make sure that

that connection is appropriate and safe for the pedestrians.

The second misconception is that the restriction at the

entrance to the garage is not just signage, which would

prohibit right turns out and left turns in.

These would be raised curbs that would physically prevent

vehicles from turning to the right or turning to the left

depending on the direction that they are coming.

I think we have all experienced those channelized driveways

and it's not a pleasant experience unless you want to lose

the undercarriage of your car.




So with that I would conclude and I would be happy to answer

any other questions.

(Bell sounds).

09:22:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Any other questions?

Okay.

We have a motion to close by Councilman Reddick.

A second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor of closing?

Opposed?

All right.

Item 4.

Councilman Miranda?

No?

Councilman Viera, would you read 4?

09:23:00 >>LUIS VIERA:
Excuse my voice.

I hereby present an ordinance rezoning property in the

general vicinity of 4201, 4217, 4219 and 4221 West Cypress

street and 4202, 4208, 4212, 4214, 4216, section 1 from

zoning classification RO 1 residential office and RS-50

residential single-family detached to PD planned

development, office, business professional, retail,

restaurant, residential, single-family detached, providing

an effective date.

09:23:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Is anybody going to second?

Okay.




We don't have a second.

09:23:55 >> It will die for lack of a second.

09:23:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Exactly.

It died for lack of a second.

09:24:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Is there an alternative motion?

09:24:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An alternative?

Councilman Suarez?

09:24:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Suarez thank you, chair.

I move to deny this petition based on our guidelines under

section 27-136 under purpose, sub1, that this project does

not promote the efficient sustainable use of land and

structural structure with careful consideration, potential

adverse impacts, to on-site elements and the surrounding

impacted neighborhood and cultural resources specifically,

and on sub 6 of the same section that it does not promote

and encourage development where appropriate, and location,

character and compatibility for the surrounding impacted

neighborhood, and environment and existing geography.

09:24:56 >> Second.

09:24:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion by Councilman Suarez.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor?

Opposed?

09:25:04 >> The motion carried with Viera and Capin voting no.

09:25:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.




09:25:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item number 5 on your agenda this evening

is REZ 17-69.

Located at 106 west Euclid Avenue.

The request before you tonight is from RS 16 residential

multiple family to PD planned development, office, business,

professional.

There is one waiver being requested, and that is to reduce

the required parking from five spaces to zero.

09:25:53 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

We are in the central planning district for this next case,

specifically the Tampa Heights urban village.

There is transit within the immediate area.

Number of routes around the surrounding neighborhood.

The site in that portion of Tampa Heights, it's not within

an evacuation zone.

Onto the aerial.

You can see the subject site is right in the center,

Columbus Drive to the south, we have got North Tampa Street.

This is -- you can see, there's a number of parking lots

surrounding this site.

This is the DW waters career center right here.

And then you have got commercial uses at the intersection of

Columbus Drive and North Tampa.

Onto the future land use map.

The subject site and all the properties to the east, west




and north are all that residential 20.

Then immediately to the south, properties fronting on

Columbus had that community mixed use 35 future land use

category, beginning just mower intense as you go to the

south and east of the subject site.

The red is the community commercial 35 and the blue is the

public quasi-public associated with if DW waters.

Residential office rezonings may be considered in a

residential 20 future land use category if the subject site

meets locational criteria. As outlined in the comprehensive

plan the proposed PD does not meet the locational criteria.

Directly west and north of the subject site are vacant lots

zoned RM-16 and this general commercial zoning adjacent to

the south and existing PD to the east.

The locational criteria is only guideline.

It does say that it's not the only criteria.

Also look at the development pattern, the surrounding area.

This is an urban village, urban villages do encourage a

mixture of uses in appropriate areas.

Based on that, Planning Commission staff was in support of

waiving the locational criteria for this site.

Further, the comprehensive plan encourages redevelopment

projects in those urban villages that contribute to the

mixed use nature.

There's commercial directly to the south.




There's parking facility here.

So the site, the last structure in the immediate area, the

residential really doesn't begin now until you get up to

this area because of the school and the parking -- I won't

say eaten up the neighborhood, but they have utilized their

property for parking.

So based on all those and looking at the surrounding area,

Planning Commission staff finds the proposed planned

development consistent with the provisions of the Tampa

comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

09:29:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

09:29:21 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

The application before you tonight is requesting to rezone

the property at 106 west Euclid Avenue from residential

multifamily to PD to allow for adaptive reuse of an existing

newly renovated single-family dwelling as a business

professional office.

The 5800 square foot lot, it is located one lot west of

North Tampa Street on Euclid, directly to the east of this

is the newly approved -- I think you guys approved that

shuffleboard restaurant place that will new concept of

shuffleboard and dining on Tampa Street.

You opened the door for silliness.

So that's directly to the west of this across the alley.




And as they said, it is one lot and David talked to you

about the school board properties that are to the north and

west of this.

This is kind of one little single-family residence in the

middle of a bunch of nonresidential uses.

So there is also a place of religious assembly to the south

along Columbus as well as the fish market that's just to the

south of this same alley.

The PD setbacks are based on the location of the existing

structure.

North 12 feet.

South 20 feet.

West 7 feet.

East 7 feet.

The maximum building height is proposed at 35.

The existing structure is 20 feet in height.

Based on the square footage, this conversion would require

five parking spaces, and there is one space that's currently

in the driveway, but it does not meet technical standards

from the driveway from the separation of the unit section.

So it does not qualify technically as a space.

Therefore, their waiver is from five to zero.

We also trade to park it on the alley.

There are large trees on that side of the house.

We could not fit the spaces in there.




We tried a bunch of different configurations, but

technically, the site could not accommodate on-site parking.

As you know, code does allow four parking spaces within a

thousand feet if you enter into a long-term lease agreement.

The applicant can speak to that.

There are surface parking lots completely surrounding this

property, but they were not able to turn into a long-term

lease that would meet our code requirements with the school

board.

Therefore, the outcome was to request a full parking waiver.

I will go ahead and show you the property.

This property in green, there is an alley that runs directly

to the east.

Euclid to the north.

What is the name of that shuffleboard dining experience

location in this here?

09:32:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You are the one that slapped me down for not

knowing technical terms and now you are going to ask me?

09:32:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
The beer Garten.

(Laughter).

09:32:58 >> That urban garden.

Okay.

Sorry, sorry.

I digress.

So this RM-16 is the adult education center.




And then along Columbus, there is auto repair, store, the

church.

So there is a bunch of different uses.

Here is the aerial.

Again you can see the surface parking.

Surface parking directly to the west.

We'll show you some quick pictures of this site.

And residential use as long Columbus.

Nonresidential use as long Tampa.

This is a picture of the subject property.

And this is the eastern side of the subject.

This is the existing drive.

And then that is the alley wrapped around.

And that wooden fence there, the back of that.

To the west, you will see is the -- I believe it's the

parking area.

This is from the alley looking north and you can see some of

the large trees that were prohibiting the ability to use

that.

This is the northbound from the alley continuing north.

Tampa would be over to the east.

And then the additional surface lot.

And then the shuffleboard.

That is located directly to the east along Tampa Street.

My first picture I ever got bird in the picture.




[Rustling papers] Land Development Coordination and

transportation did find the request inconsistent related to

the 100 purse parking reduction.

If it is the pleasure of council to approve that, then I

believe there are no modifications required on the site plan

in between first and second reading.

Thank you.

09:35:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I'm so glad everybody is coming up right on

cue.

Great.

09:35:26 >> Jim Porter, Adams and Reese, 101 East Kennedy.

We are very excited to be here tonight to present this

project to you.

It one of the great things happening in the Tampa height

urban village.

I am going to show you a picture of what the property looked

like before it was renovated.

I think it's significant.

This is 1910.

And as Abbye and David both alluded, it really is an island

right now.

It's the last remaining structure of its kind surrounded

literally by parking lot. We trade everything we could to

find parking, but because of the configuration of the lot,

the size of the lot and the number of mature trees, it was




physically impossible to meet the standard.

It's a very small bidding, only about 1350, I think, is the

square footage.

The office is an administrative office.

It's not the kind of use that will have clients coming to it

or have the public appear.

So the parking problem is a real one on paper but in reality

it's not going to be a problem.

There's right-of-way in front of the property, parallel

parking is allowed.

The driveway will allow it and there's free parking-in the

street.

It's surrounded by parking lots but because of the criteria

needed to justify for the city, that couldn't be

accomplished.

We have been in contact with Tampa Heights Civic

Association.

They are generally in support of the project, and of the

whatever you.

We made every effort to make sure the sidewalks stay clear,

that the wasn't obstructed.

We are committed to that as well.

I talked with Melanie Calloway and Abbye about that and we

are committed to keep that sidewalk open.

We are not aware of any objections to. This we think it




enhances the neighborhood and it a great project.

Mr. Azarelli, the project architect is here, if you have any

questions about parking space on the site.

The owners of the property are also here if you have

questions of them but we respectfully ask for your approval.

09:37:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Councilman Suarez.

09:37:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Porter, if you can't get parking, maybe

I am reading this wrong, the school board has some property

near there?

09:37:40 >> DW Waters, the school board owns property, and I want to

say on the record, I am not representing the school board in

any way, shape or form.

09:37:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I would have figured that somebody might

talk to you about this and would have come up --

09:37:53 >> It's a city requirement for long-term lease.

The school board will not do.

There are plenty of space there is if it really came to

that.

09:38:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I was worried for you if you couldn't

contact somebody at the school board.

Okay.

So that explains what I'm thinking here.

09:38:08 >> Yes.

09:38:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I appreciate it.




09:38:13 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Any other questions?

Petitioner?

Anyone in the public wish to address us on item 5, which is

REZ 17-69?

09:38:24 >> Move to close.

09:38:27 >> Second.

09:38:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion to close by Councilman Reddick.

Seconded by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor of closing?

Opposed?

Councilman Reddick, would you read number 5, please?

09:38:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move an ordinance being presented for

first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property

in the general vicinity of 106 west Euclid Avenue in the

city of Tampa, Florida and mower particularly described in

section 1 from zoning district classification RM-16

residential, multifamily, to PD, planned development,

office, business/professional, providing an effective date.

09:39:00 >> Second.

09:39:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Reddick.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor?

Opposed?

09:39:08 >> Motion carried unanimously.




Second reading and adoption will be on January 11th,

2018 at 9:30 a.m.

09:39:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We going to take a five-minute break and be

back in five minute.

[Council recess]



[Sounding gavel]

[Off microphone.]

09:50:29 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.

09:50:31 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.

09:50:35 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.

09:50:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.

09:50:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present. Item number 6.

09:50:43 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
REZ 17-75 located at 7202 and 7204 North

Florida Avenue.

The request before you tonight is from SH-RS, Seminole

Heights single-family residential, to SH-CI, Seminole

Heights commercial intensive, to -- did I say SH-PD?

Air conditioned storage and off-street commercial -- it

should just be air conditioned storage.

Sorry.

No off-street commercial parking.

Parking is on the property and doesn't classify as that.

There are two waivers being requested.

The first is section 27-283-7 to reduce the required




parking.

The staff router says 43 to 9, but pier some modifications

that will be proposed to you this evening, the waiver will

be at 41 to 15.

And I do have a revised revision sheet to provide you for

that.

And what's being shown to be modified, in your site plan, in

front of you,

There is going to be some additional parking that will be

added as is shown here in red, and then the dump stir being

moved closer to the commercial property.

Here is the SH-CI, and this piece here is the SH-RS.

So the dump stir is going to be moved a foot closer to where

it's shown on your plan.

This is the plan that is in front of you.

And the dutch stir is way over here.

That's going to be brought closer east.

And then additional parking placed in this area here so that

parking waiver would be revised to be 41 to 15 which is a

53% reduction

And then the second is to reduce the required number of

loading spaces from 4 to 2.

I will have David go ahead and present on the comp plan and

then I will finish up on the project for your presentation.

09:53:18 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.




I have been sworn.

We are in that central Tampa planning district for this

case.

More specifically, the Seminole Heights urban village

There is transit.

Even though it is way up there in level D evacuation zone.

And it's on a transit emphasis corridor.

Onto the aerial, you can see the subject here.

This is North Florida Avenue.

You have got Hamilton to the North.

Here is I-275. This is Sligh just to the south.

There's a motel directly to the south.

Right on this corner.

You can see the commission development all up and down that

pourings of Florida.

And then when you get off of the corridor, it's mostly

single-family detached, and then duplex scattered duplexes.

Onto the future land use.

You can see the subject site has two land use categories.

It's a 1.17 acre subject site approximately .92 acres of

that is that community commission 35.

And then than the remaining person portion .25 is

residential 10.

Again, this is the red.

That's that community missioner 35 and the neighborhood, the




residential pourings is that residential 10 with the tan.

You have got public quasi-public and recreation open space

in the green.

That's residential 20 further to the North.

The subject site is within that urban village.

Due to its location within that Seminole Heights, there's

specific policies allowing that if you are within an

identified node and this falls within an identified

neighborhood node, within Seminole Heights, the subject site

has the ability to increase the maximum intensity our

intensity an additional 25 purse Yolanda what is typically

allowed as a maximum under your two future land use

categories.

So the applicant has indicated they are seeking that node

bonus and has worked with the city to work out an agreement

that you will see at the second reading.

The comprehensive plan encourages in-fill development in the

urban villages especially in designated neighborhoods nodes

and along these major corridors.

The development is seeking increase of development

potential. Planning Commission staff finds this project is

compatible with the surrounding development and is no

location that is encouraged by the comprehensive plan to

increase density and intensity.

The comprehensive plan is also supportive of the building




design that is up closer to the road, and that the parking

and retention is located in the south and to the back of the

western side of the parcel.

Based on all that and the policy direction within the

comprehensive plan, Planning Commission staff recommends to

you this evening that the proposed planned development be

found consistent with the provisions of the Imagine 2040

Tampa comprehensive plan.

That completes my presentation.

09:57:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

09:57:02 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thank you, David.

The request before you tonight is 7202 and 72 oh 10th 4

North Florida Avenue is to SH PD to allow for the

construction of a four-story air conditioned south storage

facility with a maximum of 826 units.

That 826 is also being revised in between first and second

reading to be 786 which then lowers the parking requirement

and reflected that parking number I gave you earlier which

would be 41 spaces to 15.

The property is currently occupied by dry cleaning units.

I will show you some pictures of that.

And it is proposed to consist much 93,640 square feet of

development.

It's surrounded by place of religious assembly to the west,

a motel to the south within SH-CI, detached single-family




dwelling to the west within the SH-RS and vehicle sales to

the east within the SH-CI along north Florida.

The proposed request requires once those modifications are

made, 41 spaces and once it is modified, 15 spaces would be

provided.

The waiver is being requested for the 63% reduction.

The maximum proposed building height is 51 feet 6 inches.

And it is located within the Seminole Heights form-based

code pourings of the city.

The elevations have been provided in a modern architectural

style.

The project to utilize the criteria for the underlying land

use of the CC 35 and residential 10.

Allows one by right up to two and a half with a bounce, and

they are seeking the bonus, and then the payment is in the

ount of $287,993.

The associated development agreement is here this evening,

and Mrs. Kert does have that as well.

Let me go ahead and go through the aerial.

As was just pointed out to me and I do want to correct, this

south line for the property should be up at the next parcel

line.

This does not include the motel to the south

This is the aerial, SH-CI along Florida.

Only until you get to Florida, then goes to SH-RS, and there




is a portion of SH-CG immediately to the west.

I will go ahead and show you the photo presentation.

This is a picture of the property from Hamilton.

This is from Florida.

This is back from Hamilton.

Moving west.

This is the church.

That's the store.

And then south of the property on Florida.

The motel.

And then there is some newer rehabilitated retail to the

south.

Along Florida.

To the north on Hamilton, these lots right hair, there's two

new in-fill.

I am going toe show you the hill family residential and then

the existing.

Here is the first.

This is the second.

This is the corner of Hawkins and Hamilton.

This is Hawkins looking North.

This is kind of that dividing line along where this SH-CI

comes in to play.

There is an office as you approach Florida.

This is another view at the North west corner of Florida and




Hamilton.

Directly across the street on the east side of Florida.

And then on the east side.

In relation to staff findings, Land Development Coordination

did have a series of modifications that needed to be made in

between first and second reading.

Also, staff did find the request inconsistent related to

number 6 in the CD cry tier yeah and I will redo that

finding.

In relation to urban design, as this is in Seminole Heights

section, they need some notations added, and they also had

an inconsistent finding in relation to the parking

reduction.

Transportation had a finding of inconsistency in relation to

the parking reduction at 79 purse.

It will now be 63 purse.

And I believe that signage having consistency related to the

parking built in.

In relation to number 6 of the PD criteria, Mary found that

the applicant is requesting the parking reduction of 79

purse, and based on the modifications it would be 63%.

The configuration and size of the site provides ample space

to accommodate additional parking.

The pending code change, as you guys -- I'm sorry, as

council knows, we came to you with a potential code change




because there have been how large waivers on these soft

storage facility that we're being granted, because the

parking ratio was quite high.

Mary did a calculation based on the new code change, and it

said that the pending code change would decrease the

requirements from one space pier 20 storage units to one

space per 50.

Given the maximum number of units for this application, 826,

and I understand that on the revision it shows these

lowered -- based on her analysis of the current, if this was

in effect now the required parking would be 18 spaces for

the site and the applicant is proposing 9 which would be

50%.

So if we put that based on what they're asking for now plus

the additional spaces, they would be pretty close, and I can

run that number for you, because now they're asking for 786

and they are going to get 15 spaces, so they would be pretty

close under the new code to what would be required.

That being said, if it's the pleasure of council to approve

this, the modifications would need to be made between first

and second reading.

I will give you the revised revision sheet to go ahead and

show you these other modifications, and then I will run

those numbers for you real quick on what it would be based

on the new number of units.




Under what the new parking requirement would be.

I'm available for any questions.

10:05:08 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

There is a bonus provision that goes along with this.

It was previously provided to City Council.

It's not up for consideration tonight but if you do move

faired with it on first reading, you have the option to

adopt it on second reading by resolution.

10:05:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Petitioner?

10:05:36 >> Good evening members of City Council.

My name is Bryan Kiraly, 6911 pistol range road.

That's Tampa, Florida.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our proposal for

redevelopment.

With the density bonus and the two waivers -- I'm sorry -- I

joined just in case you have questions, I am joined by

Jordan Browaise, who is our self-storage acquisitions

manager, and Mike Bednowski, who is one of our managing

partners.

I do have a presentation.

I will be as brief as I possibly can but I would like to

entire my presentation if I may.

I think it's important to mention at the start who is Broome

Capital?

We are a local company.




Broome capital is really development, Broome storage, the

two brands, pro lux properties goes back to 1986.

They have been in rental home, home rentals and management

since 1986, primarily in Pinellas County but also in Pasco

and Hillsborough County.

We have done a few new single-family, new construction

projects.

What we call scattered lots.

We actually have three of them in the City of Tampa

producer.

And then of course, Icon. That's actually what my business

cards say.

I'm the planning manager for Icon Residential.

We do new urban in-fill townhomes.

We have six communities in the Tampa Bay air.

And two within the City of Tampa producer.

That would be Westshore village, which is the old site

across International Mall and then exchange which is south

of Gandy off of westshore.

Additional projects in Sarasota, Orlando, Winter Park,

Atlanta.

So the urban self storage is a fairly new market for us.

It leads me to a segue in how do we go from new urbanist

townhomes to self-storage?

And basically, there is trends, increased demand for




self-storage.

I am sure I don't have to tell you there's a trend where

people, the trend to reurbanization, they may be downsizing

whether it's millennials our baby boomers who don't want to

take care of a quarter acre lot anymore.

The bottom line is that it's downsizing.

That's a general trend.

Specific to this site, we picked it because Seminole Heights

tends to have older and smaller homes, and I don't mean that

in any bad way.

There's many beautiful bungalows there.

It's just the older homes typically they don't have attic

space, so there is a higher demand for storage.

And then it is also important to note that there is really

no other self-storage nearby.

The near oath one is actually 2.2 miles to the south,

southwest on Hillsborough.

As far as the site plan, I think I actually can city over

that.

Abbye went through the -- we have worked with staff.

We are going to add some parking here, shift the dump stir,

reconfigure the pond.

We also -- there is a split between residential both zoning

and future land use along the back.

And I would just comment that the site plan is specific.




So we use the pond to have suitable transition and buffering

to adjacent residential.

Staff gave a detailed analysis.

I will just give mill perspective on land use compatibility.

It is located at the intersection of a principle arterial.

Certainly north Florida is a commercial corridor and is

commercial development.

So we feel strongly that it is compatible and consistent

form of development.

The site actually, the building is there.

You can't call it vacant but it has been inactive for at

least five years.

The site is in an area in general ripe for redevelopment.

And wire using the stormwater pond to have a suitable

transition.

Site plan meets other code requirements as far as setbacks,

lines, that kind of thing.

One thing that I do want to mention that's important is we

did hold a neighborhood meeting right after Thanksgiving

that was not required but is kind of our standard practice.

Just because we want to know how the community feels.

We only had three people show up.

And knock on wood, we did not have any opposition. I don't

see anyone in place here.

And actually, it was the ladies from the Seminole Heights




neighborhood association, and that site has been inactive

for over five years.

Abbye has gone through some of the parking.

Maybe a little confusing, the numbers.

We have dropped the number of units in the storage facility,

which reduces the parking off the top.

Abbye has discussed the code revisions, potential code

revisions.

Under the new code, which is not in force yet so we do have

to ask for the variance but the number for the required

parking under the new code would be 16.

And wire providing 15.

I actually love that 16 but we had to do a landscape island,

so we got back to 15.

So under that provision, if that was in effect, it would

still be a waiver, but would only be 6.25 purse our one

space.

Since it is still a waiver, and since we still have to ask

for a waiver, I will read into the record that there have

been three other self-storage projects with reduced parking.

Abbye did mention them.

One is 75 purse reduction in parking.

One is 49.

And one is 61.

10:11:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, sir?




10:11:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
The 156 that had waivers, was that

understood the new method our old?

10:11:50 >> No, these you are older cases.

I was just citing them --

10:11:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
What happened in the past was a high

versus your 6.23.

I'm just talking plain math.

10:12:02 >> Well, without the code, then we would be at 63 purse.

10:12:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't want to give marbles and donuts

mixed.

10:12:11 >> Yes, sir.

10:12:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.

10:12:13 >> Thank you for helping me clarify that.

I will note very quickly, hopefully you would agree that our

architect did work to try to find a design that had heavy

verticals that would be considered consistent or kind of

conceptualized on a Seminole Heights commission development,

vertical windows, and facade, mixture of materials.

One of the things that I didn't stress when I went through

the site plan is that we do have a storefront appearance on

both north Florida and Hamilton.

With awnings.

It does have a high level of pedestrian scale as far as the

openings and window openings, stores, which is unusual for a

typical self-storage development.




And then the offices oriented towards North Florida.

So in closing, I would say respectfully request you approve

our proposal based on a few things, that it's compatible

forum of development in a commission corridor.

We have worked with staff.

Parking was the big thing and we have worked out with

staff -- I'm sorry, worked out the parking through the best

that we could.

It is an attractive architectural design.

And barring any people speaking tonight, otherwise, we have

had no community opposition.

So I thank you very much for your consideration.

And I'm available for any questions.

10:13:41 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Any questions?

No questions?

Anyone in the public wish to address us on item REZ 17-75?

10:13:51 >> Move to close.

10:13:54 >> Second.

10:13:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion to close by Councilman Reddick.

Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

All in favor to close?

Opposed?

Councilman Miranda.

Would you read?

10:14:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I move item number 6.




File REZ 17-75.

An ordinance presented for first reading.

An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of

72702 and 72074 North Florida Avenue in the city of Tampa,

Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from

zoning district classification SH RS Sandy Hook Elementary

Seminole Heights S single-family detached and SH-CI Seminole

Heights commission intensive to SH PD, Seminole Heights

planned development air conditioned storage and off-street

commission parking providing an effective date.

And Abbye, you need anything else in the record, the

revision sheet?

Revised revision sheet as stated by Mrs. Feeley.

10:14:51 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Miranda.

Seconded by Councilman Reddick.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you.

10:14:58 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Viera being absent at

vote.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11th,

2018 at 9:30 a.m.

10:15:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We move on to item 7 which is REZ 17-78.

10:15:13 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.




REZ 17-78 is located at 1209 West Swann Avenue.

The request before you is from RM-16 residential multifamily

to PD planned development, office, medical, and business

professional and specialty retail.

There are a couple waivers being requested.

One thing I just want to note while you are listening to

this presentation, it is zoned RM-16 right now.

There is a medical office there right now.

It was built in 1958.

I'll look.

1950.

So it is a medical office that is currently a nonconforming

use in the residential district, but they're looking to

demolish and reconstruct an office in the same location as

the one that was constructed there in 1950.

There are a couple of waivers being requested.

The first is to reduce the required parking from 30 spaces

to 26.

The second is to reduce the required use-to-use buffer on

the North from 15-foot with a 6-foot concrete masonry wall

to 5-foot with a 6-foot wood fence.

And on the west from 15-foot with a 6-foot concrete masonry

wall to 15 feet with a 6-foot wood fence.

This property is located in the Hyde Park historic district,

and the wood fence is a preference in the district.




Typically you will see that the switch from masonry to PVC

of some south but in this case it is a request for the wood

and the final material would be discussed at the certificate

of appropriateness with the ARC.

10:17:12 >>HARRY COHEN:
Let me ask you a question for brevity sake

here.

The parking waivers, four spaces?

10:17:23 >> Yes.

10:17:24 >>HARRY COHEN:
If they were not trying to accommodate this

grand tree remaining on the property, how many mower

parking -- would they be able to avoid that waiver?

10:17:37 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
No.

They will still need a couple.

It's actually an improvement over what's there today.

And I was going to go over that in my presentations because

right now the alley is open.

They're going to end up closing the northern part of the

parking lot.

I'll show you some pictures.

Ed and they're going to put some spaces in there.

So it's an improvement over the current situation.

And there are for on-street directly in front of the

property.

The third is to reduce the required buffer area along the

alley from 8 to 2 if N fee in lieu at the time of permitting




at the applicable district rate.

I will go ahead and let David go and then I will come back

in and address questions.

10:18:24 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn.

We are in the central Tampa planning district for this case.

One of the three targeted growth areas.

Also the Hyde Park urban village.

There is transit.

Closest is up on Platt.

They have discontinued the route on Swann.

The subject site is located within the level C evacuation

zone.

Onto the aerial.

Abbye will give you a closer view of the immediate

surrounding air.

But this is Swann.

Here is the subject site.

We have New Port to the east, Willow to the west, the first

case this evening was right over here.

So we are close to the.

Hyde Park village.

Crosstown.

Bay shower.

There's office on the north side.




It is mostly single-family detached.

The Hyde Park neighborhood on the south side of Swann.

And then the commission at Hyde Park village and the Woodrow

Wilson middle school is right there.

Onto the future land use map.

The subject site -- and all these properties in light brown

on the North swap, residential 20.

Immediately to the south, it the residential 10 with the

residential portion of Hyde Park.

You have got the community mixed use 35 down in the village.

And then you can see scattered throughout to the North, it's

residential 35 actually.

And Woodrow Wilson in the blue which is the public

quasi-public.

The applicant is seeking to rezone to allow for that

professional and medical office use.

There is a policy direction in the comp plan, and we know

the applicant has worked with the neighborhood to remove it.

But I have to tell you about it because it in the comp plan.

The comp plan does encourage connections to alleys.

It's not basically -- it doesn't warrant a denial our

inconsistent finding on that, but we have to at least there

is that policy direction about that.

But the neighborhood has expressed that they do want that

alley closed for some cross access there.




Was that one issue regarding, but overall, the Planning

Commission staff found that it does meet the intent of the

urban villages, creating that mixture of uses that's called

for within the villages.

It is also provides the proposed rezoning provides for

development that is comparable and compatible with that

nonresidential development that's located on the North side

of Swann.

And based on all that, Planning Commission staff finds the

proposed planned development consistent with the provisions

of the Tampa comprehensive plan.

10:21:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

10:21:19 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

As I mentioned, they are requesting a rezoning from RM-16 to

PD to do office, medical, as well as they asked for business

professional office, and specialty retail in case the

building ever is used for anything else in the future.

But it really is intended to be for medical office.

The subject is located at the North east corner of Willow

and Swann.

It consist of 15,000 square feet.

It's surrounded by place of religious assembly to the west,

residential to the North, and south, and an office to the

east.

The existing office as I mentioned was constructed in 1950.




The property does contain a 36-inch grand tree along Swann,

as well as two larger trees, one in the west side of the

parking area which is a 31-inch and one on the east side

which is a 21-inch.

That they're being able to retain and provide adequate

protection.

The PD setbacks are as follows: North 5 feet, south 10

feet, west 5 feet and east 60 feet.

Maximum building height is proposed at 35 feet.

As mentioned a total of 30 space you are required.

26 are being provided.

A waiver is being requested for the four spaces.

There are on-street directly in front of the office.

Existing office for on-street spaces now.

I know we don't count those for required parking but given

the tree configuration, and the on-street, land development

did not have a problem with the requested waiver related to

the four spaces.

This is located in the Hyde Park historic district.

The local district.

It was reviewed by the ARC for recommendation on November

6th and the ARC voted to recommend approval as presented

at the public hiring with the following consideration.

The radius of the southeast corner is squared off prior to

seeking an ARC certificate of appropriateness.




The applicant agreed after hiring to make that modification

in between first and second reading of the rezoning and the

motion was approved with a unanimous vote.

Final architectural style and elements will be subject to

review and approval by the ARC through the circumstance of

appropriateness process.

[Rustling papers]

This is somewhat of a unique property, it has that long

frontage along Swann, but mower narrow up Willow, and then

all the way back toured the alley.

The existing building is located at the south winner corner

of the site and the proposed building will be located

approximately the same location.

Swann to the south.

New Port to the east.

Willow to the west.

Let me go ahead and show you so photos.

Here is the site plan.

Some of the modifications, one of them from natural

resources.

These trees here will not have the required protective

radius.

So they're asking that those be shown as removed in the

updated tree table between first and second reading.

This is also the area where the use-to-use buffer is being




requested to be reduced.

Because there is single-family residential -- our

multifamily residential here.

So there is a reduction there.

And that's partially also where the wood fence request was

here and here due to the trees in the distance from the

building.

In reference to the alley, I am going to show you some

pictures and the applicant can provide you with better

firings.

But there seems to be a lot of cut-through that comes down

that alley at a very high speed, and is going over the

private property.

So it's causing safety concerns, and they're going to close

that alley there and then provide additional parking spaces

in that location.

And I will show you right now, you really cannot physically

see where the private property and the public right-of-way

you are occurring.

This is on the corner of Willow and Swann.

You can see -- I'm sorry.

You can see hair when you look at the existing parking air,

you can see that straight shot into that alley.

I am going to show you in a little bit a picture of that.

Directly to the east.




I'm sorry.

This is at the corner of New Port and Swann.

On the south side of Swann directly across from the

property.

Residences that face Willow and New Port. So really corner

beyond all reasonable doubt that face Swann.

Here is the front of the property existing with the small

wall, and then the on street parking spaces.

This is looking west into the village.

This is the existing parking area.

You can see some of the canopy of that grand tree.

Those you are the trees that are currently at the

intersection of the L. there that I talked about.

This is from the corner, this corner of the back property

looking east.

Here you can see that's the alley.

So there is also a north-south alley.

So that just becomes transportation.

This is to the North.

It is actually residential multifamily.

And this is the current east -- west elevation of the

existing structure.

And then this is the church parking lot to the west.

There were a few site modifications from land development.

Myself.




And a couple from natural resources, transportation did find

the request for the parking reduction inconsistent with

code, and they're present if you wish to discuss that with

them.

[Rustling papers] I believe if the modification -- I'm sorry

there.

Will be an inconsistent finding from transportation in

relation to the parking waiver.

But fits council's pleasure to grant that waiver, the

application is found consistent by the remaining members of

the BRC.

10:28:58 >> Ralph Schuler, 1719 North Howard.

I have not been sworn.

10:29:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Anyone else that is going to testify that

has not been sworn?

(Oath administered by Clerk).

10:29:22 >> I do.

Good evening.

My name is Ralph Schuler.

Dr. Ruth is here.

He's been owner of this property for approximately 25 years.

He practiced here for 25 years.

In practice for a considerable time.

And really, the subject property just needs a face lift.

Look today's doesn't fit what we want to do.




We are going to basically demolish the one building, replace

it with a much smaller contemporary use for how modern

medicine is used today.

So, really, nothing is going to change except you are going

to get a much prettier building.

There have been -- I think it quite simple, we don't have an

alley.

Dr. Ruth has a parking lot that people have been using for

25 years and cut through his private property.

He wants to eliminate that.

Honestly as Patter of any new commission development he

would be required to provide a buffer and a fence.

Any other place would put a wall.

But the fence is what wire going to provide.

We are here because where Dr. Ruth's property is,

nonconforming use.

It has been in this capacity for decades, before Mr. Ruth

took ownership of the property.

So we are here just to basically build a new building.

The waivers.

The waivers that wire requesting, I think, are very modest.

We currently are asking for four parking spaces.

We have trees in the way.

We have four on-street parking spaces that nobody really

utilizes.




So really you are providing in my opinion adequate parking

for development.

I think it's really a nonissue.

The second is the buffering.

The existing building is almost in the exact same location

as the building on the require setback.

Again nothing is really going to change from here to here.

And then we have tremendous tree canopy that wire going to

preserve.

This is the is the first time that I hired natural resources

wants us to take a couple of trees.

If that's what they want wire as I recall amenable to.

That but in conclusion, really it's a pretty straightforward

process.

I don't think -- I think ARC agrees that this is a proper

scale and we will resolve any architectural issues with the

ARC.

With that I'll take questions.

10:32:38 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Any questions of petitioner?

Anyone in the public wish to address us on item 7 which is

REZ 17-78?

10:32:51 >> Move to close.

10:32:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion to close by Councilman Maniscalco.

Seconded by Councilman Reddick.

All in favor?




Opposed?

Councilman Suarez, would you take item 7, please?

Read item 7, please.

10:33:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I present an ordinance for first reading

consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

vicinity of 1209 West Swann Avenue in the city of Tampa,

Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from

zoning district classification RM-16 residential multifamily

to PD planned development, office, medical and

business/professional and specialty retail, providing an

effective date.

10:33:25 >> Second.

10:33:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Suarez.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you.

10:33:34 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Viera being absent at

vote.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11, 2018 at

9:30 a.m.

10:33:43 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

We move on to item 9 which is REZ 17-84.

10:33:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

REZ 17-84 is located at 5833 South Dale Mabry Highway.




The request before you tonight is from CG commercial general

and RS-60 residential single-family to PD planned

development for a commercial communication tower.

There are three waivers being requested.

The first is to increase the height of the tower from 80

feet to 140 feet.

The second is to reduce the minimum separation from

residential use from 140 feet to 50 feet.

And the last is to reduce the requirement for the buffer

along the south across from residential properties from

15-foot tall you ever green trees with a hedge to only the

8-foot concrete wall finished to match the building.

10:34:50 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn.

Moving down to South Tampa for this next case.

I will quickly go through this.

Here is the aerial.

The subject site is hard to see because it's a very small

parcel at Dale Mabry.

The subject site is right here.

We have got Wyoming to the north, and Iowa further to the

south.

But you all know Dale Mabry down there.

There's a thin Patter of commercial and then a transition

right into residential on Dale Mabry.




The future land use map, you see the thin line of community

mixed use 5 so that allows us to CG uses and immediately

right off the corridor it goes down into the residential 10.

There is a pocket of residential 20.

To the east.

The applicant is requesting just rezoning to allow for the

development of that 140-foot monopole telecommunication

tower.

The applicant has worked to provide to move it as far away

as possible from the residential to the west.

So when Planning Commission staff looked at this, we looked

at that and found that it is comparable and compatible to

that commercial development, and based on that Planning

Commission staff recommends the request be found consistent

with the Tampa comprehensive plan.

10:36:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

10:36:36 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

When you do PD for commercial communication tower, it

doesn't have a minimum lot size.

We can make it as small as possible to accommodate the use.

So what's before you tonight is a 30 by 75-foot lot that

will contain a total of 2,250 square feet, and it is

proposed to contain the commission communications tower, and

pad which is 10 by 12.

The entire commercial communication tower will be -- parcel




will be fenced with an 8-foot concrete masonry wall to match

the stereo of the existing strip commercial shopping center.

The proposed parcel is located just south of an existing

shopping center, and access to the site will be through an

access utility easement which runs North-south along the

winner boundary of the commercial general portion of the

site.

The overall property is surrounded by residential to the

west and south, and commercial retail along south Dale Mabry

to the North and east.

I would like to say, I went over the waivers with you.

Once our router was published, I did have discussions with

the applicant about concerns that were related to the

camouflaging of the tower and also that buffer on the south

that they we're waiving.

I have an addendum for you this evening that proposes

consideration of planting the required buffer in the

right-of-way.

It would require a right-of-way use permit and a maintenance

agreement.

We did have preliminary discussion with natural resources as

to whether or not there would be a possibility for that to

be achieved.

There is, so they would plant a buffer along the south.

It would be in the right-of-way similar to what was done on,




if you may recall, at the Chick Fil-A on south Dale Mabry

where we were able to accommodate that, and then they

entered into a maintenance agreement for the maintenance of

that landscape in the right-of-way, and then also the

applicant was able to make commitment that they would use a

mono pine camouflage type of tower, and I believe Mrs.

Grimes will present to you what that will look like, and

also commitment for the foliage on that tower to be

maintained, and also what percentage of that foliage.

So with the those modifications, I believe staff's concerns

related to the proximity to the residential would be taken

care of, and they would be mitigated as far as the distance

to the adjacent residential.

I will go ahead and show you the property.

As David mentioned, it is that small -- it is going to be

located at the southern end of this existing shopping

center, Wisconsin, Dale Mabry, Wyoming.

Here in green there is a small section of it within in that

winner side.

There will be a buffer in that area.

Another one of the outstanding comments was related to the

width of this buffer air on the west.

Discussions with natural resources, that given that the

remaining is gravel, that that would be adequate for the

planting.




In this picture from Wisconsin looking west Turks proposed

site is just at the end of this existing commercial

structure here.

Another view.

This would be roughly in the air where the compounding

commercial tower would go.

Another view of that.

This is the western portion of the commercial property.

The ingress-egress easement is to the North in that area.

So there would be no access to the tower of Wisconsin.

This is the property directly to the west.

This is the residential to the south.

Wisconsin.

Nonconforming parking there.

And this is a view of the front of the shopping center.

On Dale Mabry.

And then the east side of Dale Mabry.

The nearest tower right now is at Chiaramonte.

There's a picture on the way to an earlier case we did on

Wyoming.

And I believe that this tower would be replacing that tower.

There are modifications that need to be made in between

first and second reading.

Those have been outlined in your revision sheet.

In addition total revision sheet I do have an addendum that




will addresses both modifications I just discussed with you

about the plantings in the right-of-way.

The buffer on the western wall using a pier and lintel for

the radius and then the elevation changes to the mono pine

elevation for the tower.

I'm available if you have any questions.

10:42:24 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Petitioner?

10:42:33 >>GINA GRIMES:
Law firm of hill Ward Henderson, 101 East

Kennedy Boulevard.

I'm here tonight representing vertical bridge holdings who

is the applicant for this commercial communications tower.

This rezoning for the tower

As Abbye mentioned, commercial communication tower is a

special use in the CG district, and this property is in fact

zoned CG.

And we do in fact meet all of the special use cry tier yeah

for a tower in a CG district.

But towers are also subject to another set of supplemental

regulations that you are in the zoning code.

So in addition to meeting special use cry tier yeah you have

to also meet the supplemental regulations.

Those supplemental regulations you are identified at length

in your staff report.

I think it starts on page 4.




And there's two requirements among those standards, those

supplemental standards that I would like to address.

And Abbye touched on them.

One of them deals with the height of the tower.

No CG district you can have a to you our up to 80 feet.

Wire asking this tower to go to 140 feet.

And we will certainly address why be we need to go to that

height during the presentation.

The other standard to address is the separation from the

residential.

Typically -- the code mandates that whatever the height of

the tower is, that's the required distance from residential.

And again I will address that during the presentation.

But the code goes on to say if you want to ask for waivers

you have to meet certain performance standards.

And in addition to the standard variance criteria, you have

to meet one of three pier form answer standards.

Either you have to camouflage it, it has to be -- you have

to ask for a waiver because you are trying to save a grand

tree, or the third option is that you are going to committee

to having three carriers on that tower.

We initially proposed to have three carriers.

So we met one of the three criteria that would qualify us

for the waivers that we are asking for.

However, after seeing the staff report as Abbye mentioned,




we decided that we would go ahead and meet also the

camouflage performance standards.

So even though you are only required to meet one of the

three standards to be qualify for the waiver, we meet two of

the three because we have committed to a mono pine

camouflage.

Here is a picture of a tower that was installed in south

Florida.

Here is an existing picture and then another one.

As Abbye mentioned in the addendum to the revision sheet, we

will commit to this style, and we will also commit to 70

purse of the height of the tower will be covered with

branches.

I know there have been issues in other situations where

apparently the branches have fallen off over time and have

not been replaced.

We will commit to the 70 purse of the height of the tower

being covered with branches.

The other 32 would just be the pole.

And then we would commit to maintaining it in that same

condition.

We believe meeting two of the three performance standards we

certainly qualify for a variance, with two variances that we

are asking for.

As I said, the first variance relate to the height.




And with be me this evening is Dan Ravilla, an engineer with

T-Mobile and he is going to specifically address the

technical need for the tower at 140-foot height.

I would like to address the second waiver that we are asking

for, which is the separation from residential, as I said.

The separation requirement is the height of the tower so

that's 140 feet in this instance.

And that requirement implies that you need to have that

distance in the event that the tower were to fail, that that

would be the fall zone area.

But that's simply not the case.

That's not the way the science works with towers.

The towers are designed and manufactured in a certain

fashion, and I have here a letter from a professional

engineer certified in the State of Florida that addresses

that issue referred to as a fall zone letter N.this letter,

he states that in the event that there is an extreme wind

event, and it is constructed, designed and cone instructed

to withstand 142 mile-an-hour wind, but in the event there

is an extreme wind event, it's designed so that the pole

buckles at a certain height, and it results in a maximum

25-foot fall radius.

So you may have seen during hurricanes where the light poles

along the interstate have buckled.

It's the same principle here.




We believe with the 50-foot separation for the residential

and that this tower only requiring a 25-foot fall radius,

that that variance is in fact justified.

There are several other code requirements in the

supplemental standards that we will submit documentation to

establish compliance.

Again, here is the fall zone letter.

We also have the manufacturers specifications.

That established that the tower is built and designed and

will be built to accommodate three different antenna arrays

for three different carriers.

We also have an approval letter from the FAA determining

that there is no hazard to air navigation, and they

specifically mention the proximity to MacDill Air Force

Base.

We are meeting the mitigation requirements for the buffering

on the east side.

This is Wisconsin down here.

Wyoming is up there.

This is adjacent to residential.

This is residential is 125 feet from the edge of this wall,

the buffer wall.

The pink remit the buffer wall that will go around two sides

of the site.

The other two sides of the site you are already enclosed by




the existing building, the strip center.

But within this buffer area on the west side, we will

install the required trees and the required landscaping.

And as Abbye mentioned, on the south side, we initially

asked to waive the buffering because the wall, this small

air that we were able to lease, did not provide sufficient

room to put the buffer outside the wall.

But given the right-of-way here that's been approved, we are

proposing to put the buffer in the right-of-way there.

So we will establish a safe buffer along Wisconsin as we do

on the west side.

Additionally, there was an issue with the protective radius

around these trees.

This whole interior area other than this area right here

where there's a cement pad, all of this will be gravel.

And this will be a pier and lintel wall so the roots will

have the ability to expand out into that area without being

under any impervious surface.

The neighborhood association, I have talked to them several

times about this project.

He is not feeling well, hasn't been feeling well, is not

able to make it tonight, but he told me and said we be

watching, told me that I could represent that the national

association considered it, they have no objections and are

in support of the project.




With that I am going to turn it over to Dan Ravilla and also

the need for the tower at this height and also talk about

the service that will result from the tower being

constructed.

Dan.

10:50:45 >> Good evening.

[Rustling papers] I am with T mobile.

Office address 901 Benjamin center drive in Tampa, Florida.

Thank you for allowing me to demonstrate the need for this

tower tonight or this evening.

For this proposed communications facility.

And want to start off with some thoughts here.

So this demonstrates with the legend here, commercial

residential and building.

And vehicle and car coverage, the colors.

So these darker areas would be in-building coverage level.

And the lighter areas would be the lighter coverage that

would indicate you only have coverage in car routes.

There are some later spots in here.

It's not picking it up too well from this printout.

So without the tower, which is identified right here by the

yellow, this is T mobile's coverage.

I would like to go to the next.

This is T-Mobile's coverage.

And the same darkness levels here, with the tower.




And I might add that this tower location gives us the

ability to have our LP extended range, technology layer,

which is low band, that helps penetrate through buildings

and give us further range than the standard range.

And LP is the technology that allows us to meet the demand,

the high wireless demand of wireless data from our users,

customers of the

This is shown at 140-foot.

And this here shows 80-foot, which shows quite a smaller

footprint.

That is due to the height being underneath the canopy of the

tree cover as you get out further distance.

10:53:52 >>HARRY COHEN:
So you need the 140 feet instead of the 80

because without it the coverage is going to be a lot less?

10:54:03 >> Yes. We looked at it at 1606-foot as well and I didn't

see much difference the 140 and the 160.

So the 140 looks like the right hate.

Ever I want to stress the need for the demands from our

customers for building coverage in their houses, residential

and commercial buildings.

Most of the E-911 calls being placed these days are from

mobile cell phones.

As opposed to land lines.

And there's many, you know, residents that only have mobile

phones.




And not land lawn phones these days.

Thank you.

10:54:54 >>GINA GRIMES:
In the remaining time, I wanted to mention

the tower that Abbye mentioned.

That is a monopole.

And because of the smart technology that is used so spread

these days, it requires additional equipment.

Radio equipment to be added to the towers in order to

provide that extended coverage to be able to penetrate the

buildings and could be able to handle the additional data,

and not that flagpole monopole is not designed and

manufactured to accommodate that additional equipment that

now has to be installed on cell towers.

So those are becoming obsolete because of all of the new

technologies and the new equipment that is necessary to

advance that new technology.

So I'll save the rest of my comment for any rebuttal.

10:55:59 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.

Councilman Suarez.

10:56:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Could I ask a question of staff?

Your staff, I think.

Whoever wants to answer it.

We changed some of our G and I have we have some design

standards written into it.

So I can see Mrs. Kert might be wanting to come up.




I saw your forehead move.

That's the only thing I could see from here.

I'm sorry.

So written into our new ordinance that we passed recently

and now we have this big tower going on, and Mrs. Grimes

just touched on some of the newer technology coming through

based on the Chiaramonte, you know, tower.

Is it possible that that tower, the tower that they are

proposing now, even though it may be camouflaged, has to be

added on because there are some other things that we have

not thought about?

The design standards that we dealt with previously go with

this also at some point?

10:57:09 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

Currently, it's no.

In the past was structures our poles -- not structures.

Specifically not structures.

But for things in the right-of-way.

And this is on private property and we have not come back

and re-reviewed based on the latest technologies what is in

our Land Development Code for private property.

10:57:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We got the right-of-way but we also got with

the design standards which go back to some of the private

uses.

So I wasn't sure if we had worked it out, if it happened




yet.

10:57:51 >>REBECCA KERT:
What you just did was for the right-of-way.

10:57:58 >> Mrs. Grimes, you mentioned about that, any new

technology.

What railroad were you referring to?

Oh, he can answer.

10:58:06 >>GINA GRIMES:
He can answer.

It's radio equipment that's needed for that extended

coverage.

10:58:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The internal equipment, not the external

onto the tower?

10:58:14 >> So let me explain.

So a tower such as this proposed tower is what we would call

macro network site, macro tower.

And that macro tower covers vehicular traffic, it covers in

people's houses and buildings, commercial buildings, things

like that.

Small cell wireless technology would be more addressed to

the street level, outdoor street level, like where high

traffic density is, in areas like parks, you know.

Sporting venues.

Things like that.

Where we see --

10:58:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You are saying that IG and other things may

not be part of this tower?




10:59:03 >> Right.

And when Mrs. Grimes mentioned about the new technology,

this is more related to our LP extended range which is

low-band technology, which is not currently planned to be

utilized on our small cells as far as T-Mobile.

10:59:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.

I appreciate it.

10:59:26 >>HARRY COHEN:
Any other questions from council members?

Is there anyone in the public that would like to address

City Council on file REZ 17-84?

10:59:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.

10:59:37 >> Second.

10:59:37 >>HARRY COHEN:
Motion to close by Councilman Miranda.

Seconded by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed?

All right.

I'm not sure whose turn it is.

I think Councilman Maniscalco.

10:59:50 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for

first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property

in the general vicinity of 53833 South Dale Mabry Highway in

the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described

in section 1 from zoning district classification CG

commercial general and RS-60 residential single-family to PD




planned development, commercial communications tower,

providing an effective date.

And with the revision sheet.

11:00:16 >> Second.

11:00:18 >>HARRY COHEN:
We have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco.

Seconded by Councilman Miranda.

All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

Opposed?

11:00:26 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Capin and Viera absent

at vote.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11th at

9:30 a.m.

11:00:36 >>HARRY COHEN:
Item number 10.

11:00:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

Item number 10 on your agenda this evening is REZ 17-85.

It's located at 5402 west Laurel street.

The request before you tonight is from M-AP-2, municipal

airport, to PD, planned development, warehouse, office, and

hotel.

There are 15 waivers being requested.

And I am not going to read all 15 to you.

In relation to parcel A, which has the existing warehouse

office building, there are nine waivers, and really that's

that development to be able to be reconstructed as it

currently is in existence.




And in relation to parcel B, which will be the hotel parcel,

there are five waivers being requested.

One is for the reduction in space between the monument

signs, one is for the wall signage which the applicant will

speak to and is going to be modified.

One is for the building setback from 20 feet to 331 feet.

And you will see based on the site configuration that the

hotel is being set back off of Laurel.

To reduce the required amount of transparent materials along

the north elevation from 50% to 34%.

And the last in relation to the new construction is to

reduce the vehicle use air green space from 20% to 16% with

payment of fee in lieu.

The last waiver is a parking waiver and it is based on the

existing office warehouse building.

There is an existing office warehouse on the property.

They would like the opportunity to convert more warehouse

space to office space.

So that plus the hotel parking, there are going to be 222

parking spaces on this property.

And the hotel is required, I believe, 116.

The office warehouse would be required the rest.

But they have increased the amount of required parking in

order to accommodate a future conversion of some of the

warehouse to office space.




That being said, David.

11:03:45 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

First time I left my report on my desk over at county center

so luckily Rebecca is kind of backup so I don't have the

Westshore vision map but it's in that Westshore planning

district.

It also is located within the Westshore employment center.

There is transit serving the site.

The Hart flex service actually goes up into that portion of

Westshore.

Since it is Westshore and it's in a level A evacuation zone,

so it in the coastal high hazard area.

And then we will go onto the aerial.

It's a very unique L-shaped site.

This is Laurel street.

This is -- sorry.

The subject site, there's memorial highway going into the

airport.

There's wetland to the east.

This is the security office to the south.

Then you can see the office uses surrounding the site.

Then onto the future land use map.

All of that light gray is the municipality airport future

land use category.

This is actual -- the blue is public quasi-public associated




with Tampa International Airport.

They are seeking to develop a 10,189 square foot hotel, and

then recognize the existing office warehouse building

on-site.

This portion of the Westshore employment center is located

within the flight path for Tampa International Airport.

There is policy guidance that talks about providing

viability of the airport.

Hotel uses are allowed to be considered under that municipal

airport future land use category.

The proposed planned development does, even though they are

seeking a bunch of waivers, it does improve the pedestrian

system out there because right now that office building,

there is no -- there's actually parking in the right-of-way.

The applicant is going to come in and correct all of that

and actually have sidewalks provided where there isn't any

currently.

For the comp plan support pedestrian movement to the

Westshore.

And overall the proposed development of the hotel use and

recognition of the existing office warehouse use will

continue to further the development goals of the Westshore

employment center and continue to support the safe operation

of Tampa International.

And based on that, Planning Commission staff finds the




proposed rezoning consistent with the provisions of the

Tampa comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

11:06:51 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thank you, David.

Land Development Coordination.

The property is 6402 west Laurel street from map 2 to PD for

office warehouse and hotel.

It is a 4.25-acre property located at the west end of west

Laurel street at the intersection of Laurel and frontage

road just east of memorial highway.

The existing warehouse office building was constructed in

the 1970s and converted to condominium in 2006 to allow

for individual ownership.

The eastern portion of the property was utilized as parking.

And the subject application seeks approval for the

construction of a hotel on the eastern portion, and the

reconfiguration of the parking at the northeast corner of

the property.

The property is surrounded by office to the north across

Laurel.

Vacant to the east.

That is zoned for a CD with hotel and entertainment venue

and a structured garage, still remains vacant.

Official retail to the south.

And then you have the Social Security that you recently




PDs for an office and hotel towers there.

As I mentioned, parcel A, the kind of parcel to A is the

warehouse office, and it is that northern portion of the

property, northwestern portion.

Setbacks for that are 34-foot north.

14-foot south.

1 foot west.

And east 188 feet.

The existing structure contains 80,456 square feet.

The site plan does a break down of the existing tenant, plus

warehouse, and the associated parking required.

The required parking is 174 spaces as I previously mentioned

to you, what they are trying to do is reserve the right for

some of that warehouse to still go to office so they are

placing the required parking for that at 201.

Parcel B would be the hotel parcel.

It's proposed for a 6-story, 106 room hotel with associated

enities and surface parking.

The access for parcel B is through parcel A.

And it requires a cross access easement be filed prior to

permitting.

The proposed setbacks for the hotel are north minimum 300.

South minimum 120.

West minimum 40.

And east minimum zero as shown.




Required parking for the hotel is 116.

Combined, it's 317, and 222 are being provided.

So a waiver is being requested for the deficit.

This is the zoning atlas.

Memorial to the north. Memorial and Veterans to the west.

And then that Frontage Road doesn't show up on the atlas.

O'Brien is further over to the east.

There is large easement that's retained on the western

portion of parcel B.

Therefore, the structure was moved to the eastern part --

eastern portion of that parcel.

Map 2, you will see some PDs in the atlas, this should be a

PD just to the south of this that you recently did.

Here again, this was predominantly used as parking.

I did come across the site.

I am going to show you some pictures right now.

I actually started at the end of Laurel and frontage and

worked my way eastbound.

So the pictures will come in that order.

This is the northwest corner of the site.

Looking at Lauren Avenue.

The eastern portion.

There are amenities on the property.

The eastern portion looking back west.

The entrance to the parking area.




This is the south end of the existing parking area looking

further south, currently undeveloped.

From the southern end of the parking area looking back

north.

The rear of the property, the Social Security building

looking at the subject.

At the curb.

This is the north side of Laurel, office.

Office.

Office.

Staff had some concerns.

There was a large signage waiver that was requested in

relation to the hotel building.

They were asking for an increase up to 261 square feet.

They are allowed 75 square feet.

Both urban design and land development had concerns related

to the signage waiver.

Not only the amount of signage being waived but the second

part of that waiver was that the signage could be placed on

any side of the building.

And we weren't really sure why they would need it on the

south elevation or on the east elevation as there is another

property there.

So I do have an addendum for you on. This they are going to

lower that request.




The amount of square footage and also that the placement

only be on the west and the north of the building.

So staff was more comfortable with that request in relation

to the signage.

I did ask that the parking goat corrected.

And I believe that will be between first and second reading

as far as the numbers.

There were a couple of discrepancies on the site plan.

Transportation had inconsistent findings based on the

parking reduction, and also that the off-street spaces

including all areas -- should be located solely on the

private property, and they are not.

The ones that are in front of the warehouse building, those

are in the right-of-way.

Also had an inconsistent finding related to the drive aisles

for regular spaces, 90 degrees being 24 feet, and the drive

aisle for the for the northern parking spaces measuring only

8 feet.

Lastly, there was a series of notations that were required

by transportation in relation to the perpetual cross-access

agreement that needs to be filed prior to the first building

permit, the parking spaces shown within the right-of-way

along Laurel cannot be counted toward the provided parking

for the site or designated for any specific use.

They want a note added to that effect.




Also, a note added that within 30 days of the approval the

site developer will apply for right-of-way permit for the

required sidewalks.

I believe the applicant is asking that that be placed at 60

days.

They would like the typical dimensions for the parking

spaces shown and the drive aisles shown, and then also to

correct the site table, the parking space -- the loading

space required as one and the loading space provided is

zero.

I also believe they counted the living space into their

required parking and needs to be taken out.

Natural resources, there were off-site trees on the east

side that did not have the protective radius.

The addendum that's coming before you tonight has that

selected.

And I believe that has been addressed, and also the pervious

pavement that they were requesting is going to be addressed.

Based on these findings and requested modifications,

transportation still did have a finding of inconsistency in

relation to the proposed application.

I'm available for any questions.

11:16:09 >>HARRY COHEN:
Okay.

There are 15 waivers on this application.

So let's try to break this down a little bit.




It seems to me that at least at the first nine that are

related to parcel A, everything relates to the existing

characteristics of the property, correct?

11:16:32 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.

So if you don't grant any of those, they have to go back to

Westshore overlay.

Basically, that is there.

11:16:46 >>HARRY COHEN:
All of those is what is already there.

What about 10 through 15?

10 through 15 we have got the signage issue.

11:16:55 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Right.

The signage issue is related to the free-standing sign, the

existing one I showed you in the picture, and the proposed

one that they would like placed.

It should be a minimum of 150 feet apart.

So the second was the wall signage I just discussed with you

on the addendum.

And let me go ahead and -- on the addendum they are going to

ask for 195 square feet of signage with 123 on the west.

And 72 on the north.

And then they have to be separated.

And then on this exhibit that they provided with the

addendum, one sign would be here on the north and one sign

would be here on the west.

So they are going to lower that square footage as originally




requested.

11:18:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
Okay.

11:18:07 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
The next one is to increase the building

setback for the Westshore overlay for the hotel, would place

the hotel up here.

And they are placing it toward the -- further into the

property.

So that waiver there from the 20 to the 300 is what that

waiver is there for the location.

The transparency is the materials on the building along the

north elevation for the Westshore overlay to be 50%

transparent.

They are asking for a 34% transparency.

I'll let the applicant speak to that waiver but it's based

on the design of the building.

And then lastly the vehicle use area green space from 20 to

16 is within this new parking area here.

They are required 20% green space and they only have 16.

So they are already short.

11:19:15 >>HARRY COHEN:
So other than existing conditions we have

signage, the transparent materials, we have setback, and we

have the parking.

11:19:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Yes.

11:19:26 >>HARRY COHEN:
Okay.

Thank you.




11:19:28 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
[Rustling papers]

11:19:52 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
305 South Boulevard Tampa, Florida.

I will try to make this as brief as we can, given the late

hour.

I know there are a number of questions.

I'm going to ask Randy Coen to come up and give you a

walk-around the site and maybe get you a little more

familiarity with the unique characteristics of this

property.

I would want to just clarify that with the addendum that I

think you just received, the only remaining sign that is on

waiver is really the size of the sign, and the only reason

for that is the fact that the hotel will be setback from

Laurel street 290 feet from the edge of the right-of-way.

It's also set back from memorial highway at 400 feet.

So given those extreme distances to a public right-of-way,

we were asking for an increase in the sign area.

But we have eliminated the other wall sign waivers

altogether.

And after Randy goes through the description of the project,

I can speak to the waivers in more detail.

But I guess I would also like to just point out the addendum

that you received addressed all of the natural resources

comments which I believe to the staff's satisfaction, and

all of the other urban design comments to the staff's




satisfaction.

So with that, we will turn it over to Randy.

11:21:30 >> Randy Coen, 4121 West Cypress street.

I have been sworn.

I want to take you through the site and I am going to try to

move very quickly.

The first item, this is the existing office and warehouse

building.

This property goes to basically right here.

This is the hotel parcel with the hotel sitting here.

So you can see that where the hotel has to be set back and

has to set on its own property. This parcel of land only

starts here.

They set the hotel back here so there's some parking in

front of the hotel.

The remainder in the rear of the hotel.

The nine waivers are all associated with the existing

warehouse, and all three of the findings for the

transportation division are also the existing warehouse.

There are no inconsistencies as it relates to the hotel

itself.

This is memorial highway.

It's the greenway that have been we all take from Kennedy

Boulevard to go to the airport and go out to the causeway,

et cetera.




About 145,000 cars a day travel on this road.

You can see why the hotel would like to have signage on the

west side.

It's really where you can see the hotel from the roadway.

And you see, this is the hotel parcel right here.

This is the proposed hotel.

The existing warehouse here.

Unfortunately, their existing sign makes the hotel, there

has to be a waiver.

The other interesting thing here is that the hotel itself

backs up because of the parcel right there are.

When you look at the waiver for the transparency, I actually

wrote that portion of the Westshore overlay and now it's to

provide transparency for buildings within ten foot of the

right-of-way which is a typical setback is but when building

300 feet back, transparency is a whole different issue so

they maximize on the narrow side.

These are the elevations of the hotel.

This is the north side of the hotel.

This is the west side of the hotel.

The east side and the south side.

Typical six-story hotel.

106 rooms.

The hotel itself has virtually all of its parking with the

exception of ten space on this parcel of land so the variety




majority of the waiver for parking is also related to the

existing warehouse parcel itself.

And that's about it at this point.

I would be glad to talk about transportation in detail.

I will tell you the hotel generates very little traffic as

most 100 room hotels do.

I will be glad to get into that.

Thank you.

11:24:37 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
I neglected to introduce someone who is

also on this project, Katherine O'Donniley is the attorney

for the condominium association and I think would be

available for any questions.

But I think the point we are making -- and again I am trying

to go through this as quickly as I can, although we will

certainly be happy to answer any questions.

The bulk of these waivers have to do with the existing

conditions at the condo, the office warehouse, condominium

project, which was built in the 70s before all of these

codes that are currently in effect.

All we are trying to do is bring the whole property,

including the hotel, into getting an approval and bringing

the property into conformity with the current code.

And I would say -- and Abbye, I don't think, was originally

involved, but we met with both Gloria Moreda and with

Melanie Calloway before we started this process, and it was




strongly suggested by the staff that we combine these two

parcels and it actually made it more difficult for us.

And I represent the hotel developer.

It made it more difficult to process the zoning application,

but it was done at the recommendation of the staff because

they wanted to clean up all of these noncompliance issues

through the PD zoning process.

So that's what we did.

And again, I will be happy to answer any questions.

Or Mr. Coen everybody? So I'm trying to get through the 15

waivers.

And sort of discard.

So we have got the first nine that are there because of the

existing conditions.

We understand the issue with the sign.

I think I understand now the issue with the green space,

both parking and green spaces in the same place.

Something has got to give.

So it really gets us to the last, to me, the last waiver,

the 317 to 222 parking spaces.

That's a big reduction.

11:26:57 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
Yes, sir.

11:26:57 >>HARRY COHEN:
So that's all the spaces there is?

11:27:03 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
Yes.

That's correct.




And by the way, there is, full, the objection from the

transportation department about the parking in the

right-of-way.

We are not counting any of those public spaces towards the

numbers that we are providing here.

And there's a note in the staff report that indicates that

the city could remove those spaces at its will at any time,

and we would have nothing to say about that.

And we understand that.

So in the majority of the waiver, the parking waiver is due

to the existing condition at the condominium.

As Mr. Coen said the hotel is only asking for a ten-space

reduction, which is -- that would be -- let me get -- the

required parking for the hotel is 116, and we are asking --

we are providing 106 for the hotel.

11:28:01 >>HARRY COHEN:
So really the waiver has to do with the

existing condition on the building that already exists on

the property.

11:28:10 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
That's correct.

11:28:10 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.

11:28:14 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
One item I did not explain was the waiver

for the monument sign, and Abbye suggested that I explain

that one.

You would typically put a monument sign at a driveway.

There is already a monument sign on one side of the




driveway.

So we are asking for the spacing waiver simply to put

another monument sign at the other side of the driveway.

Otherwise, you would have a height of the sign at the point

where people wouldn't be able to drive into the hotel.

So it seemed like a reasonable request.

Perspectively.

11:28:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Any other questions for petitioner?

Anyone in the public wish to address us on item 10?

11:29:12 >> Move to close.

11:29:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion to close by Councilman Miranda.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor to close?

Opposed?

All right.

Who would be next?

Councilman Cohen.

Would you read 10?

11:29:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
Move an ordinance being presented for first

reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the

general vicinity of 5402 west Laurel street in the city of

Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1

from zoning district classification M-AP-2, municipal

airport, to PD, planned development, warehouse, office, and

hotel, providing an effective date, and including the




addendum to the revision sheet.

11:29:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion by Councilman Cohen.

Second by Councilman Miranda.

All in favor? Opposed?

11:30:02 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Viera being absent at

vote.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11 at 9:30

a.m.

11:30:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land development.

Item number 11 on your agenda this evening is REZ 18-01,

located at 3616 west Ballast Point Boulevard.

The request before you tonight is from CG commercial general

to PD, planned development, restaurant with drive-in window.

The request before you tonight did come in as a special use,

but it did need a couple of waivers to the vehicle use area

buffering and green space which cannot be granted through a

special use, so it was converted to a planned development.

The three waivers associated with this application are for

the queuing length for the drive-through from 154 to 135,

reduction in the vehicle use area buffer along the north on

Ballast Point from 8 feet to 4 feet, and the reduction in

the vehicle use area green space from 20% to 18%.

11:31:16 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn.

I also remembered my map.




The next one we are down in the South Tampa planning

district.

Dale Mabry which is a transit emphasis corridor.

I am going to blast through this really quick.

11:31:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Go ahead.

11:31:46 >>DAVID HEY:
Dale Mabry.

Home Depot. Lee Roy Selmon to the north.

You can see commercial development all along that corridor

there.

Onto the future land use map.

The subject site is the property to the east and south of

all that community mixed use 35 in that pink color.

Harder to see, but the property to the north is the UMU 60

category so even more intense.

You can see that commercial corridor and then the commercial

10 over on the side.

The applicant -- Planning Commission staff reviewed the

request.

It is comparable and compatible to the auto oriented

commercial uses along that corridor.

The Planning Commission staff recommends that the request be

found consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.

11:32:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

That was pretty blast.

11:32:39 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.




The request before you tonight is 3616 west Ballast Point

Boulevard from CG to PD to construct a 2,150 square foot

restaurant with drive-in window, and the access on south

Dale Mabry was denied by FDOT.

So the access is on Ballast Point.

It's really a narrow lot.

It already had a corner foot taken out of it.

So access off of balance laugh point but it will be a

one-way circulation around the building.

That buffer from 8 to 4 is right up here.

And then the overall 2020% green space waiver from 20 to 18.

So 2%.

The zoning atlas, the property here, commercial general.

The commercial general actually goes on this parcel.

There's a public use facility.

Public service facility.

And then there is a place of religious assembly along this

southern portion of Ballast Point.

A picture of the existing property.

Ballast Point.

Vehicular entry.

11:34:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
The property, the car wash has access onto

Dale Mabry or no?

11:34:36 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
No.

This is -- I can't remember.




It's getting late.

This is the clay court for the church behind the property.

There's strip commercial to the north with access on Ballast

Point.

This is directly to the north of the subject.

And then there is the residential further back.

To the immediately south of the property is another

restaurant with drive-in window.

And then directly across the street is the Home Depot.

Based on staff finding I do need the waiver table on the

site plan to be amended to reflect the waivers as I have

written them on the front page of the staff report.

I believe the applicant is amenable to that.

And then there are informational comments provided by

natural resources.

Staff did find the request consistent.

11:35:41 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I heard on the radio about an Arby's with

French fries or something like that.

Something like that.

Petitioner?

11:36:03 >>TODD PRESSMAN:
334 East Lake Road number 102, Palm

Harbor, Florida.

If you could pull up the Power Point I will show you just a

few slides and I will go through them quickly.

Oh, there it is.




Staff went through the location for you.

We are located at Ballast Point at Dale Mabry.

This site is drawn out by the property appraiser.

A lot of room between the site and the church which is on

the screen to the right.

This is a little bit of a different view.

It's currently a 24-hour open-air car wash.

Which has been a mechanical car wash and the open bay so

they are very loud.

The site is extremely uncompliant.

Virtually no buffering.

There is in a stormwater.

Nothing of any kind.

24 hour unmanaged unsupervised car wash.

It goes from PD to PD with a few waivers.

They are not major waivers of any kind.

From CG to PD.

Planning Commission says it's consistent.

It's going to be a tremendous, beautiful improvement.

It's going to bring it into very close to compliant with the

site.

Arby's is very proud of it.

Staff went through circulation, towards Dale Mabry.

Pickup window on the commercial side.

So it's going to be worked out much more beautifully and




it's going to work beautiful as well.

11:37:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Sound gorgeous.

Any questions?

11:37:53 >>HARRY COHEN:
Is it abutting anywhere near the drive-

through?

11:37:57 >> There are no residents abutting you. There are

residences across the street.

11:38:01 >>HARRY COHEN:
Okay.

11:38:05 >> And the speaker box is on Dale Mabry which is not in that

direction.

Window on the opposite side towards commercial.

It will be a lot better than vacuums and car wash and going

all night.

11:38:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, sir.

Any other questions?

You have more time.

Do you want to keep talking?

11:38:26 >>TODD PRESSMAN:
Just hang out till midnight.

11:38:29 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's great, yes.

Anyone in the public wish to address us on item 11, which is

REZ -- what's that number? -- 18-01.

11:38:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.

11:38:46 >> Second.

11:38:47 >> Motion to close by Councilman Maniscalco.




Second by Councilman Miranda.

All in favor to close?

Opposed?

Councilman Reddick, would you read number 11, please?

11:38:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes, ma'am.

Move an ordinance for first reading consideration, an

ordinance rezoning property in the general advice unto of

3616 west Ballast Point Boulevard in the city of Tampa,

Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from

zoning district classification CG commercial general to PD

planned development, restaurant with drive-are in window,

providing an effective date.

11:39:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Motion by Councilman Reddick.

Second by Councilman Miranda.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you.

11:39:35 >>THE CLERK:
The motion carried with Viera being absent at

vote.

Second reading and adoption will be on January 11 at 9:30

a.m.

11:39:43 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

We move on to item 12 which is file number REZ 17-22.

11:39:52 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

I'm here to introduce REZ 17-22.




This is another one that is here under Florida statute 7051.

In April of this year, City Council held a public hearing on

a rezoning request for the property located at 401 -- 4124

west Tacon Street.

I'm sorry if I am doing this wrong.

The request was to go from an RS-60 to an RS-50.

City Council did deny that request based upon the

comprehensive plan policy 18.4.10, generally that it is the

intent of the city that residential redevelopment projects

shall be minimally disruptive to adjacent areas.

There were members of the public that spoke.

I believe there are two members of the public who spoke in

opposition to that.

As you will recall under the 70-51 process, it states --

it's a state process that we are mandated to participate if

someone files a petition.

There are two part to the process.

The first part is we are mandated to go before a special

magistrate or hearing officer, and mediate the issues.

That is the city's role of that is required to bring that

staff -- to bring staff to that hearing to see if there is

anything, any alternative that could mitigate the concerns

that were raised by City Council as a basis for this denial.

If we don't get past that we go to the second part where we

have a full-blown hearing to see whether or not there's a




recommendation about whether City Council's original

decision was reasonable or not.

That's where are we were the last one.

You had one of those.

This one is different.

We are still at the first stage where there was a mediated

process.

And during this one, city staff did feel that there were

enough changes that were suggested that they felt that it

was appropriate to come back to City Council for

consideration on that.

There is a recommendation from the hearing officer in this

case, but it's still at the first stage.

So he recommended City Council give favorable consideration

to the site plan with the revisions that were submitted.

I will let staff go into greater detail on that.

But I did want to let you know that your options today, if

you choose to accept the recommendation of the hearing

officer, then you will treat this like a regular rezoning

and you will do first reading at the end of it.

If you decide not to go forward with it and not to accept

the revised site plan, then you will just reject the hearing

officer.

You don't feed need a full motion with new reasoning.

We will go back to their original decision.




But if you do decide to accept the revised site plan, then

we will go back like it's first reading.

So this has been appropriately noticed as a public hearing.

So everything is in order.

The only other thing that I did want to point out is we did

have participation from some neighbors in the area at the

mediation process.

It's a statutory process which obviously we did not create,

and what the statute says is the people that are allowed to

participate in the mediation process are the surrounding

neighbors, by surrounding they mean adjacent.

So it's not 250 feet.

It's the adjacent neighbors, and people who participated in

the original hearing and requested to participate in it.

Which of course no one does because the petition hasn't been

filed.

So I did request the petitioners in this case to expand the

people that can participate in the mediation process to the

surrounding properties, the adjacent properties, and the

people who came down here at the first hearing to

participate.

And they did agree to that.

So those people were noticed and allowed to participate.

11:43:49 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.

Item 12 on your agenda this evening REZ 17-22, in my staff




report, I provided to you an overview memorandum that states

REZ 17-22 -- and I'm sorry, I'm not sure how much how much

of this Rebecca covered -- was denied April 13, 2017 at the

City Council evening meeting.

The applicant proposed to rezone the property at that time

from reconnaissance 60 to RS-50 under a Euclidean zoning.

What is before you tonight is an RS-60 to a PD.

Both lots are approximately 50 by 100 from 5,000 square feet

for a total area of 10,000.

The property currently has one single-family residence on

it.

The site is located at the southeast corner of west Tacon

street and south Lois Avenue, surrounded by detached

single-family dwelling units on all sides with the RS-60

zoning district on the north, south, east and west.

As I just mentioned the original application was to

establish two RS-50 zoning lots.

Council denied the petition based on the Tampa Comprehensive

Plan, policy 18.4.10.

What is before you tonight is the application has been

modified, converted to a planned development.

The lots are still 50 by 100.

The setbacks are consistent with the RS-60.

Which is front 25-foot.

This application allows for potential for a porch at




20-foot.

Side and corner yard 7-foot.

And rear 20-foot.

The building height, 35 feet.

The west lot being proposed, the house is oriented to Tacon

street.

The side load garage on south Lois Avenue and the east lot

house is oriented to Tacon with a driveway on Tacon.

The side load required design exception from the

transportation division due to the distance from the

intersection, and it did receive that.

The west lot, there is commitment to set back the second

floor for reduced second story 17 feet are from the east

property line or an average of 12 feet from both the east

and west property line.

11:46:25 >>DAVID HEY:
Planning Commission staff.

We are down in the South Tampa planning district.

I am going to go through this really quick.

This is the aerial.

You can see it's predominantly residential.

When Planning Commission staff looked at this we see a

mixture of smaller lots to the south, to the north, and

smaller lots to the southwest of the subject site, and then

there are some larger lots throughout the neighborhood.

Here is the future land use map.




The entire area is that residential 10.

Based on the acreage.

It can be considered to up to 2 dwelling units for the

subject site similar to the other parcels to the rear and to

the north and south.

Planning Commission staff reported almost the same from the

original request of the RS-50.

We found that it increases the supply of housing within the

South Tampa district, so it's in-fill.

And there's also providing additional housing opportunity.

Remember, when we look at compatibility, our definition in

the comp plan says it's not -- it does not have to be the

same as.

It just as has to mitigate for impact.

So based on that, Planning Commission staff finds the PD

request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

11:48:10 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Thank you, David.

Land Development Coordination.

The request at 4124 west Tacon street is from RS-60 to PD to

allow two single-family residential lots.

I just went over that they would each be 5500.

The subject application does reestablish the plot platted

lots with the application of RS-60 standards.

So even though they are 50 by 100, they are going to use the




RS-60 standards which the difference is predominantly a

front setback.

In the RS-60 is 25 and in the RS-50 it's 20.

11:48:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just to cut to the chase, because it's late,

about what the issue is here, essentially we probably

need -- [Rustling papers] if they wanted to go to two RS-50

lots before, presumably they wanted to do that with RS-50

setbacks, correct?

Originally.

11:49:20 >> Correct.

11:49:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
That's what we rejected.

11:49:22 >> Correct.

11:49:23 >>HARRY COHEN:
What's different about what's being proposed

tonight is we are able through a PD to actually get RS-60

setbacks in each direction, which means, am I correct, the

house would be a little bit smaller than what was proposed

the first time?

11:49:38 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Well, the first time, we didn't know how

big they were because they were just going to meet RS-50.

11:49:44 >>HARRY COHEN:
Right.

Necessity would be more restricted in size this time than

they were the last time?

11:49:52 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Correct.

One of the things that was discussed through the mediation

process, and one of the representatives from land




development that was present in that process, was two

things.

One was the loading of the houses, not having them both

facing Tacon and having two driveways, and shifting one of

the driveways to Lois to allow for the appearance of larger

lots, because in the original, in the red-blue map, the

establishment of these two 50s is not consistent with the

development pattern, and that is how staff found.

The second was the setbacks, and then the limitation of

building size, and also the setback of the second floor for

the western lot to allow for the creation of greater air and

light, and the creation that there is more space there than

just having two monolithic structures that go directly up.

So the site plan before you rejects the majority of that

with the exception that they put on that site plan building

coverage, which is only a ground floor coverage.

It's not a building square footage.

So staff is still requesting that the square footage not

including the garages be limited on each of the lots.

And I believe that the applicant is aware of that request

that is being made by staff.

So that is where the case is right now.

Let me just go over the aerial and the zoning atlas, the

red-blue with you and photos of the site so you can

remember.




This is the zoning atlas.

The property shown here in green.

At the corner of Lois, Tacon.

You will see everything is predominantly RS-60 in this area.

We have had this discussion numerous times when I put the

red and blue up, if there's a blue, that's going to be a

50-foot lot.

That means that that lot was a historical lot of record,

50-foot by 100 that was developed.

The only result you see here of a rezoning would have been

this one here, this PD here that was recently done on Obispo

and there's a PD on Leona.

If there was a predominance of these types of rezonings you

would see little RS-50 squares all over the atlas.

Here is the red-blue map.

The blues show you development less than 607-foot lots.

The reds show you developments on 60-foot or greater.

And the red-blue combination is the PDs.

PD here.

Right there.

So staff found in relation to the development pattern, this

block face is predominantly larger lots.

So we found that the creation of this was inconsistent with

the pattern.

However, based on some of the mitigating factors that are




being presented, there is an opportunity to build a physical

development consistent with the standards of the other

zoning lots.

This is a picture of the subject.

It currently has a drive on Tacon and does have an ingress

and drive on Lois.

This is the subject.

Bear with me just a minute.

I have my original photos, but I also went back out to the

site Tuesday morning of this week just to check out.

This is the property directly to the north in our original

photo. This was back in April.

And this is what it is today.

This is also the north side of the street.

North side of the street.

And this is the southwest corner.

And this is the property directly to the south on San

Carlos -- San Luis, I'm sorry.

and then this is the northwest corner.

this is directly behind it.

Down here.

And then this is over on that corner.

Then this is the subject that I took this week.

[Rustling papers]

11:56:11 >>HARRY COHEN:
Questions?




All right.

Petitioner?

11:56:15 >> Susan Johnson Velez, 607 west Bay Street on behalf of the

applicant.

In consideration of the very late hour, really our previous

presentation, because both Abbye and David have done a great

job describing the changes that were made to the rezoning

proposal such that we have a very different proposal before

you tonight than was before you back in April.

And also, Rebecca did a great job explaining the process.

I did want to say in between the mediation hearings that we

had, we did work very closely, our engineer, with Abbye to

make sure that the changes that we were making were

acceptable to the city and to make sure that we were

addressing all of their concerns adequately.

We did have several neighbors that did come to each of the

public hearings for the mediation who participated and we

received their input.

We are very glad to have their comments, and what you see

before you in the site plan today with the elevations and

the actual site plan is a result of all of those

discussions.

We are very happy to bring that to you for your

consideration this evening.

I did want to address, Abbye mentioned the additional




condition regarding limitation on buildings, square footage.

So we are agreeable to a limitation, not to exceed 3,000

square feet of air conditioned space per home.

So that along with the limitation on the lot coverage, I

believe, addresses some of the concerns that were put

previously.

Happy to answer any questions.

I do have Mr. Michelini here as well who has been involved

in the process very integrally.

We are very happy to answer any questions that you might

have.

11:57:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
3,000 square foot air conditioned limitation

on both houses?

11:58:02 >> Correct.

11:58:03 >>HARRY COHEN:
Council members?

11:58:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Does anybody know how anybody voted?

I don't know.

11:58:13 >>HARRY COHEN:
I think it was unanimous against it.

11:58:15 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

There was originally a motion to approve which was 5 to 2

and then there was a motion to deny which was unanimous

according to the record.

11:58:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Kert, do you know how that vote came

down on that first one, the 5-2?

I think I remember but I can't --




If it was in the stack of paper I apologize.

I didn't see it.

11:59:05 >>REBECCA KERT:
The original motion to be approved on first

reading was by Maniscalco, second by Reddick.

But then the motion failed with Suarez, Capin, Suarez voting

no and Miranda -- I apologize -- and Maniscalco voting yes.

Then it was unanimous to deny.

11:59:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I make a motion to deny.

I was trying to remember it.

11:59:31 >> I want to make one other comment.

We did reduce, so what you see before you is a reduction in

the building -- I'm sorry, building footprint from 2,160

square feet which would have been per lot to now 1,994, and

2049 square feet footprint, as well as the limitation on the

square footage.

12:00:59 >>HARRY COHEN:
Is there anyone in the public that would

like to be address council?

Now is your opportunity.

Three minutes per speaker.

12:00:05 >> Good evening.

My name is Richard Andretta.

I have been sworn in.

My address is 4209 west San Luis street.

And I believe I sent an e-mail to council member Cohen.

And I believe it was probably circulated to everyone.




So there were 14 of us here.

Now there's five because it took so long.

Because the others had families, and they had to go home to

their families.

So I have a list of the other people if I could submit it.

They were all in favor of denying this request.

Okay?

They are asking for a PD zoning.

But on the agenda it says they want an RS-50 zoning.

There's a discrepancy there.

And I want to be able to use my full three minutes.

12:01:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Do you have that form with you?

The speaker waiver?

12:01:12 >> It's not a speaker waiver.

12:01:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Oh, okay.

Thank you, sir.

12:01:16 >> I address this to Mr. Cohen and I was made aware of the

rezoning request.

RUD 17-22 to change the zoning from RS-50 to PD.

To RS-50.

I'm completely against it.

And I believe that there are some other items that need to

be resolved before any voting on this would take place.

I was not at the original hearing.

And when the rezoning to split it, and it was denied, they




requested mediation.

They sent it to the people in the audience that requested to

speak.

I heard four citizens from the community showed up.

That doesn't seem like a good sampling to discuss an issue

such as this.

Four people.

A few questions need to be asked.

And if the City Council doesn't have the answers, perhaps

they should not be granted.

Does the city have a list of the number of in-fills in South

Tampa?

We can even use Bay to Bay to Euclid to Westshore to

MacDill, where a property zoned RS 60 was granted a

rezoning to put two houses on a 100-foot lot.

And this is something to think about because I don't think

you all have the answers.

You put two houses on the property where there's only one.

The developer tears down a 3,000 square foot house, 100-foot

lot and puts up two, 4,000 square foot houses.

On two 50-foot lots.

We have four people in the original house.

Probably two or three cars.

Two houses.

Probably four bedroom homes, maybe five.




Now you went from two cars, maybe three, with four people.

(Bell sounds)

To ten people.

Eight cars.

Sure, the taxes are great. It triples the taxes, but I

haven't seen any increases of services in my neighborhood.

My sewer system is still old.

It's still leaks.

We have got depressions, man made sinkholes.

We have got potholes.

And we have traffic congestion.

We have congestion everywhere.

(Bell sounds)

Can I still talk a few more minutes?

12:03:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
[Off microphone.]

12:04:00 >> Okay.

[Off microphone.]

12:04:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Before you do that, we have a speaker

waiver form.

And I will call out names and see if these people are here.

Melissa lender son.

She is not here.

Lisa Sullivan.

The rules require them to be present.

12:04:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could suggest as opposed to giving the




extra time just noting in the record these are people that

would have agreed with his statement that he's going to make

concerning this.

Is that possible?

12:04:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
No, because he said -- they are not here.

12:04:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.

I just want to know the answer from him.

12:04:59 >> I will go quick.

12:05:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We are asking a different question, sir.

We'll talk here and then we'll let you talk, okay?

12:05:08 >> I appreciate it.

I apologize.

12:05:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's a question.

12:05:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
The determination is three minutes?

12:05:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I wasn't asking for more time for him.

I was asking as to what that means in terms of the record.

That's all I was asking.

We can let hum speak while you look up that answer.

If it's all right.

12:05:27 >> I do need to be sworn in.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

12:05:38 >> My name is Robby Henderson.

I apologize.

12:05:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Ever individual members of public provided

they are present in the audience may designate a




representative spokesman.

They not being here, therefore according to your rules, they

are limited to three minutes.

As to what the weight of what the gentleman says, that's

your determination as to how much weight to give it.

Thank you.

12:06:10 >> My name is Robby Henderson, 4111 west San Luis.

I am a residential realtor in the neighborhood.

I have been a realtor for 25 years.

I come to you as a neighbor that lives on a 75-foot lot who

also has his mother-in-law neighbor split the lot two doors

down so when you see the modern transitional house I was

part of splitting that back in 2009 if you remember that

great historical real estate time period.

We did a 65 and a 50.

Why?

Because that's what you tell us to.

We didn't play any games.

We just did what you asked us to.

And I'm here not really about David and what he's building.

I'm selling one of David's houses.

David is a great builder.

It has nothing to do with him.

What it has to do with is you all have a circular process

where you are consistently taking our 60-foot lots and




making them 50 feet.

And you are setting a precedent that is ruining our value.

And I do want to show you this real quick.

And I show you, this is the area that I am talking about.

And then I show you this.

And this is where I tell you, when you are taking it down to

a 3,000 square foot house, that 3,000 square foot house,

when you do it on a 50-foot lot, the average sales price is

688.

When you do it on a 607-foot lot or bigger, which is there,

that average sales price is 803.

So you are essentially taking 19.62% off of the value of our

home.

So when you look at Tampa and the plant district and year to

date are up 10.7%.

Our neighborhood is up 3.3%.

And listen, we are blessed.

I get it.

Great neighborhood.

And I'm squabbling over dollars.

But the reality is, you all are making it a precedent to

devalue our homes.

And we can talk about the walk.

We can talk about how the plant district has been

redistricted.




Look at north of Kennedy and Rome.

Cleveland to Rome.

You have taken that.

You know.

Plant is overcrowded.

When you talk about in-fill, when you talk about how great

the plant district is, this is what you are dealing with.

So I ask for you to look at that.

And if you need any of that information I do have the mother

lode of three hours from when I got here.

(Bell sounds).

12:08:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

[Off microphone.]

Thank you very much.

Anyone else in the audience?

Excuse me for standing but my back is not cooperating

tonight.

So I'll stand.

12:09:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
If you want to put anything into if

record, you are welcome to do that.

12:09:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, ma'am?

Come up.

12:09:27 >> My name is Olga Joanow.

I was here at the hearing in April.

My opinion that night as I voiced it to the commission or




the council was that I like the character of the

neighborhood.

I still like the character of the neighborhood.

You denied the petition in April for a reason, I attended

the special masters meeting.

I kept an open mind.

I appreciate the willingness of Mr. Hill and city staff to

discuss it and include us in this conversation.

My promise was to keep an open maned and listen.

And I did listen.

And I listened to the changes that were made.

Appreciate the changes that were made and the hard work that

came into the discussion.

But when it comes down to it, it does change the character

of the neighborhood to start piling houses two where one

was.

Further down the street, five where there used to be three.

It does change the feel.

It changes the look.

It changes the neighborhood I want to live N.changes the

neighborhood I bought into.

And I would like you to consider the fact that I appreciate

that the petitioner wants this done.

He's left the neighborhood.

I appreciate that Mr. Hill build nice houses.




I live on the street.

I am going to look out my front window at this house.

And I would like to see one house, not two crammed into a

space with various setbacks that are smaller than what they

expect.

I am not a zoning attorney.

I do recall a conversation where one of the lots was

specifically so not conforming with the split that there

were a lot of reconfigurations that needed to occur.

When you start talking about doing that kind of

manipulation, to put two houses where one used to be, I

think there's a reason to keep it at the RS-60 and maintain

the character of this particular area.

Thank you.

12:11:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

Anyone else wish to address us?

12:11:36 >> Hi.

I need to be sworn in.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

12:11:49 >> I'm Tammy Layton.

I live at 4113 west Tacon.

I was at also the April City Council meeting and I was part

of the special magistrate meeting or hearing that occurred.

And again, we were open to all the ideas that Mr. Hill

brought forward, and we do appreciate it.




And if it is going to be split, then I'm happier with the

changes that had to be made for that.

But I still would request that it not be split, mainly

because I live on a 5,000 square foot lot across the street.

And my house is on one of those pictures.

And it's with historic split before it was RS-60, I guess.

It was 50 when I bought it.

And I have two small children.

And there is no room for us to play.

The yard is so small.

So I am assuming that a lot of times the people that buy in

our neighborhood, they have small kids, they have children

that want to go to plant, and so there's not a lot of yard.

So I would rather still have it at 10,000 square foot lot,

or at minimum of RS-60.

Of thank you.

12:13:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You know, I have a question just about the

numbers on here.

Maybe showing the 50-foot lots, or 6017 in a 60-foot lot and

1723, that could be proportionate to what you have in

50-foot lots and 60-foot lots for sale.

In other words, there's a lot less 50-foot lots than there

are 60-foot lots.

When I look at this, I dined kind of wondered about that.

And I don't know how many 50-foot lots, proportionately




there's a lot less 50-foot lots and you are going to have a

lot less sales of 50-foot lots than 60-foot lots.

Anyway, I want to look at it.

Okay.

Anyone else in the audience wish to address us?

Okay.

12:14:26 >> City Council, Rebecca Kert, legal department.

Before you go to rebuttal, I do have to acknowledge that the

substitute ordinance that we submitted did have an error in

it.

It does say from RS 6 to RS-50 and it is from RS-60 to a PD

planned development.

The site plan is direct.

That's on my owned and I apologize about that.

But if you do want to go forward, I have a substitute

ordinance.

And then we will submit a clean one tomorrow.

But we have one that you can read.

12:14:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Chair, can I ask a question?

Mrs. Kert, this process that we started statutorily because

of the -- because we don't see this that often, a couple

times, so if, for example, we have gotten these changes now

from the petitioner, and we still come up with the same

answer as before, what does that mean?

Because they already went to a special magistrate.




12:15:35 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

It a two part process.

Right now we are at the mediation stage where there have

been changes that have been proposed to City Council to

consider.

If City Council rejects the changes, then we will go to part

2 where city staff and legal department and the special

magistrate will have a full hearing for the special

magistrate will make a recommendation about whether or not

the decision was unreasonable or unfairly burdened the

property, and that we will come back to you again with

that --

12:16:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And typically have that second part come

before us quicker.

I don't remember seeing this as often.

I think that we have had other things that they have gone

straight to.

12:16:17 >>REBECCA KERT:
The most recent one you did, there was no

mediation.

It was able to be reached.

And staff was unable to recommend anything to come back to

you so it went straight to part two.

You have had several that were successfully mediated that

City Council reviewed and felt that it did address their

concerns, and City Council approved it through this process.




You have had some that worked its way through the mediation

process, and where it eventually accrues with the changes

that were recommended.

12:16:49 >> For the folks that are here, this may not be the last

stop no matter what we do tonight. This may not be the last

stop in terms of this.

It may get mediated again, come back, and we have had that

happen.

12:17:00 >>REBECCA KERT:
You are correct.

This would not be the last stop.

And then once we get to the end of the statutory process,

then there's court.

But this is -- no matter what you do.

12:17:14 >>CHAIRMAN:
We have gotten there before.

12:17:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have had a couple of court orders where

we had to make a decision with what be the court decided in

terms of the zoning.

12:17:21 >>REBECCA KERT:
One of the purposes of this statute is to

avoid court, and part of the reason to avoid court is to

allow everyone another opportunity to participate in the

process.

Because once you go to court, it is out of your hands, and

the judge is able to make a determination.

It does come back to you after that, but with some

limitations on it.




12:17:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.

12:17:43 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Councilman Cohen.

12:17:44 >>HARRY COHEN:
I just want to make one comment prior to

hearing the rebuttal from petitioner.

And this is really in relation to some of the public comment

that we heard tonight.

And also some of the comments that were submitted to us

prior to the hearing.

In terms of the question of how many of these types of

applications we have approved throughout the city or

throughout the district, that's basically irrelevant to this

process in the following sense.

None of our land use decisions like this are precedent

setting on the next time of that with we consider this type

of case.

So we can't say we are not going to approve any more of

these because we are afraid that we are setting a precedent

and it's making it easier to approve them the next time.

That's the first one.

The second point, however, is that it is true that when you

look at the red-blue map of what is conform to the RS-60 and

what is not conforming, every time we make a decision that

takes it away from the underlying zoning district, we are in

fact making it easier for it to happen again in the same

neighborhood, because the next time they bring us that




red-blue map with a map showing which properties are

conforming and which are nonconforming, the ratio will have

changed.

And every time we make that decision, the ratio is changing

more and more in one direction.

So under that type of analysis, if there is a precedent

setting nature to what we are doing here, and I want to

point that out because two things may seem sort of to be the

same, but they are really not the same.

And it's very important for our purposes that we separate

the two.

I am very sympathetic to the original reason that we denied

this.

Which was that ultimately if you continue to do these, they

will change the character of the neighborhood, the

neighborhood will become more dense and people that thought

they were buying into one thing will find themselves living

in another.

And that is obviously the thing that all of us are going to

have to consider when we make a decision about what to do.

12:20:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Anyone else?

Rebuttal?

12:20:28 >> Susan Johnson again for the applicant.

I want to put up the red-blue map again.

This is the lot here.




And surrounded on all sides by 50-foot lots.

So what we have proposing here is very much in keeping with

the size in the immediately adjacent area.

Even though the lot sizes will be 50 feet by 100-foot, they

are being developed to RS-60 standards.

So that is one of the mitigating factors that will help with

character and to try to maintain the character even with

those 60-foot lots, even though the lots will be frankly

smaller.

The issue tonight before you is compatibility with the

comprehensive plan and consistency with the Land Development

Code.

Both issues of which everybody thoroughly examined by your

staff and which have been found to be consistent and

compatible, the proposal, consistent and compatible with the

surrounding area.

And I will say that all other reviewing staff has also found

it consistent with your applicable regulations.

There is a lot of talk about home value.

That's not really the issue that's before you and is not

something that I believe is consistent or at least relevant

to your determination this evening.

We did have -- Rebecca described as well, very detailed, and

probably three and a half, four hours worth of mediation

hearings where we moat and discussed these things, and




everything that was requested of us by the property owners

that participated, the neighbors that participated,

everything that was requested of us by staff, we agreed to

and that was incorporated into the site plan that we have

before you.

This evening.

I believe that everything that's before you supports

approval of this request.

And so we ask your approval.

I would also, just one more thing.

There are very few lots in this neighborhood, and talk about

a snowball effect.

There are very few lots this size that able to be split in

the manner that we are proposing.

And so at some point, it's just not going to be the

availability for lots to be split.

12:22:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You are looking at it right there, that

there aren't any lots to be split.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

I mean, there are not that many left.

12:23:02 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
This entire lot was platted on 50-foot

lots and when the zoning changed to RS-60, there was a

provision in there that allowed development of 50-foot lots

without coming to council.




And then it was changed and was basically called the 80%

rule.

And then council changed that.

So now instead of doing these buildable lots,

administratively, or if you vested them previously before

the change in 1987, then you had to come back to council to

request permission.

What we are asking to do is to restore the rights of this

particular lot with RS-60 development standards including

the fact that we limited the size of the development of

these particular homes.

We have increased the setbacks so that if you were driving

by down the street, you could not perceive a difference

between the development on these lots and any other lots in

the area.

And the fact as pointed out the three lots across the

street, the lot adjacent and the back and across the street

diagonally are all RS-50 developed single-family lots.

So when we are looking at compatibility, that immediate area

has 50-foot lots.

If you look in the larger area, you see a little bit of a

different development pattern, but even the Planning

Commission pointed out in their report -- and I'm quoting

from this existing land use near the property in the

vicinity, most of the existing single-family detached houses




in the area are on 50-foot lots.

That's directly from their report.

And there's a variety of other things.

But the only way that you get the infrastructure

improvements now, you can't do it through ad valorem taxes.

It has to come through new development where these

developments bring in the impact fees for the

transportation, for water and sewer, and for those

connection fees.

The only way that it happens now, the city doesn't have the

money to come down and install wholesale water lines and

sewer lines.

So as these areas redevelop, they create additional tax

revenues for the city.

(Bell sounds)

They are compatible in design, size and scope, and your

staff has found that to be consistent.

We are respectfully requesting your approval.

12:25:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.

We're done.

Thank you for moving to close.

I was waiting.

Moved to close by Councilman Reddick.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor to close say aye.




Opposed?

All right.

We have number 12.

Whose turn in is it?

I don't remember.

My mind.

Councilman Reddick?

Councilman Miranda?

Councilman Viera?

Okay.

Councilman Suarez, would you read number 12?

No?

Okay.

Councilman Maniscalco.

Councilman Cohen?

Would you read 12?

Councilman Reddick?

12:26:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.

I'll read it.

Okay.

Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

of 4124 west Tacon street in the city of Tampa, Florida and

more particularly described in section 1 from zoning

district classification RS-60 residential single-family to

PD development providing an effective date.




12:27:01 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Do we have a second?

It dies for lack of a second.

An alternative.

Anything else?

Councilman Suarez?

12:27:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Since I did it the first time I will also do

it the second time.

12:27:20 >>REBECCA KERT:
I'm sorry.

I apologize for interrupting.

The only motion I need is to address the hearing officer

recommendation.

I don't need a motion for denial.

12:27:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Perfect.

12:27:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I was going to say what you said but now I

will say it myself.

I make a motion to reject the hearing officer's

recommendation concerning this case, REZ 17-22.

12:27:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Suarez.

Second by Councilman Maniscalco.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you.

12:27:55 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Viera being absent.

12:28:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I just want to thank the Parks and

Recreation Department, especially Sharon Howard and her




terrific crew for providing for the building at the ground

allowing it and making it real festive.

Mrs. Howard and her crew worked the entire year making the

grounds at City Hall park, Channelside, as well as others

look fantastic.

I would like to thank the Parks and Recreation Department

again and Mrs. Howard and her crew, and we appreciate all

the effort for all their hard work.

That's not a motion.

Just an editorial.

12:28:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Off microphone.

12:29:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
I am going to move as quickly as possible.

First I would like to congratulate all the employees that

were recognized for their years of service to the City of

Tampa at the employee service award ceremony that was held

on Wednesday.

This ceremony recognized employees who have been with the

city in excess of 20 years, and nearly 200 employees were

presented with pins recognizing their years of service.

So congratulations.

All right of the

At the request of the Planning Commission, I would like to

make a motion that the following plan amendment be set for

public hearing to be held on Thursday, February 22nd at 5:01

p.m.




Adoption hearings for PA, CPA amendment 17-10, 17-15, 17-16,

17-17, 17-18, and 17-19 and a transmittal public hearing for

PA-EPA 17-20 and Mr. Clerk, I promise I will give you this

all in writing.

12:30:07 >> Second.

12:30:11 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
[Off microphone.] motion by Mr. Cohen.

Second.

All in favor?

12:30:24 >>HARRY COHEN:
Finally I would like to make a motion to

continue the staff report for next week, 12-21 related to

the legal department, and our CFO Sonya Little coming to

talk about bond covenants.

We are going to push that off until our first meeting of the

new year.

They would like to come under staff reports on January 11,

2018.

12:30:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion by Councilman Cohen.

A second by Councilman Miranda.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you.

Councilman Maniscalco?

Councilman Suarez?

12:31:01 >> Nothing.

12:31:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to receive and file.




12:31:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
We have a motion to receive and file with

of a second by Councilman Reddick.

All in favor?

We are adjourned.

(City Council meeting 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.