📝 City Council Meeting Transcript

TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
5:30 P.M. SESSION

DISCLAIMER:
THIS FILE REPRESENTS AN UNEDITED VERSION OF REALTIME
CAPTIONING WHICH SHOULD NEITHER BE RELIED UPON FOR COMPLETE
ACCURACY NOR USED AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
ANY PERSON WHO NEEDS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS MAY NEED TO HIRE A COURT REPORTER.

(ROLL CALL)
5:36:25PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCILWOMAN
YOLIE CAPIN WILL BE ABSENT FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
AND THAT COUNCILMAN SUAREZ WILL BE ROUGHING AROUND 6:00 P.M.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE TWO WALK-ON.
DO YOU WANT TO COME UP?
5:36:49PM >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
JAN MCLEAN WITH THE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY HERE THIS
EVENING WITH A WALK-ON ITEM THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO YOU, A
REQUEST FOR THE AUTHORITY TO PUBLISH FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
BE SET ON OCTOBER THE 11th AT 6:00 P.M. OR AS SOON
THEREAFTER AS POSSIBLE.
TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY
OWNERS OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL AND LOWER

BASIN STORMWATER ASSESSMENT AREA THAT DID NOT RECEIVE THE
MAILED NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON AUGUST
23rd.
SO I NEED THE APPROVAL FOR THE RESOLUTION, FOR THE AUTHORITY
TO PUBLISH FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 11th.
5:37:38PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NEED A MOTION.
5:37:40PM >> MOVE THE RESOLUTION.
5:37:41PM >> SECOND.
5:37:42PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION FROM MR. COHEN.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
WHAT'S THE NEXT WALK-ON?
5:37:50PM >> ROB ROSNER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HERE WITH THE CITY OF
TAMPA.
I'M BRINGING FORTH A WALK-ON ITEM HERE FOR A RESOLUTION FOR
THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR HMS FERRY, CROSS BAY FERRY
SERVICE.
WE WERE INFORMED ON THE 10th THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE
APPROVED BY THE 15th OF THIS MONTH TO GET THE FEFP FUNDS
THAT ARE TIED TO IT.
WE THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE FUND AND TRANSPORTATION
NEEDS AND IT'S AN APPROPRIATE NEED SO CONSIDERATION ON THAT.
5:38:32PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF YOU COULD JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE

RECORD JUST ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK PRIOR
TO MOVING THE RESOLUTION.
5:38:40PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.
MR. MIRANDA?
5:38:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I WAS GOING TO SAY I DIDN'T SUPPORT IT
THE FIRST TIME TWO YEARS AGO, THREE YEARS AGO, I DIDN'T
SUPPORT IT THE OTHER DAY.
WE GAVE 350 BEFORE.
THAT'S A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.
YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET.
THAT INDICATES WE ARE NOT HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
FINANCIALLY AND I DON'T GIVE MONEY AWAY.
YOU MAY CALL IT TRANSPORTATION, ANYTHING YOU WANT.
I CALL IT JOY RIDE BECAUSE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS ON THAT
FERRY ON THE OTHER SIDE THEY HAVE TO TAKE A CAB AND COME
BACK AND TO ME IT'S NOT TRANSPORTATION.
TO ME IT'S A START OF PEOPLE THINKING IT'S WATER
TRANSPORTATION BUT IT'S GIVING MONEY AWAY.
THANK YOU.
5:39:16PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE?
ALL RIGHT.
CAN WE GET A MOTION?
5:39:28PM >> SO MOVED.
5:39:32PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION BY MR. COHEN.

SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION?
OPPOSED?
5:39:39PM >>THE CLERK:
THE MOTION FAILED WITH REDDICK AND MIRANDA
VOTING NO.
AND CAPIN BEING ABSENT.
5:39:57PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP?
5:40:06PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'M NOT HERE TO HOLD ANYBODY UP.
IF YOU HAVE TO WAIT ON MR. SUAREZ TO DECIDE WHAT HE WANTS TO
DO.
5:40:11PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
WE GO TO ITEM NUMBER 1.
5:40:16PM >> MOVE TO OPEN THE 5:
30 PUBLIC HEARINGS.
5:40:22PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION BY MR. COHEN.
SECONDED BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 1.
5:40:30PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.
COUNCIL, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLICLY INITIATED
AMENDMENT.
THIS IS ONE OF THREE PUBLICLY INITIATED AMENDMENTS IN THE
JANUARY CYCLE.

THE OTHER TWO AMENDMENTS YOU WILL HEAR AT THE NEXT PUBLIC
HEARING AT THE.
A M. HEARING. THIS ITEM IS ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA BECAUSE
IT DOES CONTAIN A CHANGE TO THE USE TABLE.
COUNCIL, YOU MAY REMEMBER, THIS IS A COUNCIL DIRECTED
AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE PARKING REGULATIONS AND USE DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE AND MINI WAREHOUSE
USES.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THE CHANGES WITH YOU THAT ARE
PROPOSED IN CHAPTER 27.
WE HAVE EIGHT DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CODE THAT WE ARE
AMENDING.
ALSO, THIS WAS HEARD, COUNCIL, BEFORE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION IN JUNE, ON JUNE 11th AND THEY HAD A FINDING
OF CONSISTENT.
ANY LANGUAGE THAT IS UNDERLINED THAT IS NEW LANGUAGE, AND
ANY STRICKEN LANGUAGE IS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CODE.
SO THE FIRST ONE I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IS SECTION 27-43.
THIS IS DEFINITION FOR THE MINI WAREHOUSE USE, WE ARE ADDING
A GROUP OF BUILDINGS AND HIMSELF ADDING LANGUAGE.
THE OTHER CHANGES ARE ACTUALLY CLEAN-UP LANGUAGE WITHIN THAT
DEFINITION.
THE NEXT SECTION OF THE CODE IS 27-132.
THESE ARE THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING.
THE AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS REMOVED

THE ACTUAL REFERENCE TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND
THEN WE HAVE GENERAL CLEAN-UP WITHIN THAT LANGUAGE.
WHAT WE ARE DOING, YOU WILL FIND WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICTS WE ARE TAKING WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SPECIAL
USE CRITERIA, CHAPTER 27 IN THE CDB CRITERIA, 27-184.1.
AND YOU MAY REMEMBER WE DID THE SAME THING, WE TOOK THEM AND
MOVED THEM WITHIN THE CDB AND THAT'S COMING TO YOU ALSO.
SO THIS IS ALSO A CHANGE TO 27-132. THIS IS REMOVING THOSE
STANDARDS THAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING.
THE NEXT SECTION IS 27-184.
THIS IS THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED PRINCIPAL
ACCESSORY AND SPECIAL USES.
TABLE 184 FOR AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE.
CURRENTLY IT IS A SPECIAL USE 2.
AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT AS A PERMITTED USE.
AND THEN WE ARE ALSO ADDING EACH OF THE PARKING STANDARDS
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
THAT IS ONE REQUIRED FOR EACH 100 STORAGE UNITS.
AND THEN WE ARE ADDING A REFERENCE TO THAT SECTION THAT I
JUST MENTIONED, SECTION 27-184.1 WITH SPECIFIC DESIGN
STANDARDS.
CURRENTLY FOR THE CDB, IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR
AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE USE, THEY WOULD APPLY, THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL USE APPROVAL, BUT IN ADDITION
BECAUSE THEY WERE WITHIN THE CDB THEY HAD TO MEET THE DESIGN

CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.
IF THEY DON'T MEAT THOSE CRITERIAS THEY MAY HAVE TO APPLY
FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE DESIGN
EXCEPTION AND COME BEFORE YOU, AND WE HAVE TWO HEARINGS.
SO THE SPECIAL USE STILL REQUIRES TWO HEARINGS WITH DESIGN
EXCEPTION.
YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS FROM THE BURGER KING.
WHEN WE HAD THE BURGER KING COME THROUGH IT WAS TWO SEPARATE
REQUESTS.
SO TO MAKE THE PROCESS A LITTLE SMOOTHER, WE HAVE CHANGES
FROM THE PERMITTED USE FOR THE AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE AND
TAKE THE REMOVAL PROCESS.
YOU ALSO HAVE THE STANDARD WITHIN THE CDB.
AND THIS IS THE MISCELLANEOUS USE STANDARD AND WE ADDED
DESIGN STANDARDS TON THAT LANGUAGE.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE ADDING THE AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE
STANDARDS.
SO FOUR STANDARDS THAT WE ARE ADDING, THE USE SHALL ONLY BE
ON PARCELS NORTH OF HARRISON STREET, SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE
SECOND LEVEL OR HIGHER OF A MULTI-STORY BUILDING, THE USE
SHALL NOT EXCEED 40% OF THE SQUARE FOOT AREA, ONLY WITHIN
THE MIXED USE BUILDING THAT CONTAINS AT LEAST TWO DISTINCT
USES.
SO THESE WERE THE USES THAT WERE UNDER THE SPECIAL USE
CRITERIA. THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CHANNEL

DISTRICT.
WE ARE ADDING WAREHOUSE MINI WITH ONE SPACE ADDED FOR EACH
100 STORAGE UNITS.
THE FOOTNOTE IS ADDED.
THIS FOOTNOTE IS DRIVE AISLES THAT YOU FIND BETWEEN THE
BUILDINGS.
AND IT IS ALLOWING IT TO BE USED TO COUNT TOWARDS PARKING.
IF IT MEETS THE SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS.
AND IT'S ALSO STATING IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PARKED PARKING
SPACES.
SECTION 27-211.12 PARKING DESIGN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT, IN
THAT SECTION, THIS IS SEMINOLE HEIGHTS. THIS IS TABLE 2,
.12.
WE ARE ADDING THIS STANDARD, OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL USES.
WE ARE ADDING MINI WAREHOUSE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF ONE.
THE USE IS ALREADY A PERMITTED USE AND THE DEPARTMENT
STANDARDS.
THE NEXT SECTION IS 27-283.7 WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES.
THIS IS YOUR PARKING TABLE THAT'S FOUND WITHIN CHAPTER 27.
WE ARE ADDING AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE, ONE SPACE FOR
EVERY -- UNITS.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING REMOVING.
THAT
PLUS THE ADDITIONAL FOR EVERY 20 STORAGE UNITS.

SO WE ARE MAKING THAT CONSISTENT AT A 1 TO 50 RATIO.
AND THEN THE LAST SECTION FOR AMENDMENT OF SECTION 27-2
3.14, THIS IS OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE REQUIRED.
WE ARE ADDING AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE MUCH AND MINI
WAREHOUSE USES, TRACTOR TRAILERS, AND THIS THEN THE OTHER
CHANGES ARE GENERAL CLEAN-UP ITEMS.
AND THESE ARE ALL OF THE SECTIONS PROPOSED FOR THIS
AMENDMENT.
AND I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
5:47:25PM >>CHAIRMAN:
ALL RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL?
5:47:27PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
IT WAS MENTIONED IT WAS THE SAME AS THE
AUTO RENTALS?
IS THAT WHAT I HEARD?
IT WAS LIKE THE RENTAL BUT NOT THE SAME.
AUTO RENTALS IF I RECALL, AND I DON'T REMEMBER ALL OF IT
BECAUSE THAT WAS A YEAR OR SO AGO.
IT WAS SOMETHING ABOUT TEN UNITS, BECAUSE COULDN'T SEE IT
FROM THE FRONT.
AND I THINK WE DID SOME CHANGES THERE TO FACILITATE UP TO
20, I THINK IT WAS.
AM I CORRECT SO FAR?
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
5:48:01PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
CORRECT, COUNCILMAN.
WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IS WE WOULD TAKE THAT USE STANDARD

FOR THAT AUTO RENTAL, IT WAS UNDER -- AND PUT IT INTO THE --
5:48:12PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
AND THEN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
AND THE CHANNELSIDE DISTRICTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS
ORDINANCE.
5:48:18PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
THE CHANNEL DISTRICT?
IT'S IN.
5:48:24PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
IT'S IN?
5:48:25PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
I CAN SHOW YOU HERE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PICTURES.
I APOLOGIZE.
THIS IS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
SO THIS IS UNDER 27-184.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AMENDING IT.
SO HAD IT AT THE PERMITTED USE.
THIS IS ALSO WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THE
STANDARD.
AND THEN THE CHANNEL DISTRICT IS 27-200.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE PUTTING THE WAREHOUSE, ADDING THAT
AT ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 100.
5:48:59PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE IT.
5:49:01PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
OKAY.
5:49:03PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION FROM GOING FROM
50 TO 100?
5:49:15PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
YES, SIR.

WE ACTUALLY DID A STUDY OF DIFFERENT AREAS.
WE HAD RECENTLY, WHAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE CHANGE, I THINK THE
REQUEST FROM COUNCIL, WAS FOR STAFF TO STUDY IT BECAUSE WE
WERE RECEIVING A LOT OF REZONING REQUESTS AND WITH A LOT OF
WAIVERS THAT WERE BEING REQUESTED.
SO WE JUST FIGURED WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT AT COUNCIL'S
DIRECTION.
AND THEN AT THE WORKSHOP WHICH WAS HELD AT THE PUBLIC
WORKSHOP, WE HAD THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN BASED ON
FEEDBACK RECEIVED AND THE RESEARCH DONE, ONE TO THREE RATIO.
5:49:54PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
DID COUNCIL GIVE RATIOS OF THE STAFF OF 50
TO 100?
5:50:00PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL HAD GIVEN
NUMBERS BUT THEY HAD BASED ON A STUDY THERE, WAS AN AVERAGE
THAT WAS DONE.
IT WAS SHOWN WITH THE DIFFERENT AREAS ON THE SPREADSHEET AND
WHAT THEY CALCULATED THEIR PARKING AT.
THEIR PARKING RATIOS FOR THE SAME USE.
5:50:13PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
5:50:14PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
AND THAT CAME OUT --
5:50:16PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 1?
ITEM NUMBER 1?
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK?
5:50:23PM >> TODD PRESSMAN, PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA.

I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION, AND YOU HAVE HEARD FROM A LOT OF
FOLKS IN THE CHANNELSIDE AREA AS WELL AS THE LEADERS AND
LEADERSHIP OF THE CHANNELSIDE AREA THAT IS IN THE RECORD.
THE CHANGE OF ONE SPACE FOR 50 UNITS TO 1 SPACE FOR 100
UNITS IS A DRASTIC CHANGE, A 100% REDUCTION, AND THAT
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM FOLKS AND AS INDICATED ON THE RECORD,
PARTICULARLY FIRST OF ALL IS THE CHANNELSIDE DISTRICT
COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, AND THEY ARE THE CITY-RECOGNIZED
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ALONG WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE TOWN, TOWN RIVER ARTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND
THEIR MEMBERS VOTED UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST THIS
ORDINANCE AS THEY REVIEWED IT.
WE HAD QUITE A FEW OTHER E-MAILS INCLUDING ONE OF THE
MEMBERS OF YOUR CAC, THE SOUTH SEMINOLE HEIGHTS CIVIC
ASSOCIATION, MR. HENRY BOOZ IS ONE OF THE CHANNELSIDE
RESIDENTS, AND THERE'S MANY MORE.
THE CONCERN IS THE SENSITIVITY AS THE CHANNELSIDE AREA IS
GROWING.
PARKING IS A DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
100% REDUCTION IN PARKING MEANS MUCH LARGER STRUCTURES.
THAT IS VERY CONCERNING TO THESE FOLKS.
THERE ARE MUCH SMALLER THAT CAN SHOE HORN INTO TIGHTER
PLACES.
INDUSTRY STANDARD IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF

TAMPA HAS THE ONE SPACE TO 50.
THAT HASN'T CHANGED IN A LONG TIME.
IT'S WORKED JUST FINE.
THE -- DENYING THIS ORDINANCE TONIGHT DOESN'T STOP ANYONE
FROM ASKING FOR A WAIVER WHERE YOU HAVE CONTROL TO LOOK AT
IT AND MAKE SURE THAT'S WORKING ALL RIGHT. THIS ISSUE IS
BOUNCED AROUND THE ENTIRE SUMMER.
STAFF WORKED VERY HARD ON IT.
BUT IT'S BEEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAS BEEN TO A
PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION.
THE ONLY FEEDBACK THAT YOU GOT THAT I HAVE SEEN IS
OPPOSITION AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION AGAIN FROM RESIDENTS
AND ALL THE LEADERSHIP THAT I AM AWARE OF IN THE DISTRICT.
SO WE WOULD ASK THAT YOUR CONSIDERATION TO OPPOSE THIS
ORDINANCE TONIGHT, AND FINISH MANY MONTHS OF REVIEW BY THE
CITIZENS THAT YOU ARE HEARING FROM TONIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
5:52:51PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NEXT SPEAKER.
5:52:53PM >> I'M WITH THE CAC, CHANNEL DISTRICT, SO GOOD TO SEE YOU
GUYS AGAIN.
WE SUBMITTED A LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE CAC, AND WE ARE JUST
ASKING FOR MORE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THIS PAST MEETING THAT WE HAD THIS MONTH, AND WE ARE JUST
ASKING THAT YOU EVALUATE AND LOOK OVER THIS, YOU KNOW,
PROPERLY.

THE DISTRICT IS GROWING EVERY SINGLE DAY.
AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS BROUGHT TO THE
DISTRICT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY BENEFITS THE BUSINESSES,
AND OF COURSE UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PARKING SITUATION
HAPPENS.
IT HAPPENS WITH A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS BECAUSE WE REALLY
ARE STRAINED, VERY MUCH.
THE PARKING IS ALREADY -- SO AGAIN WE ARE JUST SUGGESTING
THAT YOU REVIEW IT, YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS YOU CAN JUST TO
MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION ON THAT.
THAT'S ALL.
5:53:58PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NEXT SPEAKER.
5:53:59PM >> JOSEPH VALDALEZ, CHANNEL DISTRICT COMMITTEE ALLIANCE AND
BOARD MEMBER AND RESIDENT HERE TODAY TO SPEAK TO YOU ALL --
ON BEHALF OF REPRESENTING CDCA AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY AND THE OPPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE CHAPTER 27 OF
THE MINI WAREHOUSE AND THE PARKING.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
COMMUNITY, SPECIFICALLY IN THE AMENDMENT, FOR EXAMPLE,
REQUIRED THE MIX USE REQUIREMENTS.
IT WOULD ADD MORE THAN 40% WITH A LOT MORE THAN 40%
DEVELOPMENT. IT ALSO ALLOWS BUSINESS OR RETAIL WITHIN THOSE
UNITS GROUND LEVEL ACCESS.
EVEN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN THE BUILDING.
NEW PARKING REGULATIONS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AND REDUCE THE

REQUIRED AMOUNT OF PARKING IN THE AREA.
WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF PARKING ISSUES IN THE DISTRICT.
11th AND 12th IS PRIMARY LOCATIONS AND VERY LIMITED.
CUTTING THAT IN HALF WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
COMMUNITY.
ON AUGUST 28, STATED THERE WAS A VOTE BY THE CDCA IN
OPPOSING THIS.
THERE WERE ALSO COMMITTED MEMBERS THERE.
WE SENT A LETTER TO YOU VIA E-MAIL TO REINFORCE THE VOTE ON
OPPOSING THAT.
ALSO WITHIN THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE REMOVAL OF S-2 TO AN
X WHICH WOULD PERMIT TO THE GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY
WITHOUT CITY APPROVAL AND REVIEW.
THE REASON WE OH OPPOSE THIS IS THE CHANNEL DISTRICT WAS
PREVIOUSLY A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.
WE SPENT MANY YEARS TRYING TO MAKE IT A LIVABLE AND WALKABLE
COMMUNITY.
AMENDING THIS WOULD PUT THE COMMUNITY IN REVERSE.
IT WOULD ALSO HAVE AN IMPACT ON ATTRACTING NEW RESIDENT AND
HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE BUSINESSES IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE SUFFICIENT MINI WAREHOUSES IN THE AREA AND ALSO
LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACES.
THIS IS ALL GOING TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
ALSO WITH A LOT OF OTHER DEVELOPERS, WHO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP
THESE TYPE OF STRUCTURES, NOT ONLY IN THE CHANNEL DISTRICT

BUT ALSO IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN
THIS.
5:55:57PM >> I'M RON HINES. I'M A RESIDENT OF THE CHANNEL DISTRICT,
OWN PROPERTY THERE.
I'M ONE OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTORS WHEN THEY STARTED BUILDING
OUT THE CHANNEL DISTRICT.
AND ABOUT ELEVEN YEARS AGO, FINALLY DECIDED TO MOVE THERE.
I WAS A FOREST HILLS RESIDENT FOR A LONG TIME, PRESIDENT OF
THAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WENT THROUGH THE MAYOR'S
NEIGHBORHOOD UNIVERSITY.
SO I AM GETTING INVOLVED MORE AND MORE IN WHAT'S GOING ON,
AND WHEN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CAME TO MY ATTENTION, I
SAW IT AS REMOVING A LOT OF PROTECTIONS THAT WERE PUT IN
PLACE FOR THE CHANNEL DISTRICT AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
I MOVED TO THE CHANNEL DISTRICT BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING FOR A
CHANGE IN THE WAY OF LIFE.
WANTED TO BE IN AN AREA THAT HAD NICE CONTROLLED GROWTH,
EVERYTHING WAS REASONABLE AND A LOT OF PROTECTIONS WERE IN
PLACE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO FAR THAT'S BEEN WORKING REALLY WELL.
THE AREA HAS A LOT OF STORAGE ALREADY.
EVERY BUILDING THERE HAS STORAGE BUILT INTO IT AS THE
DEVELOPERS -- FIGURED WE HAD TO HAVE THAT.

TO ADD MORE, I THINK, IS GOING TO BRING MORE TRAFFIC INTO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE COMING IN THERE TO
USE THOSE UNITS, AND WE ALREADY HAVE SUFFICIENT TRAFFIC
PROBLEMS, PARKING PROBLEMS.
I SEE ALL OF THIS MAKING IT WORSE.
SO I AM PARTICULARLY ALARMED AT THE CHANGE OF CLASSIFICATION
FROM S-2 TO X WHICH WOULD REALLY SORT OF CUT THE CITY OUT OF
APPROVING EVERYTHING GOING FORWARD.
I THINK THE EXISTING ORDINANCE OUGHT TO STAND AS IT IS, AND
PEOPLE CAN STILL COME FORWARD AND, YOU KNOW, PETITION FOR
VARIANCES.
I THINK THAT WORKS REALLY WELL AND BRINGS IT UP FOR REVIEW
AND PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WOULD INCH YOU NOT TO ENACT THESE CHANGES.
I THINK THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WORKS WELL.
AND WE OUGHT TO LEAVE IT ALONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
5:58:09PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, NEXT SPEAKER.
5:58:14PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS -- I'M A FORMER CDCA BOARD MEMBER.
I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT BASED ON THE NEGATIVE EFFECT THAT WE
WOULD HAVE TO TRAFFIC AS WELL AS PARKING AND ESPECIALLY
CONCERNED THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD -- THE FATALITIES WE ARE

ALREADY SEEING ON MERIDIAN.
THANK YOU.
5:58:43PM >> GOOD EVENING.
RHIANNA BROWNELL. I'M A LONG-TIME CHANNELSIDE RESIDENT AND
A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER IN TOWN.
I HAVE BEEN IN CHANNELSIDE FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS, AND IT WAS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I WAS CHOOSING A PLACE TO LIVE
IN CHANNELSIDE THAT WAS A SMALL COMMUNITY.
WE ALREADY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE IMPACTING
EXISTING TRAFFIC.
TRAFFIC IS A BIG ISSUE OBVIOUSLY IN TAMPA.
WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF TRAFFIC ISSUES IN THE CHANNELSIDE
DISTRICT SO TO SPEAK.
IT'S NOT GREAT BUT IT DEFINITELY NOT HORRIBLE.
SO THAT'S A CONCERN.
WE DO HAVE SOME LOCAL TRAFFIC ISSUES ON MERIDIAN WHICH
OBVIOUSLY IS A CONCERN WITH THIS ORDINANCE, ESSENTIALLY
REDUCING TRAFFIC ISSUES ON THAT STREET.
THERE ARE ISSUES OF BOTTLENECKS AT STOPLIGHTS, EATING AND
DRAG RACING, WHICH I HEAR AS A RESIDENT IN CHANNELSIDE.
WE ALSO OBVIOUSLY HAVE CONCERNS BEGUN NONRESIDENT IN
CHANNELSIDE IN THE EVENING, LATE AT NIGHT, THE TRANSIENT AND
JUST AGAIN NONRESIDENT ENVIRONMENT.
AGAIN, NOT TO REPEAT THE OTHER ISSUES.
CHANNELSIDE SPENT YEARS TO FIX THAT AND TO PROMOTE THE

WALKABLE COMMUNITY, WHICH AGAIN WAS ANOTHER REASON WHY I
CHOSE CHANNELSIDE AS MY PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN TAMPA.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE MORE OUTSIDE RESIDENTS WHICH
AGAIN WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC, INCREASE PARKING ISSUES, AND
ALSO WOULD INCREASE THE DANGER TO PEDESTRIANS AND BIKERS.
WE ALREADY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH NOT ONLY CHANNELSIDE BUT ALSO
THE TAMPA COMMUNITY.
WE ALSO FEEL THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL CAUSE AN INCREASE, AND
AGAIN THE EXISTING PARKING ISSUE WHICH I MENTIONED BEFORE.
THOSE ARE KIND OF REITERATE THE RESIDENT AND BUSINESS OWNERS
OF CHANNELSIDE ARE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT SO WE WOULD LIKE
THE CITY TO NOT ONLY CONSIDER THAT BUT TO DO AN ANALYSIS AND
REVIEW.
THANK YOU.
6:00:53PM >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS ALLISON DEUGHERTY, A BUSINESS OWNER IN THE
CHANNELSIDE DISTRICT.
AN ACTIVIST IN CHANNELSIDE AS WELL.
YOU HEARD MANY REASONS ALREADY.
I AM NOT GOING TO REPEAT ALL OF THEM BUT JUST LET YOU GUYS
KNOW THE COOL THING ABOUT CHANNELSIDE IS IT IS RESIDENT
FRIENDLY, BIKE, YOU CAN WALK, IT'S GOING TO JUST CHANGE THE
DYNAMIC OF WHAT WE HAVE GOT GOING ON.
MOST OF OUR CUSTOMERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RELY ON THE
RESIDENTS.

SO IT'S TO ENCOURAGE MORE RESIDENTS, MORE PARKING WOULD BE
GREAT, THANK YOU.
6:01:46PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER
1?
6:01:49PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
ADDRESS IS SUITE 3700 BANK OF AMERICA
PLAZA.
THIS EVENING, I REPRESENT CAPITAL WHICH DEVELOPS AIR
CONDITIONED STORAGE AND MY CLIENT PLANS TO PUT AN AIR
CONDITIONED STORAGE BUILDING IN THE CBD, THE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH MRS. COYLE,
MRS. DOCK, AND MR. ROSNER ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS, AND
ESSENTIALLY THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT HAVE CHANGED WITH THE ADDITION OF MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT, AND THE SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENT IS NO LONGER --
DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE ANYMORE.
BECAUSE OF THE EXTENSIVE WAIVERS YOU NEED AND IT'S NOT
RESPONDING TO THE MARKET.
ZONING CODES ARE FREQUENTLY SLOW TO RESPOND TO THE MARKET.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD AMENDMENT.
IT WELL THOUGHT OF.
IT SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT WOULD MAKE THE USE A PERMITTED USE, AND WOULD MAKE THE
PARKING RATIO MORE SENSIBLE.
AND IT'S MORE REALISTIC.
ALSO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT HAS DESIGN STANDARDS THAT

ARE ENFORCED BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT THROUGH MR. CALLAHAN'S
OFFICE.
THERE'S BEEN NO OPPOSITION THIS EVENING TO THE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT, SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU ADOPT
SECTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 8.
1, 2, 3, 4 AND 8 AS THEY APPLY TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT, AND PASS THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
6:03:39PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 1?
6:03:45PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I HAVE A QUESTION NOW FOR THE STAFF.
WE ARE BASICALLY NOW TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT UP, CORRECT?
6:04:00PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
CORRECT.
6:04:02PM >>HARRY COHEN:
IF WE -- I MEAN, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN
FRONT OF US THAT APPLIES TO THE CHANNEL DISTRICT AND THE
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
AND WHAT I AM HEARING IS THAT THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO SUPPORT
FOR IT IN THE CHANNEL DISTRICT.
BUT A QUESTION OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IS ANOTHER
QUESTION.
SO THE FIRST QUESTION, I GUESS, IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO
BIFURCATE THIS ORDINANCE?
6:04:27PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
LACHONE DOCK, PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.

I THINK -- AND I HAVE GONE OVER A LOT OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS
OF THE CODE AND WHAT WAS AMENDED, WHAT WE ARE ADDING, WHAT
IS SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
CURRENTLY WAREHOUSE IS A PERMITTED USE ALREADY.
WE ARE NOT ADDING.
THAT WE ARE NOT ADDING THAT AS A USE.
THAT IS NOT A PERMITTED USE.
IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT WAREHOUSE IS LISTED ALSO.
A MINI WAREHOUSE AND MINI WAREHOUSE WITH PORT RELATED
ACTIVITIES ONLY.
THOSE ARE ALREADY IN THE CHANNEL DISTRICT TABLE.
THE PARKING IS IN AS A WAREHOUSE WITH .6 EMPLOYEES.
THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THE MINI WAREHOUSE AT THE ONE FOR EVERY
100 STORAGE UNITS.
I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT ON THE RECORD THAT WE ARE NOT
PROPOSING TO ADD THIS AS A USE THAT DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST
TODAY.
THAT USE IS ALREADY A PERMITTED USE.
CONE I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
6:05:39PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NO, TO YOUR POINT.
6:05:50PM >>LACHONE DOCK:
I HAVE TO CHECK WITH LEGAL TO SEE IF WE CAN
SEPARATE PART OF THE REQUEST.
6:05:56PM >>REBECCA KERT:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
IF THE DIRECTION IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT

FOR THE CHANNEL DISTRICT, WITH SEMINOLE HEIGHTS, CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY, IS THAT
RIGHT? I CAN BRING BACK ANOTHER ORDINANCE.
6:06:15PM >>HARRY COHEN:
THERE'S ALSO OPPOSITION IN SEMINOLE HEIGHTS
AS WELL THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE -- I DON'T KNOW.
THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT THAT'S TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE HERE THAT
I AM TRYING TO WORK THROUGH.
I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
6:06:33PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MR. MIRANDA.
6:06:35PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
LET ME SEE IF I CAN ADD TO THIS AND
CLEAR IT UP.
IT WASN'T THE STAFF, IT WAS US, BUT I DON'T THINK -- AND I
AM NOT A LAWYER AND I DON'T WANT TO BE ONE, THEY MAKE A LOT
MORE MONEY, AND THEY WORK VERY HARD, TOO.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN SPLIT THIS BECAUSE THIS WENT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS ONE, WITH ALL OF THEM.
AND TO DO THAT, IT WOULD BE SUPERIMPOSING ON WHAT SOMEBODY
ELSE HAS ALREADY DONE AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT.
NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, IT USED TO BE WHAT IT WAS, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT IT
IS TODAY.
AND LET ME EXPLAIN THAT.
USED TO HAVE A CITRUS NITRATE COMPANY, COCA-COLA, YOU HAD
ALL KIND OF STORAGE UNITS WHERE YOU COULD BUY $2 MILLION

WORTH OF SHRIMP OR LOBSTERS AND TAKE TO YOUR RESTAURANT.
THAT'S NO LONGER THERE.
NONE OF THOSE ARE THERE.
SO WHAT I AM SAYING IS IT CHANGED FROM A COMMERCIAL TYPE,
STORAGE TYPE, WHAT IT WAS, BACK TO WHAT IT WAS, TO WHAT
RESIDENTIAL, BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO LIVE.
THAT CHANGED.
SO WHAT WE ARE LISTENING TO BE NOW IS A GIVE AND TAKE THAT
WE STARTED TO FIND OUT WHERE WE WERE AND WE ARE FINDING OUT
WHERE WE ARE HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION FROM OUR OWN --
THAT'S WHAT I FEEL, I DON'T KNOW -- FROM OUR OWN INDICATION
THAT WE ASKED THE STAFF.
SO I AM NOT BLAMING STAFF.
WE ASKED STAFF TO DO THIS AND THEY HAVE DONE THEIR WORK.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
6:08:09PM >>REBECCA KERT:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
LET ME LAY OUT A COUPLE OF OPTIONS.
IF YOU PLAN TO MOVE THIS ON FIRST READING, PLAN NOT TO MOVE
IT ON FIRST READING AND HAVE IT GO AWAY FOREVER, AND TO NOT
HAVE THIS GO ON FIRST READING AND CONTINUE IT ON TO
INVESTIGATE CERTAIN AREAS, OR I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU COULD
CONTINUE THIS AND DIRECT LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO MAKE CHANGES TO
TAKE OUT CHANNELSIDE AND SEMINOLE HEIGHTS, BECAUSE IT WOULD
BE LESS THAN WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED.
IT WOULDN'T BE ADDING TO IT.

SO I THINK WE COULD DO THAT WITHOUT GOING BACK TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
BUT THIS IS CITY COUNCIL'S ORDINANCE.
6:08:46PM >>LUIS VIERA:
I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO BREAK THIS DOWN
FURTHER.
IF WE CAN'T DO IT HERE TODAY, WE HAVE A COMMUNITY COMING OUT
IN AN AREA THAT'S HAD TREMENDOUS CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT AND
WE HAVE THE STAKE HOLDERS OF THAT COMMUNITY OPPOSING THIS
PROPOSED CHANGE.
SO THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN MOVED BY, AND
THEY WANT THIS BODY'S REGULATORY INFLUENCE ON PERSPECTIVE
WAIVERS.
SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE BROKEN DOWN A
LITTLE BIT MORE, IN MY OPINION.
6:09:19PM >> MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION?
6:09:28PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NO.
WE HAVE TO GET IT FROM OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
6:09:30PM >> I AGREE WITH MRS. KERT'S SUGGESTION.
6:09:34PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
WELL, GOOD, SHE DID HER JOB.
MRS. KERT, ONE OPTION THAT YOU STATED WAS THAT WE CAN SEND
THIS BACK TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AFTER YOU MAKE THE
CHANGES.
IS THAT CORRECT?
6:09:49PM >>REBECCA KERT:
CORRECT.
WHATEVER CHANGES YOU DIRECT IN THE MOTION.

BUT WAY UNDERSTAND IS TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH CHANGES AT
THIS TIME TO SEMINOLE HEIGHTS OR THE CHANNELSIDE BUT TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE ORDINANCE.
I CAN BRING THAT TO YOU.
6:10:04PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS -- I DON'T KNOW
HOW THIS WOULD EXACTLY WORK, BUT I THINK THIS IS GOING TO
REQUIRE EACH OF US TO TAKE A DEEPER DIVE, PARTICULARLY INTO
THE PARKING RATIO.
SO IF WE WERE TO REMAND IT BACK TO LEGAL DOES THAT ALSO MEAN
WE CAN MEET WITH YOU IN THE INTERIM AND EXPRESS GUIDANCE AS
TO WHAT IT IS WE WOULD SUPPORT?
6:10:31PM >>REBECCA KERT:
RESPECTFULLY, NO, BECAUSE I WOULD NEED MY
DIRECTION FOR ANY CHANGES TO COME FROM COUNCIL AS A WHOLE
AND NOT FROM INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS.
6:10:38PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
MY SENSE IS THAT THE MORE WE GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS,
EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK
IS THE RIGHT RATIO.
6:10:55PM >>REBECCA KERT:
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE THE
PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN, ALLOW YOU TO HAVE SOME
TIME TO --
[NO ENCODER]
6:11:43PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
WE NEED A MOTION.
6:11:45PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I MOVE TO CONTINUE.
6:11:51PM >> SECOND.

6:11:52PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
AND THE REASON IS THIS.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IN SEMINOLE
HEIGHTS, AND IF WE CHANGE IT AROUND, HOW DO WE KNOW THE
OTHER AREAS AREN'T GOING TO COMPLAIN?
WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
SO WE ARE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT THEY AREN'T GOING TO
COMPLAIN.
THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION.
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE RISK.
6:12:15PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL
IS TO NOT CONTINUE IT, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN TAKE ACTION EITHER UP OR DOWN ON THE
ORDINANCE. THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING.
6:12:25PM >> MOVE TO CLOSE.
6:12:31PM >> SECOND.
6:12:31PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION BY MR. MANISCALCO.
SECOND BY MR. COHEN.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
6:12:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I MOVE NOT TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE FOR
FIRST READING 69 I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MIRANDA, SECONDED
BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
OKAY.
SO ARE WE CLEAR ON EVERYTHING ON NUMBER 1?
ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW MR. SUAREZ IS HERE.
WE WILL GO BACK TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
THE MOTION FAILED BECAUSE OF 3-2.
6:13:29PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
RIGHT.
3-2.
6:13:32PM >> INTRODUCE IT AGAIN?
YES, TO BRING BACK THE WALK-ON FOR THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE FERRY.
AND I BELIEVE THE MOTION, YOU DID STATE, FAILED AND A NEW
MOTION WOULD BE IN ORDER AT THIS TIME.
6:13:49PM >> I MOVE THE RESOLUTION.
6:13:50PM >> SECOND.
6:13:51PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION BY MR. MANISCALCO.
SECOND BY MR. COHEN.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
6:13:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT SO THE
ANSWER IS NAY FOR ME.

6:14:01PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MAY WE HAVE THE CLERK, PLEASE?
6:14:07PM >> MOTION CARRIED WITH REDDICK AND MIRANDA VOTING NO AND
CAPIN BEING ABSENT.
6:14:15PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THANK YOU.
6:14:17PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 2.
6:14:19PM >> PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
WHAT I HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
AMENDMENT.
IT IS 18-10.
I WILL ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.
THIS IS WITHIN THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT.
REFERRED TO AS THE NORTH HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS WITHIN THE WEST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE.
IT IS THREE PARCELS.
IT IS COMPLETING THE BLOCK.
WE HAVE ROME.
RIGHT HERE.
WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY TO THE SOUTH.
MULTIFAMILY TO THE EAST.
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED IN THIS AREA.
THIS IS NORTH OF KENNEDY.
THIS IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL 10
GENERAL MIXED USE 24 TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35.
I HAVE SOME SITE PICTURES FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THIS IS LOOKING EAST FROM NORTH FREMONT AVENUE.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE RIGHT HERE.
AND THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHIN THE AREA.
THIS IS ALSO LOOKING EAST FROM NORTH FREMONT AVENUE.
AND THIS IS LOOKING WEST FROM CARMEN STREET.
THIS IS ALSO IN THAT SAME BLOCK, INDUSTRIAL IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS LOOKING BACK FROM WEST CARMEN STREET.
THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
WE HAVE COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35, RU, WITHIN -- ALREADY WITHIN
THE BLOCK.
THIS IS TAKING A FEW OF THE PIECES THAT WERE NOT COMMUNITY
35 YET BUT GENERAL MIXED USE 24 WHICH IS THE BLUE, GENERAL
MIXED 24 OVER HERE AND THEN RESIDENTIAL 10 WHICH IS THE
ORANGE COLOR.
AND IT WILL CHANGE IT TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35.
6:16:28PM >>HARRY COHEN:
IS THAT ONE LITTLE PARCEL R 10 BEING LEFT
THERE?
6:16:35PM >> CORRECT.
6:16:36PM >>HARRY COHEN:
WHY IS THAT?
6:16:37PM >> I THINK THE APPLICANT COULD BETTER EXPLAIN THAT.
BUT YOU ARE CORRECT.
COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS TO THE EAST.
WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS WOULD THAN CREASE THE DENSITY FROM TEN UNITS TO
POTENTIAL 246 UNITS ON THESE THREE PARCELS.

AGAIN, JUST LOOKING AT THE THREE PARCELS THAT WE ARE
CHANGING THAT IS NOT THE ENTIRE BLOCK POTENTIAL.
BUT TEN UNITS, 21 UNITS, INCREASE IT IS FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR
A POTENTIAL OF 27,000 THEATER TO 52,000 SQUARE FEET,
INCREASING POTENTIAL DENSITY ON THE SITE
WE DID FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES.
IT ENCOURAGES THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CONSISTENT
WITH IF DESIGNED CHARACTER AS WELL AS LIMITED RESOURCES MORE
EFFICIENTLY ESPECIALLY NEAR DOWNTOWN, TRANSIT AND
EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO USE MORE
EFFICIENTLY AND ENCOURAGE THAT IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS ALSO SUPPORTS THE URBAN VILLAGE AND COMPACT THAT WE ARE
ENCOURAGING WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGE.
THE RESOLUTION IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR THE RECORD AND
IT IS CONSISTENT.
I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
THE CITY OF TAMPA STAFF ALSO REVIEWED THIS AND LACHONE DOCK
IS HERE.
THEY ALSO FOUND IT CONSISTENT AS WELL.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
6:18:31PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.
PETITIONER.
6:18:34PM >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS DAVID MECHANIK, 305 SOUTH BOULEVARD, TAMPA,
FLORIDA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT COLLEGE SHORES.
I THINK THE STAFF DID A THOROUGH PRESENTATION.
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS, IF YOU WILL, A COMPANION ITEM TO
ITEM NUMBER 11 ON YOUR AGENDA, WHICH IS A PD REZONING AND
THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR THE PD ZONING
TO GO FORWARD.
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT -- MR. COHEN'S QUESTION ABOUT
THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, YOU ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THAT IN THE
APPLICATION, BUT IT TURNED OUT THAT NOT ALL THE OWNERS OF
THAT LOT WERE IN AGREEMENT TO MOVE FORWARD, SO WE HAD
NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT THAT WAS REMOVED.
WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE INCLUDED THAT LOT IN A PROJECT
BUT WE COULDN'T DO SO.
6:19:38PM >>HARRY COHEN:
IS THERE ANYTHING ON THAT LOT?
6:19:41PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
YES, A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
WE HAD TO ESSENTIALLY REDESIGN THE PROJECT WITH BUFFERING
AND SO FORTH TO WORK AROUND THAT PROPERTY.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
6:19:52PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER?
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 2?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
ITEM NUMBER 2.
6:20:01PM >> MY NAME IS JAMES SHIRK, 1204 EAST RIVER PLACE, APARTMENT

110, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33063.
6:20:19PM >> AND I'M WALTER SMITH THE II, 2504 EAST 12th AVENUE
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33605.
AND WE ARE HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK WITH REGARD TO
RECOGNIZABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT EXIST ON THIS
PROPERTY, 1706 CARMEN, WHICH IS DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE
PROPERTY.
WE HAVE SOME EXHIBITS HERE.
6:20:48PM >> I HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
6:20:52PM >> COUNCIL, WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU IS THE FACT THAT THERE
ARE SOME RECOGNIZABLE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST ON THIS PROPERTY
IN QUESTION, AND THESE HAVE TO DO WITH SOME EXHIBITS THAT
ARE IN FRONT OF YOU, THESE HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRESENCE OF
TOXIC MATERIALS.
THAT EXIST ON THE CURRENT PROPERTY.
6:21:22PM >> ONE OF THOSE SHOWS --
6:21:29PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
EXCUSE ME.
LET ME ASK YOU.
DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF YOUR PICTURES IN FRONT OF YOU?
DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS?
PUT IT THERE.
RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT.
JUST PUT IT RIGHT THERE, RIGHT THERE.
6:21:44PM >> YES, I UNDERSTAND.

6:21:49PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NO, HE GOT IT.
6:21:50PM >> THIS PICTURE HERE SHOWS SOME BUT NOT ALL OF WHAT HAS BEEN
SPILLED THERE USED BY A ROOFING COMPANY FOR SEVERAL DECADES,
AND THE SPILL HAS NOT EXACTLY BEEN CONTAINED.
IN ADDITION TO THIS, THIS PICTURE HERE SHOWS THE PROXIMITY
OF THE CONTAMINATION WHICH IS UNDER THIS TANK TRUCK TO THE
RESIDENCE, RIGHT NEXT DOOR AT 1720 WEST CARMEN STREET.
OUR CONCERN HERE IS THAT IF THIS GOES FORWARD, THERE'S GOING
TO BE DISTURBANCE OF THE SOIL AND DUST KICKED UP IN THE
PROCESS OF EXCAVATION AND RECONSTRUCTION HERE.
WE WANT THE DEVELOPERS TO DO A BETTER JOB OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DISCLOSURE AND DETERMINING WHAT THE POTENTIAL ISSUES ARE IN
REDEVELOPMENT BEFORE THEY MOVE FORWARD.
6:22:55PM >>HARRY COHEN:
THIS IS JUST MY GUESS, BUT I THINK IF
ANYTHING THIS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE REZONING
DISCUSSION LATER.
IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PLANNING AMENDMENT DISCUSSION.
BUT --
6:23:16PM >> OKAY.
6:23:16PM >> WE'LL COME UP LATER.
6:23:20PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION OF LEGAL REAL
QUICK.
MRS. KERT, ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHEN IT COMES TO REZONE,
OBVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT IS YET BECAUSE WE AREN'T GOING

TO HAVE IT UNTIL ITEM NUMBER 11, YOU ARE GOING TO PROBABLY
CLEAN IT UP IF NOT -- BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO USE
IT FOR SOME PURPOSE.
I GUESS THIS IS BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR HERE,
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LIVING THERE, SO THEY CAN PROBABLY
CLEAN IT UP.
WHAT'S OUR REQUIREMENT WHENEVER SOMEBODY DECIDES TO BUILD A
PROJECT OF ANY KIND THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME LINGERING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?
I'M ASKING HER.
6:24:01PM >>REBECCA KERT:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
IF THERE IS CONTAMINATION, THERE MAY BE VARIOUS AND SUNDRY
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ONBOARD.
BUT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT
WOULD BE GOING INTO PLACE, PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE GOING TO
BE PUTTING RESIDENTIAL ON A PROPERTY.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ONES ARE THERE.
BUT THERE ARE THINGS DEALT WITH WHEN THEY ACTUALLY GO TO THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
THEY ARE NOT DEALT WITH AT THE ENTITLEMENT PHASE AND THAT'S
WHAT THE COMP PLAN AND REZONING ARE.
6:24:34PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IN ADDITION THEY ARE PURCHASING A PIECE
PROFIT THAT MAY BE UNDERSTOOD CONSENT ORDER BY THE EVEN THE
EPA, THEY WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE BEFORE THEY DO ANY
DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY PARTICULARLY, IF I

RECALL CORRECTLY.
IS THAT RIGHT?
6:24:49PM >>REBECCA KERT:
YES.
6:24:50PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY KNEW.
6:24:53PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 2?
PETITIONER?
6:25:09PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ECHO MRS. KERT'S
COMMENT.
ANY REMOVAL OF SOIL WOULD BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
BUT THE CONDITION OF THE GROUND IS A CONSTRUCTION DELAY
ISSUE, NOT A MATTER FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, OR
THE REZONING APPLICATION.
WE WILL OF COURSE COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS.
AND I WOULD SAY THERE ARE NO CITATIONS OR ANY CONSENT ORDERS
APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY.
THANK YOU.
6:25:45PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
ALL RIGHT.
MOTION TO CLOSE?
6:25:51PM >> MOVE TO CLOSE.
6:25:52PM >> SECOND.

6:25:52PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. MIRANDA.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO CLOSE SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
MR. SUAREZ, WOULD YOU TAKE NUMBER 2?
6:26:04PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I PRESENT AN ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1706 WEST CARMEN STREET AND 501 AND 505 NORTH
FREMONT AVENUE FROM RESIDENTIAL 10, R-10, AND GENERAL MIXED
USE 24, GMU-24, TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35, CMU 35, PROVIDING
FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
6:26:33PM >> SECOND.
6:26:35PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
I GOT A MOTION FROM MR. SUAREZ, SECOND BY
MR. COHEN.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
6:26:42PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE ON OCTOBER 4 AT
9:30 A.M., WITH CAPIN BEING ABSENT.
6:26:54PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I MOVE TO OPEN ITEMS 3 THROUGH 12.
6:26:57PM >> SECOND.

6:26:58PM >> MOTION BY MR. COHEN.
SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE GOING TO SPEAK ON ITEM 3 THROUGH 12, PLEASE STAND TO
BE SWORN IN.
3 THROUGH 12.
(OATH ADMINISTERED BY CLERK).
6:27:27PM >> WE GO TO ITEM NUMBER 3.
6:27:29PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
YES, SIR.
LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCILMEN.
I WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME HOUSEKEEPING ON THE AGENDA FIRST, IF
I MAY, BEFORE WE HEAD INTO ITEM NUMBER 3.
ITEM NUMBER 10 IS REZ 18-78.
STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THIS IS CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER
11th CITY COUNCIL EVENING MEETING.
STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT.
WE COULD NOT GET THE SITE PLAN INTO A LEGAL CONDITION WHERE
IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BE HEARD TONIGHT.
BUT WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE COULD GET THE SITE PLAN TOGETHER
BY THE OCTOBER 11th MEETING.
6:28:07PM >> [OFF MICROPHONE]
6:28:18PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. SUAREZ.

SECONDED BY -- ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK TON ITEM NUMBER 10?
ALL RIGHT.
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. SUAREZ.
SECONDED BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE?
6:28:38PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
YES, SIR.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS REZ 18-80 FOR REZONING.
THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE.
HE SENT A LETTER TO COUNCIL AND STAFF REQUESTING A
CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 8th MEETING.
SINCE THAT LETTER WAS SENT HE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY REQUESTED TO
MOVE IT TO THE DECEMBER 13th EVENING MEETING.
6:28:59PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.
IS THE PETITIONER HERE?
6:29:11PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
305 SOUTH BOULEVARD HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANT TAMPA BOARD OF REALTORS.
YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER
13th SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE REVISE
THE SITE PLAN, AND THEN GOP THROUGH THE STAFF REVIEW OF THAT
SITE PLAN.
6:29:32PM >>CHAIRMAN:
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 12?

6:29:34PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
MOVE TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER 12 TO
DECEMBER 13th THE YEAR 2018.
6:29:43PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION FROM MR. MIRANDA.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
6:29:51PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AND THAT'S 6:00 P.M.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
6:30:01PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
WE ARE READY FOR NUMBER 3.
ITEM NUMBER 3 IS THE REZONING REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1241 EAST FOWLER AVENUE FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE
TO PD WITH ALL COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE USES.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY HEARD AT YOUR JULY 19th HEARING, AND
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION REGARDING PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS
WITH ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS' INTEREST, AND SO AT THAT
JULY MEETING, IT WAS VOTED ON TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TILL
TONIGHT TO ALLOW THE TWO PARTIES TO COME TO HOPEFULLY SOME
AGREEMENT REGARDING SHARED ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENTS.
BOTH PARTIES ARE HERE TONIGHT.
TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY THIS PROPERTY IS ON FOWLER AVENUE.
NEAR A RAILROAD TRACK CROSSING.
IT IS FOR A FOUR-STORY HOTEL IN THE BACK AND STRIP
COMMERCIAL ALONG THE FRONT WITH ALL COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE
USES.
THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR 73 -- TREE REMOVAL.

ON THE WEST 10 FEET TO ZERO.
ON THE EAST FROM 10 FEET TO 5.
A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED AREA BUFFER FROM 3 TO ZERO ALONG
THE WEST SIDE.
AND TO THE EAST THE OVERALL PARKING FROM 110 SPACES TO 89
SPACES, WHICH IS A 19% REDUCTION.
TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY STAFF DID FIND THIS INCONSISTENT
BASED ON THE PARKING WAIVER AS WELL AS THE TREE REMOVAL
WAIVER.
IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK APPLICANT TO COMB FORWARD TO
DISCUSS WHAT HE'S REQUESTING.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
6:32:04PM >> GOOD EVENING.
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS PETER PENSON, CERTIFIED PLANNER
WITH AVID GROUP. WE ARE THE PLANNERS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS,
AND REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS HERE WITH ME
TONIGHT AS WELL.
I WILL GIVE YOU FIRST A BRIEF UPDATE ON WHAT TRANSPIRED
SINCE WE HAD THE FIRST MEETING ON JULY 19th.
THEN I AM GOING TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF THE PARKING AND
ACCESS WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF THE CONFUSION AT THAT HEARING.
THEN I AM GOING TO GET INTO THE ITEMS THAT THE OBJECTOR HAS
RAISED IN THEIR LETTER THAT THEY SENT TO THE CITY REGARDING
THE APPLICATION.
ON JULY 19th WE HAD A CITY COUNCIL HEARING.

IT WAS CONTINUED BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER
INDICATED THAT THERE WAS AN EASEMENT THAT WAS EXPIRING IN
APPROXIMATELY 11 YEARS.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT WAS A PROFESSIONAL EASEMENT.
WE HAVE SINCE HAD A DETERMINATION BY AN ATTORNEY.
I HANDED THAT OUT TO YOU.
I WILL GO OVER THAT WITH MORE DETAIL IN A MINUTE.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT MEETING, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I MET
WITH MR. LANE OUT IN THE HALLWAY, DISCUSSED IT, EXPRESSED
OUR DESIRE TO WORK WITH HIM, INCLUDING RESURFACING HIS LOT
IN ORDER TO BRING IT UP TO THE SAME LEVEL THAT THE
REDEVELOPED SITE WOULD BE SO THAT AESTHETICALLY, IT IS A
SHARED FACILITY, THAT IT WOULD LOOK NICE, AND WORK TOGETHER
AND GIVE HIM AND MY CLIENTS FAIR SHARE IN REPAVING THAT LOT.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, MR. LANE AND I COMMUNICATED A FEW TIMES.
WE SET UP A MEETING FOR AUGUST 2nd TO MEET TOGETHER AND
TALK ABOUT THAT.
SEVERAL DAYS PRIOR TO THAT MEETING HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO
MEET WITH HIS ARCHITECT AND ATTORNEY AND WOULD HAVE TO DELAY
IT FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
HE WOULD BE GETTING BACK TO ME WITH A NEW MEETING DATE.
ON AUGUST 7th I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM HIS ATTORNEY
DEMANDING THAT WE CHANGE THE SITE PLAN, AND AT THAT POINT I
STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH THEM AND MY CLIENT'S ATTORNEY AND
HIS ATTORNEY STARTED COMMUNICATING.

ANOTHER MEETING IS NOT RESCHEDULED FOR THAT.
HE DID NOT INDICATE ANY DESIRE TO TRY TO MEET TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS.
SO EVEN TO GET CLARITY ON WHAT THOSE CONCERNS WERE, HOW THEY
COULD COOPERATE MOVING FORWARD.
SO THE EASEMENT, THE EASEMENT ELEVEN YEARS LEFT ON IT THAT
THE OWNER HAD DISCUSSED ALONG WITH TOYS R US, AND THE
PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN TOGETHER, THERE IS A SEPARATE
EASEMENT THAT A PROFESSIONAL EASEMENT THAT WAS DONE WITH THE
RESTAURANT THAT USED TO BE ON THIS PROPERTY BEFORE IT WAS A
HOUSE, RESTAURANT, WHICH WAS THE LAST USE.
I HANDED OUT TO YOU A LETTER FROM MY CLIENT'S ATTORNEY.
SHE REVIEWED THE POLICY AND SURVEY THAT WERE PREPARED FOR
THE PROPERTY, AND ISSUED THIS LETTER INDICATED IT'S IN HER
LEGAL OPINION THAT THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL EASEMENT ATTACHED
TO THAT HANDOUT THAT I GAVE YOU, A COPY OF THAT EASEMENT.
IT'S A NONEXCLUSIVE PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT.
AND A COUPLE THINGS THAT I WANT TO CALL OUT PARTICULARLY.
THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO GUARANTEE THE
PROFESSIONAL EASEMENT ACCESS TO AND FROM ALDER AVENUE,
PUBLIC ROADWAYS, INGRESS, EGRESS AND PARKING OVER AND UPON
EXHIBIT A TO THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN PARAGRAPH 1 GRANTS THE GRANTEE AND GRANTEE'S
CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES, INVITEES, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
EASEMENT WITH PERPETUAL ACCESS TO FOWLER AVENUE, AND THE

PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, INGRESS AND EGRESS, PARKING, AUTOMOTIVE
VEHICLES UPON LANDS, SAID EASEMENT IS NONEXCLUSIVE AND
SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN.
AND THEN DOWN TO PARAGRAPH 3, EASEMENT GRANTED HEREIN, IT'S
APPARENT TO THE BENEFIT ALONG WITH TITLE, WITH THE TITLE TO
THE BENEFIT AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED A COVENANT RUNNING WITH
THE LAND, AND NINTH THIS LAND.
SO WHAT THAT SAYS IS THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL EASEMENT WITH NO
EXPIRATION ON IT TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AT
THAT TIME, AND ANYBODY WHO WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY OWN THAT
PROPERTY AS WELL AS ANY OF THEIR CUSTOMERS OR GUESTS.
THAT WOULD BE EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD BE AT THAT PROPERTY.
SO WE HAVE A LEGAL OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY CLARIFYING THAT
AND A COPY OF THE EASEMENT IN THE RECORD.
THE NEXT THING IS THE OBJECTION LETTER FROM THE OBJECTOR'S
ATTORNEY.
HE OBJECTS TO THE PARKING, PROVIDING PARKING ON ANOTHER LOT,
AND A PARKING WAIVER.
I DID PRESENT OPEN THAT AT THE LAST HEARING BUT I WILL GO
OVER IT BRIEFLY JUST TO REFRESH FOR THE RECORD.
THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE AS PART OF THE PROJECT.
THE PROPOSED USE IS ACTUALLY LESS INTENSE THAN THE EXISTING
RESTAURANT USE, THE TRIP GENERATION.
I WANT TO TALK SPECIFICALLY TO THE PARKING.
6:38:15PM >>LUIS VIERA:
IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR.

WE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE OBJECTION LETTER IN OUR FILE. I
DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS ERRONEOUS.
WE HAVE STUFF HERE ON --
6:38:30PM >> I HAVE ONE COPY I CAN SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD.
6:38:33PM >> WE CAN HAVE COPIES MADE.
6:38:39PM >> NOW OR WAIT TILL AFTER?
I HAVE TO FIND IT IN MY FILE.
HERE IT IS.
SO REGARDING THE PARKING STUDY, THE CODE HAS A PROVISION
THAT ALLOWS FOR JOINT USE OF FACILITY.
THIS IS IN SECTION 27-283.4, AND ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE
VARIANCES FOR PARKING WHICH IS 27-3.10.
WHAT THIS SAYS IS THAT JOINT USE OF OFF-STREET PARKING OR
OFF-STREET LOADING SPACES FOR TWO.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE USES ON THE PROPERTY AND MULTIPLE BUILDINGS
ON THE PROPERTY SO WE MEET THAT STANDARD.
JOINT USE OF FACILITY MAY ALSO BE APPROVED IF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR, USAGE OF SUCH BUILDINGS OR USES WILL NOT --
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE DID THE PARKING STUDY.
AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A SECOND.
IT GOES ON IN THE NEXT SECTION ON THE SCREEN, THAT THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN AUTHORIZE THAT REDUCTION.
SO THE REASON WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE WAIVERS IS BECAUSE
WE ARE COMING FORWARD TO YOU WITH A PD. OTHERWISE THIS
COULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF AS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

IN SITE PLAN ON THE PD LEVEL PROJECT.
SO WE DID A TRAFFIC STUDY BASED ON I.T. STANDARD, LOOKING AT
THE SHARED USE OF THE PROPERTIES.
THE SUMMARY OF THAT IS RIGHT HERE ON THE DIAGRAMS.
THE BLUE -- THE FIRST ONE, WHICH YOU SEE THERE, WEEKDAY,
THURSDAY, FRIDAY, AND THEN SATURDAY IS OFF THE SCREEN NOW
BUT VERY SIMILAR THROUGHOUT.
THEY ARE BUSY IN THE EVENING AND OVERNIGHT WHILE GUESTS ARE
THERE.
THEY LEAVE IN THE MORNING.
THERE'S VERY LITTLE USAGE DURING THE DAY.
SO DURING THE DAYTIME, YOU HAVE GOT RETAIL RESTAURANT USING
THOSE EMPTY SPACES.
THEY CLOSE DOWN IN THE EVENING.
AND THE SPACES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE HOTEL.
THE CHART IN FRONT OF YOU SHOWS THAT THE PARKING LOT DOES
NOT EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF WHAT'S PROPOSED, AT ANY POINT
DURING THE DAY, ANY HOUR WITHIN A 24-HOUR PERIOD, SEVEN DAYS
A WEEK.
SO THE PARKING STUDY DOES DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS SHARED
PARKING WOULD BE ADEQUATE ON PROPERTY, THAT PARKING IS
PROVIDED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE PARCEL, IS NOT RELIANT ON THE
PARKING EASEMENT OFF-SITE, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR
THEIR USE.
THEY ARE NOT RELYING UPON IT TO PROVIDE PARKING.

THE NEXT OBJECTION THEY HAD WAS TO A LOW YOU GO C-1 USES.
THAT IS THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, C-1 USES WOULD
BE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL, BUT
THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING WITH THE PD.
WE HAVE THE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN SHOWING A HOTEL AND RETAIL
STRIP CENTER, AND WE PROPOSE A CAP ON RESTAURANTS AT 1900
SQUARE FOOT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING.
SO WE ARE MEETING THE C-1 USES THAT MIGHT BE OBJECTIONABLE
WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE SITE
PLANNING FOR.
WE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED FOR STRIP RETAIL CENTER, STRIP
SHOPPING CENTER, AND HOTEL, WITH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF
RESTAURANT, AS PART OF OUR INITIAL SUBMITTAL DURING THE DRC
BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE YOU HAVE OFFICE, AND MEDICAL CLINIC,
OR PERSONAL SERVICES, HAIR STYLIST, WHATEVER, THINGS THAT
FALL INTO A BROADER CATEGORY OF DETAIL OF SHOPPING CENTER,
TO GET YOUR CODE BREAKS DOWN USES, YOU DON'T HAVE A
CATCH-ALL SHOPPING CENTER.
RETAIL PLAZA WAS IN THE CODE SO THEY REQUESTED CI TO MAKE
SURE WE DIDN'T MISS ANY COMMON USES THAT WOULD BE IN THE
STRIP RETAIL USE.
THEIR NEXT OBJECTION WAS TO WAIVER 1, WHICH WAS A
REDUCTION -- BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERRELATED -- ONE IS TO
REDUCE THE WESTERN BUFFER A COMMON LINE BETWEEN THE TWO
PROPERTIES FROM TEN FEET TO ZERO FEET AND THEN THE SECOND

WAIVER IS TO REDUCE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE
BUFFER FROM 3-FOOT TO ZERO FOOT.
THE PROPERTIES WERE DEVELOPED SYNERGISTICALLY IN THE PAST,
AND AGAIN THEIR PROPERTY IS A RETAIL PROPERTY.
THIS WAS A RESTAURANT.
THEY HAVE SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THERE'S A BUFFER THERE NOW, THE SAME BUFFER THAT WE ARE
ASKING TO HAVE WAIVED RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T PROVIDE ON THEIR
PROPERTY.
THEY ARE PAVED RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
ALL WE WOULD BE DOING IS PROVIDING HEAD TO HEAD PARKING LIKE
WOULD YOU SEE IN ANY SHOPPING CENTER OR OUTPARCEL TYPE
SITUATION, ANYWHERE ELSE.
THERE'S NOT A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE.
SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT REALLY NEEDS -- IT CALLS FOR
BUFFER, THEY ARE NOT PROVIDING THAT BUFFER EITHER.
AND THE ONLY REASON WHY THAT BUFFER IS REQUIRED IS BECAUSE
WHEN TOYS R US WENT OUT OF BUSINESS THEY BECAME OCCUPIED BY
A CHURCH.
THAT CHANGED FROM A CLASS C TO CLASS B USE WHICH TRIGGERED A
BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
SO THEY HAVE KIND OF IMPOSED THAT BUFFER ON MY PROPERTY.
IT WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT WHEN IT WAS A RETAIL USE.
AND THEN THE FOURTH POINT IS THE WAIVER FOR THE PARKING
REDUCTION.

I WON'T GO OVER THAT AGAIN.
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING PARKING
ON-SITE.
6:44:38PM >>HARRY COHEN:
MAY I?
WE JUST RECEIVED A LETTER OF OBJECTION AND IT ACTUALLY
RAISES A QUESTION THAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT AS YOU WERE
TALKING.
YOU ARE ASKING TO USE SOMEONE ELSE'S PARKING THAT DOESN'T
WANT YOU TO USE IT.
6:44:56PM >> NO, SIR.
WE ARE NOT ASKING -- THAT'S A MISCONCEPTION THAT THEY HAVE.
WE TRIED TO CLARIFY THAT.
WE DID SPEAK TO MR. LANE ABOUT THAT.
AND WE TRADE TO HAVE A MEETING TO GO OVER THAT WITH HIM AND
PROVIDE CLARITY.
AND WE WEREN'T GRANTED THAT ABILITY TO SPEAK TO THEM ABOUT
THAT.
6:45:15PM >>HARRY COHEN:
WELL, IF WE GO FROM 110 TO 89 SPACES AND
YOUR CONTIGUOUS TO HIS PROPERTY WITH NO BUFFER AND IT'S
PAVED RIGHT TO IT.
I MEAN, ANY NORMAL PERSON -- THE PARKING WOULD BE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY, WOULDN'T IT?
ISN'T THAT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
6:45:40PM >> YES, IT COULD HAPPEN.
AND THERE IS A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR THAT, THAT ALLOWS THAT

TO HAPPEN.
THE REASON WHY 110 SPACES IS REQUIRED IS BECAUSE THE CODE
SAYS USES INDEPENDENTLY, IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT SOME ARE USED
DURING THE DAY, SOME ARE USED AT NIGHT.
AND WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THAT IF YOU JUST ASSUME THOSE SPACES
ARE NEEDED NEVER USED ALL THE TIME THAT'S HOW YOU GET 110
SPACES REQUIRED.
THE PARKING STUDY SHOWS THAT BECAUSE OF THE DEMAND BASED ON
THE USES THAT GOING TO GO THERE, THAT YOU DON'T NEED 110
SPACES.
THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
6:46:25PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 3?
6:46:39PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
ADDRESS SUITE 3700 BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA.
I REPRESENT MR. KEN LANE.
ALSO HIS COUSIN CLAUDE LOGAN WHO ARE HERE THIS EVENING.
KEN AND CLAUDE, PLEASE RAISE THEIR HAND.
THE LETTER THAT HAS NOW BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU, RECITES THAT
WE OBJECT TO THE REZONING, AND ALSO PARAGRAPH 2 NOTED THAT
ALL REQUIRED PARKING MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SAME ZONING LOT.
SITE PLAN INDICATES THEY ARE GOING TO USE MR. LANE'S
PROPERTY FOR PARKING.
IT SAYS ON THE SITE PLAN EXISTING PARKING TO BE RECONFIGURED
TO ACCOMMODATE RELATED CROSS ACCESS.

CROSS ACCESS TO BE RELOCATED.
THEY ARE ALL OVER OUR PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE BEEN PLANNING THIS PROJECT.
WE HAVE A PRIVATE DISPUTE AS TO THE USE OF THIS EASEMENT BY
THIS NEIGHBOR.
MY CLIENT OBJECTS TO THAT.
IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO SOLVE THIS EVENING.
THIS IS A DISPUTE OVER THE LENGTH AND BREADTH OF THE
EASEMENT DOCUMENT AND WHETHER THEY CAN USE IT AS THEY HAVE
INDICATED.
AND IN PARAGRAPH 3, MR. LANE WILL NOT GRANT YOUR CLIENT
LONG-TERM LEASE OR PRESENT THE PROJECT TO USE ANY PORTION OF
THE EASEMENT REFERENCED ON THE SITE PLAN.
FURTHERMORE, MR. LANE OBJECTS TO THE EXCESSIVE PARKING
WAIVER FROM 110 SPACES TO 89 SPACES AS IT RELIES UPON THE
USE OF HIS PROPERTY.
THE CITY STAFF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ON PAGE 3 OF THE
REPORT SAYS THAT THIS PARKING REDUCTION AT 19% IS EXCESSIVE.
FURTHERMORE PLEASE CALCULATE THAT THE PARKING FOR THE HOTEL
IS QUITE AGGRESSIVE SINCE IT REQUIRES 84 SPACES FOR 81-UNIT
HOTEL WHILE THE CODE REQUIRES PARKING AT THE RATE OF ONE
SPACE PER ROOM PLUS ONE HALF PER SPACE PER EMPLOYEE.
ALSO, PARKING IN THE STRIP RETAIL ON THE FRONT OF THE
PROJECT IS CALCULATED FOUR SPACES PER THOUSAND BUT ALLOWS CU
PURPOSES.

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
THAT THE BROAD RANGE OF USES AND CALCULATION OF REQUIRED
PARKING.
FINALLY, WE OBJECT TO THE BUFFER WAIVERS AND THE WAIVER FOR
THE LANDSCAPE ON BOTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
MR. LANE OWNS BOTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
HE OBJECTS TO THE WAIVER THAT THEY WANT TO REDUCE DOWN TO
ZERO.
THAT CONCLUDES THE LETTER.
[BELL SOUNDS]
IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE THIS WITHOUT OBJECTION, AT A PUBLIC
HEARING, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR SITE PLAN TO REMOVE YOUR
CLIENT'S PARKING MR. LANE'S PARKING TO THE WEST, THE WEST
AND EAST SIDE AND PROVIDE A MORE REALISTIC PARKING
REASONABLE USES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS.
AND TONIGHT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS PROJECT IS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF MY CLIENT.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU VOTE TO DENY THE
REZONING.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THANK YOU.
6:49:45PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
MR. GRANDOFF, CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK
QUESTION?
I KNOW THAT THE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY HAS OPINED THAT THERE

WAS A LEASE ON THERE.
I LOOKED AT IT AND IT DOES HAVE MR. KENNETH LANE JUNIOR'S
NAME ON IT.
IT HARD TO READ THE SPECIFICS IN TERMS OF WHO THAT LEASE OR
THAT EASEMENT IS WITH.
SO WHEN IT SAYS PERPETUAL LEASE, PERPETUAL IN THIS DOCUMENT
COULD MEAN JUST FOR THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY,
CORRECT?
6:50:16PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
A COUPLE OF THINGS.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LETTER.
NUMBER TWO, IT'S AN OLD EASEMENT.
NUMBER THREE, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE EASEMENT IS A
METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
I ASKED HIS ATTORNEY TO PLEASE GIVE ME A SURVEY PROVING
THAT -- WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S REALLY THERE.
WE GOT NOTHING.
6:50:34PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
THE REASON I ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION IS IF
YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THAT DOCUMENT, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T
OPINE ABOUT IT EITHER.
THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT WE HAD BEFORE, WHICH IS I
BELIEVE YOUR CLIENT HAD COME UP TO US THE LAST TIME AND
SAYING THAT HE HAS ACCESS EASEMENTS ALSO IF I AM NOT
MISTAKEN.
I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT.
AM I CORRECT?

6:50:56PM >> YES.
THEY SHOW IT ON THE SITE PLAN.
6:50:59PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
SO THERE'S SOME ACCESS EASEMENT INCLUDING
EASEMENT PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
THERE'S SO MANY ISSUES HERE THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE DECIDED
BY A COURT OF LAW, NOT BY US.
6:51:10PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
CORRECT.
6:51:12PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I AM NOT SURE HOW WE COULD GO FORWARD WITH
IT.
I'M GETTING THE SAME THING YOU ARE WHICH --
6:51:19PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
IT A PRIVATE LEGAL MATTER OVER RECORDED
DOCUMENT ULTIMATE.
IT'S NOT A ZONING QUESTION.
6:51:27PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET A COPY.
THE DATE OF THE LETTER IS SEPTEMBER 12th SO IT WAS
YESTERDAY.
6:51:35PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
I HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT YET.
THANK YOU, MR. SHELBY.
6:51:38PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
CAN WE GET A LEGAL OPINION FROM OUR
ATTORNEY?
6:51:51PM >>REBECCA KERT:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
I DO AGREE THAT THERE ARE SOME PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES GOING
ON HERE, CLEARLY.
I WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, WHICH I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE,

WHATEVER YOU DO TONIGHT, IF YOU WERE TO GRANT THE REZONING,
IT IN NO WAY WOULD ABROGATE ANY OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
RIGHTS THAT THESE EITHER OF THESE TWO PARTY HAVE, EVEN IF
YOU WERE TO GRANT THE REZONE FIELD GOAL THERE WAS NOT
ACCESS, THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ACCESS.
YOU ARE JUST GRANTING UNDERSTOOD YOUR OWN CODE.
I THINK A COUPLE POINTS AS FAR AS THE PARKING EASEMENT AND
WHETHER OR NOT IT EXIST.
I DID HEAR THE APPLICANT SAY THAT HE WAS RELYING FOR HIS
JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAIVER NOT ON THAT BUT ON A PARKING
STUDY HE HAD DONE ABOUT THE USES ON THEIR PROPERTY.
AND I THINK ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT'S IMPORTANT
BECAUSE IT IS CONFUSING IS IF YOU BE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN,
THERE ARE SOME PARKING SPACES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PD.
THOSE ARE NOT VALID.
THEY WOULD NOT ENFORCE THIS TO BE TAKEN OFF BETWEEN FIRST
AND SECOND READING, IF YOU DID WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON.
THIS AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY WOULD BECAUSE THE PD ONLY
GRANTS WITHIN THE PD.
SO WHATEVER YOU DRAW ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY, IT'S NOT
GRANTED AS PART OF THE PD.
AND I THINK IT IS CONFUSING.
6:53:06PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
AND THAT'S MY POINT, MRS. KERT, THAT I THINK
WHENEVER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT -- MRS. KERT, THAT WHENEVER
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PROBLEMS AND IT AFFECTS OUR DECISION,

BECAUSE NOW WE CAN'T MAKE A CLEAR DECISION BASED ON THE
FACTS PRESENTED TO US BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE.
SO THE FACTS IN DISPUTE I DON'T WANT TO GO FORWARD AND I
THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE REASON TO CONTINUE IT UNTIL THESE
THINGS ARE CLEARED UP.
WOULD YOU AGREE?
6:53:31PM >>REBECCA KERT:
MR. SUAREZ, I MEAN, THESE SORT OF PROPERTY
ISSUES THAT THEY ARE LITIGATING, IT MAY TAKE TWO OR THREE
YEARS BEFORE THAT'S LIT LITIGATED.
I WOULD TELL YOU THAT I THINK IT'S VERY REASONABLE FOR YOU
TO NOT RELY UPON THIS EASEMENT IN MOVING FORWARD WITH YOUR
DECISION BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING CONTESTED RIGHT
NOW AND NOT RELY UPON THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ANY RIGHT TO
PARKING OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE
IN THE MIDDLE.
THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS DISPUTE.
WE SHOULD RELY UPON -- I THINK COULD YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH
THE PD TONIGHT IF YOU WANTED TO BUT YOU WOULD NEED TO BE DO
IT WITHIN THE BOUND OF THE PD AND TO SEE WHAT'S IN THE BOUND
OF THE PD THAT JUSTIFY THE WAIVERS THAT ARE REQUESTED AND
OTHERWISE DEMONSTRATED SO THEY COMPLY WITH THE CODE.
6:54:19PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MR. MIRANDA.
6:54:20PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
[OFF MICROPHONE] SOME OF THE NUMBERS FOR
THE PARKING WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PD?
6:54:27PM >>REBECCA KERT:
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.
ON THE SITE PLAN, THERE ARE PARKING SPACES SHOWN OFF-SITE ON
THE ADJOINING PROPERTY.
THOSE ARE NOT COUNTED --
6:54:41PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
THOSE ARE NOT PART OF THE 19% REDUCTION?
6:54:44PM >>REBECCA KERT:
CORRECT.
6:54:44PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
THE 19% STANDS ON ITS OWN WITHOUT THOSE?
6:54:48PM >>REBECCA KERT:
I DON'T WANT TO TESTIFY SO I AM GOING TO --
6:54:56PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
NOBODY'S PROPERTY IS PART OF THE PROPOSED
PARKING.
THE PD SITE PLAN CAN STAND COMPLETELY ON ITS OWN.
THIS IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY OF THE PD, ANYTHING
THAT'S SHOWN ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY YOU CANNOT LEGALLY DO
ANYTHING TO IT AND IT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE PLAN.
STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
THE PARKING WAIVER, THE REQUIRED PARKING IS BASED ON THIS
USE, AND THE PROPOSED PARKING IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE PD AS WELL.
AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE REDUCTION.
THERE'S NO PART OF ANYTHING THAT'S SET UP IN THE STAFF
REPORT OR IN THE SITE PLAN THAT RELIES ON THE ADJOINING
PROPERTY OWNER'S PARKING.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT -- AND I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK FOR HIM,
BUT TRYING TO MAKE IT AS SIMPLE AS I CAN, SAYING THAT THEY
COULD USE PART OF THE CHURCH'S PARKING FOR JUSTIFICATION,

FOR THE PARKING WAIVER.
6:55:54PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
6:55:56PM >>LUIS VIERA:
TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNCILMAN SUAREZ TALKED
ABOUT A CONTINUANCE FOR A POTENTIAL RESOLUTION, MRS. KERT
CORRECTLY STATED THAT LITIGATION ON THIS COULD TAKE YEARS.
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE SOMETHING THAT A SIMPLE EVERYDAY
MEDIATION COULD POTENTIALLY COME TO A RESOLUTION IN TWO
MONTHS OR SO?
I KNOW THAT'S A VERY NAIVE QUESTION.
BUT YOU NEVER KNOW.
6:56:25PM >> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
TO SAVE YOU MORE TIME --
6:56:32PM >> PUT YOUR NAME.
6:56:33PM >> PETER PENSON.
I TALKED TO MY CLIENT.
WE ARE WILLING TO TAKE A TWO-MONTH CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO
WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HIS ATTORNEY BE.
6:56:49PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
ANY COMMENTS?
ANY COMMENTS?
6:56:54PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON WHAT EVIDENCE
IS PUT FORTH BY MRS. SAMANIEGO AND MRS. KERT.
THE WAIVER IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT INDICATES THERE'S
GOING -- THAT IT'S EXCESSIVE ACCORDING TO THE TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S A RISK THERE'S GOING TO BE TRESPASSING ON MY
CLIENT'S EASEMENT.
HE'S SAYING THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS.
THAT'S NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE
PARKING WAIVER.
NUMBER TWO, THERE'S BEEN NO JUSTIFICATION TO JUSTIFY WAIVERS
ON EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE BUFFER WAIVERS.
NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
I WANT IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
OBSTACLES TO THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS THEY PLAN.
I ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THE MOTION EITHER OF DENYING THE
REZONING, OR CONSIDER CONTINUANCE, BUT I WANT HIM TO
UNDERSTAND.
6:57:59PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.
WE HEARD FROM BOTH.
AND WHAT'S PLEASURE OF COUNCIL?
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 3?
ALL RIGHT.
6:58:13PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IF YOU COULD STAND UP AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF A CONTINUANCE.
THERE'S SOME LEGITIMATE -- SOME OF THE FACTS THAT HE IS
ALLEGING IS DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE FACTS THAT YOU ARE
ALLEGING SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
AND I WILL TELL YOU, FRANKLY, ONE OF THE ISSUES I HAD WAS

NOT ABOUT THE PARKING BUT ABOUT THE ACCESS.
AND BECAUSE THE ACCESS IS NOT PART OF THE PLAN EITHER.
OKAY.
NOW WHO OWNS THAT PROPERTY, WE DON'T KNOW.
AGAIN, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS FROM THE STREET ONTO
HIS PROPERTY EXCEPT THROUGH SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
IF I AM CORRECT.
THOSE ANOTHER ISSUE, IF THAT IS THE LAND OWNER THAT YOU NEED
TO DEAL WITH, THE THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE ALSO.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU DO MEET WITH HIM.
IT SOUND LIKE YOU ARE WILLING TO MEET, BUT YOU ARE GOING TO
REALLY COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO GET THIS
THING MOVING FORWARD.
FOR US, AT LEAST FOR ME THAT ACCESS POINT IS IMPORTANT.
ESPECIALLY IF ALLEGATIONS AND FACT THEY PRESENT TO US KEEP
COMING UP.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, FROM MY
STANDPOINT BASED ON THE FACT THAT I HEARD FROM YOU AND FROM
THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
6:59:26PM >> YES.
AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AND GETTING TESTIMONY FROM TWO
DIFFERENT LOCATION DIRECTIONS ON THAT.
AGAIN, WE DO FEEL THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED ADEQUATE
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE RECORD FROM A LAND USE ATTORNEY WHO
HAS REVIEWED THOSE AGREEMENTS, AND WE PROVIDED A COPY OF

THAT TO YOU, THAT DOES PROVIDE FOR PROFESSIONAL ACCESS AND
PARKING.
AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, SINCE MARY BROUGHT IT UP, THE
PARKING THAT WE SHOW ON THE PROPERTY, WE SURVEYED IT BECAUSE
IT IS PART OF AN EASEMENT THAT AFFECTED THE SURVEY.
LIKEWISE THE ACCESS -- ALSO THE LOCATION OF THE PD PURPOSES,
WE NEEDED TO SHOW THAT.
WE ARE NOT SHOWING IT FOR PURPOSES OF PARKING, IN TERMS OF
MEETING OUR REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE COULD REMOVE THAT AND JUST SHOW IF AREA OF THE
EASEMENT AND WHEREOF THE ACCESS LOCATION IS, AND RATHER THAN
TAKE UP YOUR TIME TONIGHT, WE ARE WILLING TO TAKE THE
CONTINUANCE SO WE CAN TRY TO WORK THAT OUT AND COME BACK TO
YOU HOPEFULLY ON THE SAME PAGE.
7:00:37PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I GUESS TWO MONTHS IS A DOABLE --
7:00:41PM >> I BELIEVE SO.
I THINK ONE MONTH MIGHT PUSH IT.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR TWO.
7:00:45PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
WHAT'S THE NEXT BE AVAILABLE EVENING SESSION
TWO MONTHS FROM NOW?
NOVEMBER 8th?
IS THAT OKAY?
THAT IS ACCORDING TO OUR STAFF.
MRS. SAMANIEGO, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION?
7:01:00PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
I'M SO SORRY.

THE OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, AGENDAS ARE ALL FULL,
BASICALLY.
IT'S UP TO YOU.
COULD WE DO MAYBE AN ALCOHOL NIGHT, OCTOBER 25th OR
NOVEMBER 29th?
7:01:14PM >> NOVEMBER 29th PROBABLY WOULD BE THE BEST SO THAT THEY
HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO FIGURE IT OUT.
OKAY.
7:01:20PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT
RELATED -- I THINK THIS EASEMENT COVERS THE ACCESS ISSUE BUT
ALSO THE NO PARKING ISSUE WHICH IS I THINK ALSO A CONCERN.
I THINK YOU HAVE GOT TO RESOLVE THE EASEMENT ISSUE.
THAT'S CAUSING ME A LOT OF DISCOMFORT.
I'M FINE WITH THE ALCOHOL NIGHT ON NOVEMBER 29th.
7:01:49PM >>LUIS VIERA:
THANK YOU.
AND LOOKING AT NOVEMBER 29th.
MR. GRANDOFF, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND
TALKS AND MAYBE A MEETING BEFORE THAT TIME?
BECAUSE I KNOW ATTORNEYS CALENDARS CAN BE VERY FULL.
7:02:05PM >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
NOVEMBER 29th?
7:02:15PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
JUST ADD SOMETHING ELSE THAT I THINK MAY
BE RELEVANT IS TO KEEP IN MIND FOR EVERY HEARING OBVIOUSLY,
BUT SOMETIMES THE FACTS COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER SOMETIMES OF
WHAT THE TESTIMONY IS.
YOU HAVE HAD YOU HAVE TO BASE THE DECISION ON THE COMPETENT

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND YOU MAKE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT AS YOU DETERMINE THAT TO BE.
YOU TAKE THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THIS BOARD MAKES.
YOU APPLY IT TO THE CRITERIA, THE WAIVER CRITERIA OR THE
PURPOSE, AND BASED ON THAT, YOU CAN MAKE THE DECISION.
THANK YOU.
7:02:42PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IF I COULD, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE
ITEM NUMBER 3 TO NOVEMBER 29th, 6:00 P.M.
7:02:48PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION BY MR. SUAREZ.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM NUMBER 4.
7:02:59PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
ITEM NUMBER 4 IS REZ 18-87, A REZONING
REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY AT 815 EAST PALM AVENUE FROM RM-24
TO RO-1.
7:03:18PM >>JENNIFER MALONE:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THIS IS LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT.
NOT WITHIN AN EVACUATION ZONE.
THERE IS TRANSIT LOCATED ALONG NORTH NEBRASKA AVENUE AND
EAST PALM AVENUE.
HERE IS AN AERIAL.

I HAVE INTERSTATE 275 RIGHT HERE.
THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED.
I HAVE NORTH NEBRASKA AND EAST PALM.
THERE ARE SOME USES ALONG NORTH NEBRASKA.
OVER HERE WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP, URBAN MIXED USE 50.
ON THE SUBJECT SITE OVER TO THE EAST, COMMUNITY MIXED USE
35.
AND I HAVE RESIDENTIAL 20 TO THE NORTH.
URBAN MIXED USE IS RELATIVELY IN TERMS OF CATEGORY ALONG
KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
WE DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT.
IT IS COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE PORTION OF PALM AVENUE.
IT'S BEEN PLANNED FOR PRETTY HIGH MIXTURE OF USE WAS THAT
URBAN MIXED USE CATEGORY.
WE FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
7:04:32PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
HERE IS A ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALM AVENUE AND
NORTH -- IT IS OFFICE 1.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY RECENTLY DEVELOPED.
THERE IS TO THE WEST.

A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE.
TO THE WEST ACROSS ANOTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE.
ACROSS PALM.
CATTY-CORNER TO THE SITE, ON PALM.
A VACANT LOT.
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE ACROSS ON PALM AVENUE.
DIRECTLY CATTY-CORNER TO THE SITE ON THE CORNER OF NEBRASKA
AND PALM, A COMMERCIAL USE.
VACANT PARKING LOT DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
AND THEN A VACANT LOT DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.
EUCLIDEAN REZONING REQUESTS, THERE IS NO SITE PLAN TO
SUBMIT.
AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE NO WAIVERS THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH
THE SITE PLAN.
IF THE THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY
WITH ALL RO-1 ZONING STANDARDS.
THE BASIC STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT ARE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT
LOT, 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, SETBACK IS 25 FEET, FRONT AND SITE,
20 REAR, 15 FOR THE CORNER SETBACK AND A 35-FOOT OVERALL
HEIGHT.
THERE WERE NO COMMENTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
OR INFORMATION, SO THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE STAFF FOUND
THIS CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

[RUSTLING PAPERS]
7:06:24PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY, APPLICANT?
7:06:25PM >> KEVIN ROBLES, RESIDE AT 2107 CHESTNUT FOREST DRIVE. I
HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
THIS IS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD REZONING.
MRS. SAMANIEGO COVERED EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GOING TO COVER.
THIS IS SIMPLY TO ACCOMMODATE A MODEL HOME CENTER FOR THE
BENEFIT OF A PUBLICITY OF TAMPA PRIVATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT THAT WAS AWARDED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
IN COUNSEL WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, IT WAS FELT
THAT THE RO-1 ZONING WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE BASED UPON
THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A SUBDIVIDED LAND,
SUBDIVISION BEING BACK IN THE 20s, THAT THEIR PREFERENCE
AND OUR PREFERENCE IS RO-1 ZONING.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
7:07:28PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 4?
7:07:31PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
7:07:33PM >> SECOND.
7:07:33PM >> MOTION BY MR. MIRANDA.
SECOND BY MR. COHEN.
ALL IN FAVOR?
OPPOSED?
MR. COHEN, WOULD YOU READ ITEM NUMBER 4.
7:07:41PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I MOVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR

FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY
IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 815 EAST PALM AVENUE IN THE CITY
OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION
1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RM-24 RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY TO RO-1, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
7:08:02PM >> SECOND.
7:08:03PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION FROM MR. COHEN.
SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION?
OPPOSED?
OKAY.
7:08:08PM >> MOTION CARRIED WITH CAPIN BEING ABSENT, MANISCALCO AND
VIERA ABSENT AT VOTE.
READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE ON OCTOBER 4, 2018 AT 9:30 A.M.
7:08:22PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ITEM NUMBER 5.
7:08:23PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
ITEM NUMBER 5 IS REZ 18-17.
THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4024 WEST
LEONA STREET FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
7:08:37PM >>JENNIFER MALONE:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THIS IS ON WEST LEONA STREET.
WE HAVE SOUTH PARK AVENUE, WEST LEONA, DALE MABRY HIGHWAY --
I'M SORRY, EXCUSE ME.
SOUTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.
I APOLOGIZE.

LOIS AVENUE.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT MISTAKE.
[RUSTLING PAPERS] SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
A LOT OF TREE COVERAGE.
I AM GOING TO SHOW AN AERIAL NOW, FUTURE LAND USE, FUTURE
LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL 10.
THAT'S THAT ORANGE COLOR.
IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT RESIDENTIAL 10.
WE DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE RESIDENTIAL 10 IS AN AREA THAT IS PLANNED PROGRAM FOR UP
TO TEN UNIT AN ACRE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE DID FIND THE SCALE OF USES AND IT'S STILL WITHIN THE
DENSITY THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, IT IS STILL WITHIN
THAT AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PATTERN ANTICIPATED UNDER
THAT RESIDENTIAL 10, FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND THE
IN-FILL POLICIES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
BASED ON THE AERIAL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
7:10:04PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
THIS APPLICATION WAS CONTINUED FROM YOUR
MARCH 8th PUBLIC HEARING.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY EUCLIDEAN REZONING.
IT'S GOING TO BE FROM R 60 TO 50 BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT
AND THE DISCUSSION WITH CITY COUNCIL.

THEY AMENDED THIS APPLICATION TO MAKE IT A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS THE SETBACKS ARE THE SAME AS IT WERE RS-60.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE AN AREA OF RM 60 WHERE A COUPLE OF REZONINGS.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
I AM GOING TO GO UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
AND LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THESE ARE ALL TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.
WE ARE GOING TO THE EAST.
THIS IS 4020 LEONA, 4014, 4010, 4006.
NOW COME BACK TOWARDS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS 4005.
4009.
4013.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A MIXTURE OF NEWER CONSTRUCTED HOUSES
AND SOME OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSES AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
4019.
4021.
AND 4023, BLOCK FACE ON BOTH SIDE.
AS I STATED APPLICANT DID AMEND THIS TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT.
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE THE SAME AS IT WOULD
BE FOR RS-60 AS FAR AS SETBACKS AND HEIGHT.

MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35 FEET.
THE SETBACKS ARE 25 FEET IN THE FRONT.
20 IN THE REAR.
7 ON THE SIDE AS WELL AS THE CORNER YARD.
THIS IS THE MAP THAT WE HAVE SHOWN BACK AT THE MARCH
MEETING.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE ANALYZED LOTS THAT ARE 50 FEET OR LARGER IN WIDTH AND
THOSE THAT ARE LESS THAN 60 FEET TO SEE WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN IS IN THE AREA, WITHIN A NINE-BLOCK STUDY AREA
SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
STAFF HAS BEEN USING THIS TO EVALUATE THESE TYPES OF
REZONINGS FOR SELF DECADE.
IN THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY, 145 TOTAL LOTS WERE EVALUATED.
71% WERE GREATER OR EQUAL TO 50 FEET IN LOT WIDTH.
LEAVING 29% LESS THAN 50 FEET WIDE ON THE SUBJECT BLOCK
ITSELF.
14 LOTS ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPMENT.
57 OF WHICH ARE 50 FEET OR GREATER.
AND THE REMAINING 43% ARE LESS THAN 50 FEET WIDE.
THERE IS A SMALL PATTERN OF SMALLER LOTS ON THIS PROJECT.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THE OVERALL STUDY AREA, AS WELL AS THE BLOCK,
AND THEN THE BLOCK FACE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A PATTERN
OF CONSISTENCY OF LARGER LOTS.
STAFF DID FIND THIS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT

CODE.
AND THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
IF IT IS CITY COUNCIL'S PLEASURE TO APPROVE THIS PD SITE
PLAN, THERE ARE NO WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED.
THERE ARE SOME MINOR CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN FOR LAND
DEVELOPMENT.
AS WELL AS TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES HAS SOME
SMALL CHANGES TO MAKE AS WELL.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
7:14:04PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
ALL RIGHT.
APPLICANT.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
7:14:13PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER.
THE STAFF WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITEMS FOR YOU REGARDING
THIS PARTICULAR PETITION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO BRING YOUR
ATTENTION BACK TO THE REASON WHY WE FAILED FOR A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD
FROM THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT MAKING SURE IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH
RM 60 DEVELOPMENT, AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE DONE EXACTLY
THAT.
THE PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE IN 1925, AND WE ARE ASKING TO
RESTORE THE ORIGINAL LOTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1925 AND
THE RIGHTS THAT GO WITH THEM.

WE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE PD ZONING.
AND THESE ARE LISTED.
THERE'S NINE ITEMS LISTED IN THE REPORT, AND I WILL BE HAPPY
TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU.
FIRST IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS SHALL BE MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE IN THE
ADJACENT AREAS.
TO ACHIEVE THIS, THE CITY SHALL ASSESS POTENTIAL POSITIVE
AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THE CHARACTER OF THE
SURROUNDING AREA AND MITIGATE THOSE NEGATIVE IMPACTS
OFF-SITE IF ANY.
WE HAVE DONE THAT.
AND LET ME GO THROUGH THE NINE CRITERIA.
[RUSTLING PAPERS] TO PROMOTE THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF LAND AND
STRUCTURE WITH CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ADVERSE IMPACT
ON-SITE, NATURAL ELEMENTS SURROUNDING IMPACTED
NEIGHBORHOODS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES EXACTLY THAT.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TO INCREASE THE SETBACKS BEYOND THE 7
FEET ON THE SIDE.
WE HAVE INCREASED THEM TO 9.4 FEET ON ONE SIDE AND 9.9 FEET
ON THE OTHER.
PLUS WE HAVE INCREASED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE 25-FOOT
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RS-60 AND CONSISTENT WITH THE 20
FEET IN THE REAR.

WE HAVE ALSO ADJUSTED THE SITE PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE FOR AN
OAK TREE THAT'S OFF-SITE ON OUR PROPERTY AND WE SLID ONE OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS BACK.
ALSO TO ALLOW THE INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT LAND USES.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
AND IT'S TO PROVIDE A GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH
IN THIS CHAPTER THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE WHICH RELATES TO TYPE, DESIGN AND
LAYOUT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
NOT ONLY DO WE MEET THE RS-60 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE
EXCEED THEM.
WE HAVE INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE ON THIS
PARTICULAR WEST LOT BY 720 SQUARE FEET BECAUSE WE ARE USING
9.9 FEET AND 9.4 FEET TAKES SETBACK ON THE SIDES.
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CHANGING NEED OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC,
CONSUMER PREFERENCES AND ALLOW THE INTEGRATION AND MECHANISM
OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATIVE TO LARGE TRACTS
UNDER THIS, WE ARE NOT ASKING TO SPLIT A LOT.
WE ARE ASKING TO RESTORE THE ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS OF 55
FEET FOR THE WEST LOT AND 507 FEET FOR THE EAST LOT.
ENCOURAGE FLEXIBLE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT WHICH REDUCES
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS.
THIS ADDS SIX TRIPS PER DAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE UNIT, ONE
DEVELOPMENT UNIT, WHICH IS ACCORDING TO THE ITE MANUAL, FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE IN
LOCATION, CHARACTER AND COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING
IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH THE ENVIRONMENT EXISTING
GEOGRAPHY.
AND IT SAYS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THIS, THE ZONING IS
INCONSISTENT, AND I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU, HOW CAN
IT BE INCONSISTENT IF YOU EXCEED THE RS-60 DEVELOPMENT
GUIDELINES?
IT CAN'T BE INCONSISTENT.
IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT.
THE MORE DESIRABLE LIVING AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT HAS A
STRICT APPLICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARD FOR ZONING.
IT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM STANDARD.
TO PROMOTE THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE OF ELEMENTS WHICH
COMPLEMENT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
WE SURVEYED THE COMMUNITY, THE PROPERTY AND THE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN THAT WAS THERE, AND NONE OF THEM HAVE THESE KIND OF
SETBACKS THAT WE PROPOSED.
ALL OF THEM HAVE 7 FEET.
SOME OF THEM HAVE LESS THAN 7 FEET.
WE ARE EXCEEDING THAT.
YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF BASE THEIR FINDINGS ON 9.3.8,
AND ONE FIND IT CONSISTENT AND ONE FIND IT INCONSISTENT.
WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS LOG AT THEIR CONSISTENCY

MATRIX AND DEFINING WHAT IS CONSISTENT AND WHAT IS NOT, THEY
ARE LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHEN THE CITY IS LOOKING AT THE COMPATIBILITY, THEY ARE
LOOKING AT A RED-BLUE MAP BY HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY CODE,
WHICH IS A POLICY THAT THEY HAVE USED TO TRY TO ESTABLISH
SOME IDENTIFYING TRENDS THAT HELPS THEM UNDERSTAND AND HELPS
THE COUNCIL UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMPATIBLE AND WHAT'S NOT.
THAT'S NOT ADOPTED BY CODE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS.
THERE ARE NO ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NONE OF
THEM POINTED OUT BE.
THERE IS NO RECONFIGURATION.
THERE IS ONLY A RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT WITH THOSE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
THERE IS NO IMPACT ON STORMWATER, ON FLOODING, ON
TRANSPORTATION, ON ANY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF WATER,
SEWER, SCHOOLS, A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE LISTED IN
THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION.
WE HAVE INCREASED GREEN SPACE WITH THE PROPOSAL OF ONE LOT,
AS I SAID, 720 SQUARE FEET, OF WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE.
IN EXCESS.
IT'S NOT THE LOTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATTERN.
IT'S NOT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT DEFINES THE LOTS AND THE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
IT'S THE INDIVIDUAL USES OF THOSE LOTS.

LOTS ARE NOT NEWLY CREATED.
THEY EXISTED WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAT.
WE ARE NOT CREATING NEW LOTS.
WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING YOU TO USE THEM AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY
INTENDED IN 1925.
I POINTED OUT TO YOU ALREADY THAT ON THE WEST LOT, THE
SETBACKS ARE 9.4 FEET, 9.9 FEET, AND THEN 7 FEET ON THE
ADJACENT LOT TO THE FAR -- TO THE EAST.
THERE IS NO RECONFIGURATION.
AND IT'S A MISAPPLICATION TO BE INDICATING IN ANY WAY THAT
THE 1320-FOOT RADIUS IS BEING USED TO IN ANY KIND OF
ANALYSIS.
THAT'S NOT THE ANALYSIS THAT THE CITY USES.
IT HASN'T USED IT.
AND IT'S BEING MISAPPLIED.
IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT.
IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AND IT WILL REMAIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
IT IS MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE, IF IT IS DISRUPTIVE AT ALL, AND
THERE HAS BEEN NO THE DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE THAT THE
RESTORATION OF THESE ORIGINAL PLATTED LOTS WILL DAMAGE ANY
OF THE PROPERTIES OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WAS PLANNED THIS WAY.
ZONING FOLLOWED THE PLAT.
THE PLAT DID NOT FOLLOW ZONING.

ADJACENT PARCELS ARE PLATTED AND BUILT ACCORDING TO THE
ORIGINAL PLAT AND IT WAS THE CHOICE OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTY OWNERS TO BUY ONE LOT OR TWO LOTS.
BUT THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THEM AS THEY WERE
ORIGINALLY PLATTED BACK IN 1925.
THE SETBACKS EXCEED ON THE WEST SIDE 35 FEET.
ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND 25 FEET RESPECTIVELY WITH AN
ENCROACHMENT FOR 5 FEET FOR A PORCH WHICH IS ALLOWED.
CLARK IS CLASSIFIED ALTHOUGH IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET,
IT'S BEING USED, AND IT FUNCTIONS MORE LIKE A COLLECTOR THAN
IT DOES A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET.
AND ALL THESE HOUSES ARE BEING ORIENTED TO THE FRONT OF
LEONA.
THEY DON'T FRONT ON THE SIDE STREET WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
NORMALLY A DISRUPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THESE LOTS ARE 120 FEET DEEP, AND THEY ARE 55 FEET WIDE ON
THE WEST LOT AND THEY ARE 50 FEET WIDE ON THE EAST LOT.
BOTH OF THEM MEET THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT AS
ESTABLISHED BY RS-60.
THE ONE ON THE WEST SIDE IS 600 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN ON
THAT LOT WE PROVIDED MORE SETBACKS AND MORE GREEN SPACE THAN
YOU NORMALLY WOULD HAVE SEEN.
LET ME SHOW YOU ON THIS MAP HERE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE.
AND WE ARE SHOWING THE 9-FOOT 4, 9-FOOT 9 SETBACKS HERE, 7

FEET SETBACK HERE, 35 FEET OF SETBACK HERE WHICH IS 10 FEET
IN EXCESS OF WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY RS-60, AND WE DID
THAT TO ACCOMMODATE AN OFF-SITE TREE THAT'S LOCATED HERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL OF THESE LOTS,
THIS IS 55 FEET WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO IT ON THE
SOUTH.
THIS IS 50 FEET WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE 50-FOOT
LOT TO THE SOUTH.
THIS IS 50 FEET HERE.
55 FEET IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET.
55 FEET IMMEDIATELY DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE STREET.
AND 55 FEET HERE.
TWO EXCEPTIONS ON THESE TWO WHICH ARE 90 AND 100.
AND THIS IS TWO 50 FOOT LOTS AND THIS IS -- A LITTLE LESS
THAN TWO 50-FOOT LOTS.
BUT THIS IS TWO 50-FOOT LOTS.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
WE ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO REZONE THIS TO A PD.
IT TOOK MORE TIME.
IT TOOK MORE EXPENSE TO COME BACK WITH A RECONFIGURATION
THAN WE THOUGHT MADE SENSE, AND ONE IT GAVE BACK TO THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF TAKING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
A STRAIGHT RS-50 WOULD HAVE HAD MUCH SMALLER SETBACKS AND
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE CONTROLLED IN TERMS OF THE
DEVELOPMENT.

YOU STILL COULD HAVE DEVELOPED, BUT WE THOUGHT THAT
PROVIDING THAT KIND OF CERTAINTY INTO THE RECORD WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DESIGNED AND WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL
OF THE QUESTIONS AND ALL THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
WITH US, AND WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL.
JUST IN GENERAL, A SINGLE HOME BUILT ON THIS LOT WOULD TAKE
UP MORE DEVELOPMENT AREA.
IT WOULD INCREASE MORE STORMWATER RETENTION.
IT WOULD HAVE LESS GREEN SPACE.
AND IT WOULD HAVE A GREATER IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT IN ITSELF WOULD BECOME A NONCONFORM DEVELOPMENT.
THE PATTERN IN HERE IS MIXED.
IT IS NOT SOLELY LARGE LOTS.
IT'S ONE BLOCK IN EITHER DIRECTION IN TERMS OF TRYING TO
ANALYZE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN HERE.
YOU WILL SEE THAT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A MIX OF
55-FOOT LOTS, THAT SIMPLY YOU ASK WHY DID THEY DO THAT?
IT'S BECAUSE THAT WAS THEIR INTENT AT THE TIME, AND THE
CODES DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP IN THAT KIND OF PATTERN.
WE THINK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOT IT RIGHT IN TERMS
OF BEING COMPATIBLE.
AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE THE GUARDIANS OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU, AND THEY

ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO HAVE THE CODE, THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ADOPTED BY YOU.
NO ONE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU A RED-BLUE MAP AND SAID
THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD ADOPT AS A POLICY OR AN ORDINANCE OR
THE CODE.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
I THINK THAT COVERED EVERYTHING.
I CERTAINLY WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE SOME BOARD HERE WHICH SHOW YOU WHAT THE ELEVATIONS
ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE AND A LARGER BOARD OF SHOWING
THESE LOTS AND THESE CONFIGURATIONS.
7:26:13PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL?
ALL RIGHT, ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO ARE SPEAK ON ITEM
NUMBER 5?
7:26:20PM >> MR. CONNOLLY HAS TWO NAMES.
PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE HERE.
JAN RASE. R-A-S-E.
AND ANN BERG.
THANK YOU.
TWO ADDITIONAL MINUTES, PLEASE.
7:26:49PM >> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL.
I'M THOMAS CONNELLY AND RESIDE AT 3823 WEST PALMIRA AVENUE,
PRESIDENT OF THE VIRGINIA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
I'M THE TYPICAL RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA PARK WHO HAS BEEN ASKED

TO SPEAK FOR THE OTHER RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA PARK, AND THEY
ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE THIS BODY SIMPLY RESPECT THE
DECISIONS MADE BY PREVIOUS TAMPA CITY COUNCILS WITH RESPECT
TO THE ZONING IN VIRGINIA PARK.
I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PRESENT CREDIBLE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
DEMONSTRATING THAT THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL HAS MADE THE
DECISION THAT RS-60, THAT IS THE 60-FOOT FRONT AND 6 THAT
YOU SQUARE FOOT, IS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IN PLACE SINCE
1956 WHEN IT WAS ZONED AS R-1-A AND RENAMED AS RS-60, THE
ZONING CONFORMANCE IN 1987.
BOTH OF THESE DESIGNATIONS REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDE AND 6 THAT
YOU SQUARE FOOT WITH MINOR CHANGES TO THE SETBACKS.
TAMPA'S CODE SECTION 27-11 ALSO SUPPORTS OUR REQUEST TO DENY
THIS REZONING PETITION SINCE IT STATES IN A DIVISION OR
RECONFIGURATION OF AN EXISTING LOT OR LOT OF RECORD CAN
INCUR THAT IS A CONFIGURATION WHICH IS PATENTLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE LOT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN UNANIMOUS RADIUS OF
1,320-FOOT A QUARTER MILE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
OUR ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHIN THE 120 FEET
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF ESTABLISHED LOT
FRONTAGES.
THIS ANALYSIS IS A MANDATORY TAMPA CODE REQUIREMENT AS
INDICATED BY THE WORD "SHALL" IN SECTION 2711 AND
CATEGORICALLY INDICATES THAT THE MAJORITY OF LOTS IN THE
1,320-FOOT RADIUS ARE CONFORMING LOTS WITH THE RS-60 ZONING

DISTRICT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE PROPOSED
LOT WIDTH IS PATENTLY INCONSISTENT.
WE ALSO FIND THIS REQUEST TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH IMAGINE
2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 9.3.8 BECAUSE IT IS NOT
MINIMALLY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE AREA.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO A CANCER THAT WILL ALTER CHARACTERISTICS
OF VIRGINIA PARK.
IT IS ALSO IN CONTRAVENTION TO IMAGINE 2040 POLICY 9.5.4
WHICH STATES UTILIZE SINGLE-FAMILY CATEGORIES TO, QUOTE,
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT DENSITY AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY AREA.
BASED ON THE DATA PRESENTED AND COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 2711
THE FACT OF THE 60-FOOT WIDE HAS BEEN REQUIRED SINCE 1956,
AND THAT THIS SPOT ZONING REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND NO REASONABLE INDIVIDUAL
SHOULD PRESUME THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPLIT THEIR PARCELS,
AND CITY COUNCIL HAS ALWAYS REQUIRED THE 60-FOOT WIDE SINCE
1956.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT COUNCIL DENY THE PETITION.
FINALLY, IN EXAMINING THE BOX WE NOTICED A LETTER IN SUPPORT
OF THE PETITION IS WRITTEN BY A NEIGHBOR WHO IS ALSO LISTED
ON THE GRAND TREE EVALUATION REPORT AS THE CONTRACTOR.
WHEN CONSIDERING THIS PETITION I REQUEST YOU WAIVE THE WEIGH
THE COMMERCIAL INTEREST THIS NEIGHBOR MAY HAVE IN SUPPORTING
THE PETITION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS COMPETENT
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED.
AND I WOULD LIKE -- HERE IS A COPY.
7:30:28PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THANK YOU.
MRS. BENNETT HAS THREE NAMES.
SEAN BUTLER.
THANK YOU.
CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ -- [RUSTLING PAPERS] THANK YOU.
KEVIN DUNNE.
THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
7:30:55PM >> MY NAME IS CAROL ANN BENNETT, 4116 WEST SANTIAGO STREET.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE PUT ON NOTICE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER.
I HAVE LIVED IN SOUTH TAMPA MY ENTIRE LIFE, AND I HAVE LIVED
IN VIRGINIA PARK FOR 28 YEARS.
THIS MAKES ME AN EXPERT ON MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEREFORE, I AM GETTING -- GIVING EXPERT TESTIMONY AND
CREDIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
BETWEEN THREE DOGS AND THREE KID, I WALK OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
8,000 TIMES.
SO I DON'T THINK I AM GOING OUT ON A LIMB HERE SAYING I AM
AN EXPERT IN THE CHARACTER OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE
CITY, TOO.
IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN CODIFIED

REPEATEDLY.
THE CITY THINKS A NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER HAS GREAT VALUE
AND IT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED.
IT SHOULD NOT BE VIOLATED.
IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED.
I AM JUST GOING TO RATTLE OFF THE CODES FOR YOU IN CASE YOU
WANT TO JOT THEM DOWN FOR YOUR MOTION TO DENY.
TAMPA CODE CHAPTER 27-11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE POLICY
8.1.42, OU 9.5.2, OU 9.5.4, OU 9.3-A, DID YOU GET ALL OF
THAT?
I CAN REPEAT IT.
7:32:11PM >> I HAVE IT MEMORIZED.
7:32:13PM >> BECAUSE OF MY THOUSANDS OF WALKS I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE
CHARACTER OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS LARGE, SHADY LOTS AND IS ONE
OF THE MAJOR REASONS THAT WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US.
I WALK THE STREETS WITH N MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND KNOCK ON
LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF DOORS.
AND I AM LIKE SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY, I KNOW WHAT
LITERALLY MEANS AND I USE IT LITERALLY.
I HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS TALKING TO MY NEIGHBORS AND
WHAT BE THEY TALK ABOUT OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS THE CHARACTER
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE LARGE LOTS AND WHY THEY BOUGHT
HERE AND HOW UPSET THEY ARE.
I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY BEFORE THEY SAY IT BECAUSE

I HEARD IT SO MANY TIMES.
IT'S RUINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S RUINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S RUINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD LIKE TO SITE POLICIES IF YOU WANT TO GET YOUR
PENCILS OUT.
THE STAFF REPORT SITES THIS, TOO, THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN USE 9.3.8, I'M ALSO SITING URBAN DESIGN AND LAND USE
18.4.1-0.
THEY BOTH SAY IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY THAT NEW
RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SHALL BE MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE TO
ADJACENT AREAS.
90% OF THE PEOPLE I HAVE TALKED TO SAY THIS IS NOT MINIMALLY
DISRUPTIVE.
I TAKE A TALLY OF THE PEOPLE I TALK TO AND IT IS LITERALLY
90%.
I AM TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND LOVE AND PLAY AND
GROW UP AND GROW OLD.
HOW CAN ANYONE STAND HERE AND SAY THEY ARE MORE OF AN EXPERT
THAN WE ARE?
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN 90% OF THE PEOPLE IN ANY GROUP AGREE ON
SOMETHING?
I KNOW YOU REALIZE WHAT A STATEMENT THAT IS.
IT'S A STATEMENT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW IT BEST, AND YOU
DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

THERE ARE OVER 350 SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS THAT SAY SO AND
DOZENS OF E-MAILS.
THEY TELL ME THEY LOVE THE LARGE SHADY LOTS AND WANT THEM
PRESERVED.
IF YOU WANT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD CRAM TWO MCMANSIONS ON
100-FOOT LOT AND CUT DOWN A BIG GORGEOUS TREE THAT TOOK
DECADES TO GROW, YOU ARE CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD FOREVER.
IF YOU GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CRAM TWO McMANSIONS
ON A 100-FOOT LOT THERE'S NO ROOM LEFT TO PLANT ALIVE OAK.
YOU ALL KNOW THAT LIVE OAKS NEED A 20-FOOT PROTECTIVE
RADIUS.
A LIVE OAK WILL NEVER AGAIN BE ABLE TO GROW THERE.
THERE IS NO MITIGATION FOR THAT.
WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN A WAY HAS BEEN OUT OF
SIGHT BECAUSE OF A LOT INVOLVES TWO GOVERNMENT BODIES, THE
CITY COUNCIL AND THE VRB.
EVEN THE WHOLE PICTURE, IT'S NOT JUST ONE EXCEPTION, IT'S
TWO EXCEPTIONS.
IT'S NOT JUST ONE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, IT TWO
REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT.
AND THIS SPECIAL TREATMENT HAS A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIKE TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES SO IF SOMEONE SAYS I WANT
TO MAKE A 50-FOOT LOT, YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY 50-FOOT

LOTS ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY
59-FOOT LOTS ARE THERE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.
IT'S NOT APPLES.
IT'S ORANGES.
IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 59 FOOT LOTS, YOU WOULDN'T HEAR A
PEEP FROM ME.
WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOME MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAD VERY GOOD
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS
GOING TO BE PROTECTED BY THE ZONING WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT
SINCE 1956.
THE REALTORS DIDN'T SAME TO US THE ZONING IS ONLY A
SUGGESTION.
THE COMPANY DIDN'T SAY, HEY, AT ANY TIME ANY HOUSE IN YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD CAN BE SPOT ZONED DIFFERENTLY.
FOR THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING IS THE PROCESS OF
SINGLING OUT A SMALL PARCEL OF LAND FOR A USE CLASSIFICATION
TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY AND TO THE DETRIMENT
OF THE OTHER OWNERS.
IF SOMEONE TRIES TO CONDENSE MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS ISN'T
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNER OF ONE PROPERTY AND TO THE
BENEFIT OF OTHER OWNERS, THEY ARE GOING TO GET AN EAR FULL.
AND I'M SURE I DON'T HAVE TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT EVERY
FAMILY HAS ITS CHALLENGES, AND I'M SURE I DON'T HAVE TO

REMIND COUNCIL THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS OR PROFIT MARGINS.
SO I WON'T REMIND COUNCIL.
THANK YOU.
7:36:19PM >> THANK YOU.
NEXT, PLEASE.
7:36:21PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
[OFF MICROPHONE] AND LAUI TILTON.
THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
YOU HAVE HERE A PETITION, AND YOU ALSO HAVE OTHER ITEMS.
AND YOU CAN STATE FOR THE RECORD WHAT THOSE ARE.
AND I WILL PASS AROUND THE COPIES YOU PROVIDED TO COUNCIL.
7:37:22PM >> THE OTHER ITEMS ARE SLIDES THAT I INTEND TO PUT ON THE
OVERHEAD, SO THAT EVERYONE WILL HAVE THE HARD COPY OF WHAT I
AM PRESENTING HERE.
7:37:31PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AND YOU HAVE PROVIDED TO ME A COPY WITH A
COVER LETTER OF THE PETITION THAT IS NOW IN THE CLERK'S
FILE.
AND I AM GOING TO SUBMIT THAT AND PASS THAT ALONG TO CITY
COUNCIL.
7:37:41PM >> I HAVE GIVEN EVERYONE A COPY OF THE PETITION AND WHAT I
JUST HANDED YOU WERE THE ORIGINAL COPIES OF THE PETITIONS.
7:37:48PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THANK YOU.
7:37:54PM >>LUIS VIERA:
GO AHEAD.
7:37:57PM >> I'M ON THE CLOCK?
7:37:59PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES, SIR.

7:37:59PM >> MY NAME IS HOWARD TURRI, 4021 WEST LEONE A.
I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 24 YEARS.
DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO VOTE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION TO
REZONE TO A PD.
AND THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THIS BASED ON WHAT I
BELIEVE TO BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR
VOTE TO DENY.
I WILL START WITH ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PAGE 5 OF THE STAFF
REPORT WHICH SHOWS ONLY TWO REZONING PARCELS IN OUR
IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE LIVE IN THE MARYLAND MANOR SECOND UNIT WHICH IS PART OF
VIRGINIA PARK.
THESE ARE THE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE RS-60 STANDARD.
CLEARLY, THE VARIETY MAJORITY OF THE HOMES IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ON PARCELS THAT ARE LARGER THAN 50 FEET,
AND ALSO LARGER THAN 60 FEET.
AND I WILL GIVE YOU THAT DATA SHORTLY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE 131320-FOOT RADIUS AND YOU PULL THIS DATA
FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE SITE, YOU SEE THAT 77%
OF THE PROPERTIES IN THIS CIRCLE ARE GREATER THAN 50-FOOT
FRONTAGES OR HAVE GREATER THAN 50 FOOT FRONTAGES, AND 71%
ARE 60 FEET OR LARGER, WHICH IS ALL 60 FEET OR LARGER OF
COURSE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RS-60 DESIGNATION.
AGAIN, TAKING A LOOK AT THE 9-BLOCK AREA AROUND THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY, I COLORED IN PINK A VARIATION OF THE RED-BLUE MAP.
THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LARGER THAN 50 FEET.
BECAUSE ONE OF THE PROPERTIES BEING PROPOSED, ONE OF THE
LOTS BEING PROPOSED IN THE PD IS FOR A 50-FOOT LOT.
THERE ARE 82% IN THE 9-BLOCK AREA OF THESE PARCELS ARE
GREATER THAN 50 FEET, AND 74% ARE 60 FEET OR GREATER.
THEN A LITTLE REDUNDANT BUT TO SHOW WHAT THE BLOCK FACE
LOOKS LIKE.
EVERY SINGLE LOT ON THIS BLOCK FACE IS 100 FEET OR LARGER.
ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY I BELIEVE LAND DEVELOPMENT HAS
RULED THIS TO BE INCONSISTENT.
TO PUT TWO HOUSES ON 50 AND 55-FOOT LOTS, WHEN EVERY OTHER
LOT ON THAT BLOCK IS 100 FEET OR LARGER, I BELIEVE, IS
INCONSISTENT.
TO ADD TO THAT, EVERY HOUSE ON THE BLOCK FACE FACING THIS
BLOCK FACE IS A LARGE LOT WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS.
THERE IS A 55 AND A 54-FOOT LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEONA.
I WON'T BELABOR THIS SINCE MR. CONNOLLY ALREADY HAS GONE
OVER THAT, BUT THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME.
THE R-1A TO RS-60 WAS ADOPTED, THE R 1A, IN 1956.
LATER, IN 1987, THE 60-FOOT FRONTAGE BECAME KNOWN AS THE
RS-60 ZONING DISTRICT, AND THIS IS A COPY OF CHAPTER 46
ARTICLE 1 WHICH SHOWS ON JANUARY 17th, 1956, THAT THIS
R1-A ZONING DISTRICT WAS CREATED AND ADOPTED, AND THE
CRITERIA FOR R-1-A WAS 6,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A MINIMUM

WIDTH OF 60 FEET BUILDING LOT.
THERE IS SOME THOUGHT THIS ISN'T REALLY LOT SPLITTING BUT
IT'S 105 FOOT LOT TODAY WITH ONE HOUSE ON IT AND THE
PROPOSAL IS TO SPLIT THAT LOT AND PUT TWO HOUSES, ONE WITH A
50 AND ONE WITH A 55-FOOT FRONTAGE.
NEITHER ONE OF THEM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RS-60 ZONING LAWS
WHICH HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 62 YEARS.
A LITTLE WORD ABOUT THE 80% RULE.
THERE WERE SOME CHALLENGES TRYING TO BRING ALL OF THE
CONVERSATIONS TOGETHER ABOUT ZONING AND 50-FOOT LOTS THAT
HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
YES, THESE WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1925, AT 50-FOOT LOTS.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS DESIRING TO GO BACK TO 1925
STANDARD.
IN 1985, THE 80% RULE WAS ADOPTED IN ORDER TO TRY AND CREATE
A WAY FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE NONCONFORM LOTS TO STILL BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATION.
FAILED MISERABLY AND WAS IN PLACE FOR FOUR YEARS.
THE IDEA WAS TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO DEVELOP
THESE NONCONFORMING LOTS.
BY 1989, CITY COUNCIL AMENDED TO MAKE SPECIAL USE 2
REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT HERE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL IN
ORDER TO APPROVE A REZONING.
AND THEN AFTER 2005 IT WAS ELIMINATED ALTOGETHER IN 2005.
[BELL SOUNDS]

TWO MORE THINGS.
THIS IS A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEED OF SALE THAT SHOWS THAT
MR. aND MRS. ADAM BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IN OCTOBER OF 1965.
LONG AFTER THE RS-60 WAS IN PLACE.
HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND HERE IT SHOWS HOW THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1964, A YEAR
BEFORE THEY BOUGHT IT.
[BELL SOUNDS]
I ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS APPLICATION.
THANK YOU.
7:44:22PM >> GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE COUNCIL.
I AM CYNTHIA DUNCAN, 4205 WEST BARCELONA STREET, TAMPA,
FLORIDA 33629.
I ASK TO BE PUT ON NOTICE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ON
THIS MATTER.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
I'M AN ATTORNEY.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR.
I'M ALSO ON THE BOARD OF VIRGINIA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION.
WE HEARD FROM PLANNING THAT THIS PROPERTY MEETS RESIDENTIAL
10.
BECAUSE THESE LOTS IN THE AREA ARE ALL 120 FEET DEEP THIS
LOT COULD BE 36.3 FEET WIDE AND MEET OUR TEST.
SO JUST USING R-10 DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE RIGHT CRITERIA

THAT SHOULD BE USED.
ALSO, WHEN I WAS RESEARCHING THIS SIX MONTHS AGO, YOU ARE
NOT SUPPOSED TO USE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO CIRCUMVENT VENT
THE ZONING PROCESS SO IT'S NOT GOING FROM RS 60 TO RS 50 SIX
MONTHS AGO TO A PD SIX MONTH LATER, THE VERY DEFINITION OF
USING A PD TO CIRCUMVENT THE ZONING PROCESS.
ALSO, WHEN I WAS RESEARCHING THIS, I PULLED UP THE ZONING
ATLAS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT.
BUT IN THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, THIS IS WHAT WAS ON THE
ZONING ATLAS.
IT SAYS THAT CPA 632 WHICH IS THE AREA SOUTH OF SAN LUIS TO
EUCLID AND THEN DALE MABRY, YOU CAN SEE IT WAS CHANGED FROM
LAND USE 10 TO LAND USE 6.
AND CALLED ABOUT IT AND THEY GO, OH, THAT MUST BE A MISTAKE.
LUCKILY, I DID A SCREEN SHOT.
BUT WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ASKING THIS WAS TAKEN DOWN.
SO I BELIEVE THAT ON 28 JUNE 2007, WHEN COUNCILMAN -- LET'S
SEE, IT WAS MIRANDA, SAUL-SENA, OR MIRANDA SCOTT, THAT
REFERS THAT PLAN AMENDMENT BACK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO DETERMINE WHICH PARCELS WOULD BECOME NONCONFORM.
AND EXCLUDE THOSE FROM THE PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO FOR R-6 IN THIS AREA THIS LOT ONLY HAS TO BE 60.57 FEET
WADE TO MEET R-6.
BUT IT WOULD ALSO MEET RS-60.
AND MARY MULHERN AT THAT SAME 28 JUNE MEETING SAID, WANT TO

GO TO R-6 TO PREVENT THE LOT SPLIT AND SAID THAT CAN'T GO
TODAY BECAUSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE REZONING.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU, CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S NOT A THREAT.
BUT WE SEE THAT IT BECAME A THREAT AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND
ON.
AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO ONE MORE POLICY, NEIGHBORHOOD
ENGAGEMENT POLICY 135 WHICH SAYS THAT RECOGNIZE THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE ACCESS TO WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE, TO
ENHANCE INCLUDING TREES, LARGE YARDS, SO THERE'S ANOTHER ONE
THAT YOU CAN USE.
AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE DENY THIS, BECAUSE.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THANK YOU.
7:47:36PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THANK YOU, MRS. ROTH.
YOU HAVE ONE NAME.
JOSEPH MURGIO? AND DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SHOW THAT YOU
WANT -- OKAY, I'LL PUT THIS INTO THE RECORD THEN.
ONE ADDITIONAL MINUTE, PLEASE.
7:48:05PM >> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL.
I'M TERRI ROTH, 3910 WEST OBISPO STREET.
I CAN SPEAK AS A NATIVE OF SOUTH TAMPA.
I GREW UP IN THE FLOOD ZONE ON EL PRADO BOULEVARD THAT STILL
FLOODS TODAY WITH HEAVY RAIN.
I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOME 42 YEARS, NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE CAN

SAY THAT.
AS A NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO STOP THIS LOT
SPLITTING FOR 20 YEARS.
A FEW YEARS AGO WE WORKED ALMOST A YEAR WITH CITY STAFF
TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
STOP THE SPLITTING OF THE LOTS TO KEEP OUR LOTS THE WAY THEY
ARE.
THAT'S WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS WRITTEN.
IT SEEMS NO ONE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THAT SOME DAY IT WOULD BE
COMMON FOR ONE HOME TO HAVE THREE, FOUR, OR EVEN MORE CARS.
WITH A 50-FOOT LOT AND THE HOMES GENERALLY IN GEOGRAPHICALLY
BUILT AS THE LAW ALLOWS, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE
EXTRA CARS.
WHEN VIRGINIA PARK STREET WAS PLANNED, DRIVEWAYS WENT UP THE
SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO A SMALL GARAGE ON THE BACK OF THE
PROPERTY.
THEY DID NOT PARK IN THE STREET.
ANOTHER ISSUE IS THE NARROWNESS OF OUR STREETS IN VIRGINIA
PARK.
THE STREET IN FRONT OF MY HOME IS 20 FEET WIDE.
THAT'S IT.
FROM CURB TO CURB.
THE WIDTH VARIES ON THE DIFFERENT STREETS.
THE STREET FOR THIS VARIANCE IS 24.
THE STREET IS 24 FEET.

ACCORDING TO PLANNERS WEBSITE, THE MINIMUM FOR ANY STREET
TODAY, ANY STREET TODAY SHOULD BE 28 FEET WIDE.
THE CITY OF TAMPA, CITY OF TAMPA WEBSITE, SHOULD BE 26 FEET
WIDE.
WE ARE WORKING AT A SEVERE DEFICIT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH
ALL THE CARS PARKING ON THE STREET.
THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME HAVE TWO TEENAGERS
AND TWO ADULT CARS, THAT EQUALS FOUR CARS PARKING EVERY
SINGLE DAY.
SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE DRIVEWAY AND SOME OF THEM ARE ON THE
STREET.
LET NOT FORGET WHEN THEIR FRIENDS COME OVER TO VISIT.
SEVERAL CARS ARE NOW ON THE STREET.
IN THE MORNING IT'S VERY COMMON IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO HEAR
THE SANITATION TRUCKS HONKING BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GET
THROUGH THE MAZE OF CARS TO DO THEIR JOB, ESPECIALLY WHEN
EXTRA CARS ARE PARKING DUE TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS.
MY SON IS A PASCO COUNTY FIRE RESCUE.
HE HAS SAID WITH MANY CARS AND TRUCKS PARKED IN THE STREET,
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A PERSONAL TRUCK OR FIRE TRUCK NEEDED
TO GET THROUGH?
HE HAS HAD TO TURN AROUND IN HIS PERSONAL TRUCK AND GO A
DIFFERENT DIRECTION TO GET TO OUR HOME BECAUSE OF THE STREET
BEING BLOCKED BY CARS, OPPOSITE FROM EACH OTHER BUT NOT
ENOUGH ROOM FOR CARS TO GET THROUGH.

WHEN TIME MATTERS, FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, FOR THE MEDICAL
PERSONNEL, TRYING TO RESPOND, BUT THEY CAN'T GET DOWN THE
STREET BECAUSE OF THE CARS PARKED ON THE STREET.
WHAT DO THEY DO?
WILL THEY HAVE TO TURN AROUND LIKE MY SON AND I HAVE DONE?
OR HONK LIKE THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT?
WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN THEY CAN'T GET THROUGH?
PLEASE STOP THE SPLITTING OF THE LOTS AND INCREASING THE CAR
DENSITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU.
[BELL SOUNDS]
7:51:42PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK?
IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK, PLEASE LINE UP AGAINST THE WALL,
IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK SO WE KNOW HOW MANY SPEAKERS WE
HAVE GOT.
ALL RIGHT.
7:51:52PM >> SCOTT WHEELER.
I LIVE AT 4033 WEST CORONA STREET THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
I AM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN
THE REZONING.
I LIVE ON A 55 FOOT LOT.
MY NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST OF ME LIVES ON A 50-FOOT LOT.
DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME TO THE WEST OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A 55-FOOT LOT.

ACROSS THE STREET DIRECTLY IS A 55-FOOT LOT.
DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE
CORNER IS A 55-FOOT LOT.
I'M NOT SURE AT THIS POINT WHAT A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS.
I KNOW CITY STAFF SAYS THIS IS NOT CONFORMING.
THE FACT THAT OF THE EIGHT LOTS THAT SURROUND THE SUBJECT
LOT, SIX OF THEM ARE LESS THAN 60-FOOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN.
I DON'T KNOW.
THE FACT THAT THE OTHER THREE LOTS ON THAT FAR CORNER FROM
LEONA ARE 55 FOOT LOTS, THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN?
I DON'T KNOW.
AS MR. MICHELINI SAID, THERE IS NO ADOPTED AND APPROVED
REGULATION AS TO WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS.
I DO KNOW THAT I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE TWO PROPERTIES, TWO
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON A 55 AND 50-FOOT LOT BEHIND MINE THAN
SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE MUCH LARGER AND OUT OF CHARACTER TO
THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I KNOW THAT AFTER REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PD THAT WAS
SUBMITTED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO
MITIGATE MOST IF NOT ALL ISSUES IN RELATION TO CONFORM TO
RS-60 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT.
AS YOU HEARD ALREADY, THEY ARE EXCEEDING THE SETBACKS ON THE
CORNER LOT.
THEY ARE MEETING THE RS-60 STANDARD FOR THE SETBACK.

[BELL SOUNDS]
AND COUNCIL HAS APPROVED OTHER REZONINGS IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD TO RS-50.
MOST RECENTLY, 1772 IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
TWO 50-FOOT LOTS AT 4011 OBISPO AND THOSE AREN'T EVEN COMING
TO LOT 5, THE 4500 AND 50 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
AND THEY ARE OPPOSING 16-FOOT REAR SETBACKS.
[BELL SOUNDS]
SO I'M ASKING YOU TO APPROVE IT.
THANK YOU.
7:55:05PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
THANK YOU, SIR.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 5?
PETITIONER?
7:55:10PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
COUNCIL, THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF
STATEMENTS MADE THAT ARE CLEARLY INACCURATE.
THIS IS R-10.
YOU CAN ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT'S NOT R-6.
THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
CHANGED FROM R-10 TO R-6 WHICH WAS DENIED.
BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THIS AREA IS MIXED.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT A ZONING MAP AND SOMEONE SHOWS YOU A
ZONING MAP AND SAYS THIS CORNER OVER HERE AND THIS CORNER
OVER HERE THERE WAS A REZONING TO RS-50, THAT DOESN'T SHOW
YOU THIS IS A LOT USAGES THAT ARE ALREADY ON 50-FOOT LOTS.

IT DOESN'T SHOW YOU.
THAT'S WHY I SHOWED YOU THAT LITTLE PLAN THAT SHOWED YOU THE
THREE HOUSES DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS ARE 55 OR 50-FOOT LOTS.
THREE LOTS, 55 DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS ONE, 50 DIRECTLY BEHIND
THIS ONE, 50 DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT ONE, 55, 55, 55.
SO WITH THE EXCEPTION, YOU HAVE GOT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR,
FIVE, SIX, OUT OF SEVEN PROPERTIES, FIVE OF THEM ARE 55 FEET
OR 50 FEET.
NO ONE HAS PROVIDED YOU ANY TESTIMONY REGARDING HOW THIS IS
DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THERE'S BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
THAT SAID THAT SOMEHOW A LARGE AND SHADY LOT IS CODIFIED.
IT'S NOT IN THE CODE.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LARGE AND SHADY LOTS AND WE LIKE
IT THAT WAY.
WHAT YOU HEARD IS WE DON'T LIKE IT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN
YOU SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.
THEY HAVEN'T TOLD YOU THE TRANSPORTATION WAS GOING TO BE
IMPACTED OR INFRASTRUCTURE WAS GOING TO BE IMPACTED OR THAT
THE FRONTAGE OF THE HOUSES WAS GOING TO BE ORIENTED IN A WAY
THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT.
THEY HAVEN'T TOLD YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
WE WENT TO A PD AND WE ARE PROVIDING EXCESSIVE SETBACKS,
GREATER THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED IN RS-60.

WE ARE NOT CIRCUMVENTING THE CODE.
WE ARE PROVIDING FOR THE MITIGATION AND CONSIDERATION FOR
RESTORING THE ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS.
YOU HEARD ABOUT CARS PARKING ON THE STREET.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS CODE.
WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO-CAR GARAGES.
WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO CARS OFF OF THE PROPERTY.
THEY CAN'T BE IN THE STREET.
I MEAN, IF THEY ARE, IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S ISSUE.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST AND IT SHOULDN'T BE PART OF
THE CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY PARKS
ON THE STREET.
YOU KNOW, WE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS -- I KNOW YOU GOT A
PETITION THAT SAID WE DON'T LIKE IT AND WE THINK YOU OUGHT
TO APPLY THE 1320 RULE.
IF YOU ASK THE STAFF, THEY'LL TELL YOU THE 1320 RADIUS HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONSIDERATION.
NOTHING.
WHAT WE DID, WE TOOK A PETITION OF OUR OWN THAT IDENTIFIED
EACH OF THE CRITERIA AND ITS SPECIFICATIONS THAT WE ARE
ASKING FOR, FOR PD, AND WE HAVE OUR OWN PETITION TO TRANSMIT
TO YOU, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE PD IS FOR A 55-FOOT LOT, IT'S
FOR A 50-FOOT LOT, IT FOR EXCESSIVE SETBACKS, AND WAVE OUR
OWN SUPPORT FOR THAT.
YOU CAN'T TAN A BLANKET THAN PETITION AND SAY, WE DON'T LIKE

IT, HERE, SIGN THIS.
IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH.
AND IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WE ARE
ADDRESSING HERE TONIGHT WITH THIS REQUEST.
THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CODE, AND THE STAFF IS SUPPOSED
TO TELL YOU WHAT ARE THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS THAT THIS MIGHT
HAVE?
NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS GAVE YOU THAT EXCEPT OF THAT THEY
DIDN'T LIKE IT, THEY WANTED SHADY LOTS AND THEY WANTED NO
CARS PARKING ON THE STREET, AND IF AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE
TRIES TO GET THROUGH THEY CAN'T GET THROUGH OR GARBAGE TRUCK
OR WHATEVER.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA.
AS FAR AS SPOT ZONING IS CONCERNED, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ARE
THERE FOR UNIQUE CONDITIONS AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
WE MOVED THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT AND DEVELOPMENT PATH, THE
FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES, TO ACCOMMODATE
OFF-SITE TREES.
WE MOVED THEM BACK.
WE HAVE A 35-FOOT SETBACK ON ONE OF THE LOTS WHICH IS 10
FEET IN EXCESS OF RS-60.
WE HAVE 9.9 AND 9.4 FEET OF SETBACKS, 7.1, 7.2, SETBACK FROM
THE OTHER PROPERTY, IN EXCESS OF RS-60.
WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOT IT RIGHT, THAT

WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH 9.5.8, AND THIS WE ARE NOT
DISRUPTIVE, HAVE NOT BEEN DISRUPTIVE AND WE HAVE TAKEN GREAT
LENGTH TO MAKE SURE WE WERE COMPATIBLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS PETITION RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT'S
LAID OUT ON THE TITLE PORTION.
[BELL SOUNDS]
8:00:33PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MR. MANISCALCO.
8:00:34PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I FIND THE TOWING OF LOT SPLITTING FASCINATING.
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY BRINGS UP, LOOK AT THE
1920s, ALL THESE LOTS THAT ARE PLOTTED AS THEY ARE.
BEING AN AMATEUR HISTORIAN AND ALWAYS SPENDING TIME IN
ARCHIVES AND TRYING TO STUDY TAMPA'S HISTORY, THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD, FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, IS A LOT OF --
[RUSTLING PAPERS] WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LIKE A LOT OF
1922 STRUCTURES AND WHATNOT.
HAVING SAID THAT, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP THE MAKEUP OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BOTH TALKING ABOUT HOMES BUILT IN THE
EARLY 19 OF 50s OR 60, TALKING ABOUT 50 YEARS, 60 YEARS OF
HISTORY, POST WORLD WAR II.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE 1920s WHERE ALL
THESE BE SINGLE LOTS WERE.
THE OTHER DAY I SPENT SEVERAL HOURS IN THE LIBRARY LOOKING
AT OLD PLAT MAPS FROM THE CITY OF TAMPA FROM THE 20s AND

30s.
I HAVE A FRIEND WHOSE HOME WAS BUILT IN 1949.
I WAS CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT WAS ON THAT PROPERTY IN ONE OF
TAMPA'S OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WAS AN EMPTY LOT.
HE WAS THE FIRST TO BUILD ON THAT IN 1949.
AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN FOLKS DID
BUILD THESE HOMES IN 1940s, 50s AND 60s THAT ARE THERE
TODAY, THEY DIDN'T BUY THE LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED AS THEY
WERE IN THE 1920s.
THEY BUILT TWO LOTS, THEY BUILT THESE HOMES WITH BIGGER
FRONT YARD AND BIGGER BACKYARD.
AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOR THE LAST 14 YEARS I HAVE BEEN DRIVING DOWN HE WILL PAD
OH, AND I -- EL PRADO, AND I DROVE DOWN THIS MORNING, TO
REFRESH SHALL MY MEMORY FROM MACDILL TO DALE MABRY, AND YOU
WENT FROM THE RANCH STALE POST WORLD WAR II CONSTRUCTION
BLOCK HOMES TO THESE BIGGER -- AND I HATE TO SAY IT,
McMANSIONS, I HATE THE TERM.
BUT THESE MASSIVE HOMES, AND ALREADY SEEING SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I AM THINKING ABOUT ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IN MY DISTRICT,
LINCOLN GARDENS, A HISTORIC POST KOREAN WAR VETERAN
NEIGHBORHOOD, AFRICAN AMERICANS THAT CAME AND BUILT THESE
HOMES.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAPS GOING BACK YOU WILL SAY THEY ARE
PLATTED IN THE 1920s.
THEY ARE X AMOUNT OF WIDTH AND SIZE AND WHATNOT.
SO THE ARGUMENT IS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT UP LIKE
VIRGINIA PARK, AS YOU SEE IT TODAY OVER THE LAST 60, 70
YEARS AS THEY DO NOW, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEIGHBORS
ARE SAYING.
IT CHANGES THE MAKEUP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU HAVE SO MANY LOTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT IN SIZE AND NOW
YOU ARE STARTING A PATTERN, AND WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL
IN SPLITTING AND COMPLETELY CHANGING THE MAKEUP OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CITY HAS FOUND IT INCONSISTENT.
I KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS OTHER THOUGHTS BUT I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION.
69 ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?
8:03:32PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I FIND THE THINGS THAT MR. MANISCALCO
SAID UNUSUALLY INTRIGUING.
AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 7, NUMBER 6,
THERE'S TALK IN THAT POSITION ABOUT A 35-FOOT LOT IN WEST
TAMPA.
I AM GOING TO ASK OUR ATTORNEY, MRS. KERT, AND THE PATTERN
THAT I AM SITTING HERE WATCHING AND LISTENING TO -- AND I
UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING EVERYONE SAID -- GIVE ME HAVE A LITTLE
KNOWLEDGE OF LAW.

AND I REZONE LOTS IN WEST TAMPA AND EAST TAMPA AT 50-FOOT
AND SOMEWHERE ELSE.
CAN I DO IN THE REVERSE?
WHAT I AM SEEING HERE IS A DIFFERENT DIALOGUE THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
AND I DON'T CARE WHAT THE HISTORY IS IN THE CITY OF TAMPA.
I WANT TO KNOW THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE HISTORY.
8:04:27PM >>REBECCA KERT:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
WHEN YOU TAKE EACH REZONING CASE, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE
FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE AND THE EXPERT OPINION THAT IS
PRESENTED TO YOU.
THAT BEING SAID, EVERY TIME YOU ARE HANDED A SIMILAR
SITUATION, THEN YOU NEED TO TREAT THAT SIMILARLY NO MATTER
WHAT AREA OF THE CITY IT IS, WHETHER IT BE EAST TAMPA, WEST
TAMPA OR WHATEVER.
THERE MAY BE AREAS OF SOUTH TAMPA THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT
WITHIN SOUTH TAMPA.
AND THERE MAY BE AREAS OF WEST TAMPA, A BLOCK IN ONE AREA OF
WEST TAMPA MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT THAN A DIFFERENT BLOCK IN
WEST TAMPA.
SO JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A REZONING THAT IS APPROVED FOR
50-FOOT LOTS IN ONE AREA DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO DO
THAT IN ANOTHER AREA.
THAT BEING SAID, YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUENESS OF
EACH NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN YOU ARE PRESENTED WITH THE SAME OR

SIMILAR FACT, YOU SHOULD BE TREATING THOSE AREAS THE SAME NO
MATTER WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY.
8:05:29PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I UNDERSTAND.
I APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE WEST TAMPA IS UNIQUE IN ANOTHER
AREA.
IF THEY HAD THE PROBLEM WEST TAMPA HAD, I WOULD HAVE 10,000
PEOPLE HERE, NOT 50 OR 100.
WEST TAMPA, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR
YEARS.
YOU HAVE GOT PEOPLE LIVING IN 60-FOOT LOTS.
BUT THE HOUSE IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PLEXES AND FOUR-PLPLEXES
AND NOBODY IS DOING ANYTHING.
WE ARE TRYING TO.
IT VERY DIFFICULT.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM WHEN YOU HAVE GOT 89 CARS PARKED IN
THE GRASS AND EVERYWHERE ELSE AND LITTLE IS BEING DONE
BECAUSE OF THE LONGEVITY THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR THE LAST
30 YEARS.
WE ARE BECOMING HIALEAH OF THE NORTH.
IN WEST TAMPA.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE.
SO THERE'S A VAST DIFFERENCE.
EVERYWHERE YOU GO IN THE CITY.
AND IT'S NOT BASED ON ECONOMICS.

IT'S JUST THE WAY TAMPA HISTORY CAME ABOUT.
WEST TAMPA DIDN'T HAVE A FOOTBALL STADIUM.
THEY GOT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS.
WEST TAMPA DIDN'T HAVE A HOSPITAL.
THEY HAVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS NOW.
MacDILL WHEN I MOVED IN 54 YEARS AGO, GOT PROBLEMS NOW.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE CAN JUST HOPE IT GET BETTER.
THANK YOU.
8:06:41PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYONE ELSE?
MR. COHEN.
8:06:44PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING COMMENT.
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE VERY DIFFICULT CASES BECAUSE OF WHATEVER
EVERYONE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT ULTIMATELY WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH ONE
OF THESE ON ITS OWN MERIT AND LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS CONCERNED ME OVER TIME, AS WE
HAVE TAKEN THESE CASES, IS THAT IF YOU START DIVIDING LOTS
ON A BLOCK FACE, BASED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT THERE,
THAT'S ONE THING.
IT'S ANOTHER IF IT'S A CLOSE CALL AND YOU START CHANGING
THEM, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT'S OUR ACTIONS THAT HAVE
CHANGED THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE BLOCK FACE, AND THE NEXT
TIME WE COME BACK TO THE SAME BLOCK, THE NUMBERS HAVE

SHIFTED.
IT'S SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE OFTENTIMES BLOCK BY BLOCK
THERE ARE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
WE REALLY DO HAVE TO RELY ON OUR STAFF ANALYSIS, AND ALSO ON
THE MAPS THAT WE ARE BEING GUIDED BY.
AND I WILL JUST TELL YOU THAT WHAT SPEAKS TO ME ON THIS
APPLICATION, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT, AND NONE OF
THEM, DESPITE THE COMMON BELIEF, NONE OF THEM CREATES
PRECEDENCE FOR THE NEXT ONE.
THEY ARE ALL TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY.
BUT ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THE BLOCK FACE IS OVERWHELMINGLY
MADE UP OF LOTS THAT ARE LARGER THAN 60 FEET.
I BELIEVE THAT 71% ARE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE EXISTING
CHARACTER, JUST OF THIS SMALL BLOCK OF LEONA, IS ONE OF THE
LARGER LOT SIZES.
AND I THINK THAT THE STAFF ANALYSIS, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED
THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE NINE-BLOCK STUDY
AREA, AS WELL AS THE SUBJECT BLOCK ITSELF.
IT'S COMPOSED PRIMARILY OF LOTS GREATER THAN 60 FEET IN
WIDTH.
SIMILARLY, THERE IS A UNIFORM PATTERN OF LOTS AT LEAST 60
FEET WIDE ON THE BLOCK FACE.
STAFF FIND THE PROPOSED REESTABLISHMENT.
ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE STUDY AREA AND THE BLOCK AND
BLOCK FACE.
AND THAT IS REPEATED THROUGHOUT THE STAFF REPORT IN VARIOUS
DIFFERENT WAYS AND INCARNATIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THE
DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE CODE.
IN ONE OF THEM, THE STAFF ACTUALLY CALLED IT PATENTLY
INCONSISTENT.
AND THAT IS ITEM 1 UNDERSTOOD SECTION 27-136.
SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT, BECAUSE AS WE DO THE ANALYSIS OF
THEM OF THESE LOTS, WE REALLY DO RELY ON WHAT THE STAFF IS
TELLING US AS WE WORK OUR WAY THROUGH.
8:09:40PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE?
ALL RIGHT.
NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
8:09:45PM >> SO MOVED.
8:09:45PM >> SECOND.
8:09:46PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION BY MR. MANISCALCO.
SECONDED BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
MR. MIRANDA.
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE?
8:09:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
AM I COMFORTABLE?
I'M ALIVE.

I BETTER BE COMFORTABLE.
I AM GOING TO READ IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AND GO FROM
THERE.
THIS IS FILE 5.
REZ 18-17.
THIS IS AN ORDINANCE PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION.
ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 4024
WEST LEONA 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 PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
8:10:25PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
ALL RIGHT.
GOING ONCE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
GOING TWO.
MOTION FAILS.
8:10:36PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IF I COULD TAKE THIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION BASED
ON THE FOLLOWING.
ON POLICY 9.3.8, WHICH IS THE CITY'S INTENT CONCERNING NEW
RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, ACCORDING TO STAFF
REPORT AND MR. COVEN JUST READ A MOMENT AGO STAFF HAS

IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE NINE
BLOCK STUDY AREA AS WELL AS THE SUBJECT BLOCK IS COMPOSED
PRIMARILY OF LOTS GREATER THAN 60 FEET IN WIDTH, SIMILARLY,
THERE IS UNIFORM PATTERN OF LOTS AT LEAST 60-FOOT WIDE ON
THE BLOCK FACE.
STAFF FIND THE PROPOSED REESTABLISHMENT. ORIGINALLY PLATTED
LOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF
THE STUDY AREA BLOCK AND BLOCK FACE.
IN ADDITION, UNDERSTOOD OUR CODE SECTION 27-136 UNDER
PURPOSE, IT SAYS UNDER SUB1, THAT IT IS THE INTENT OF THE
CITY TO PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF LAND
AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL
ADVERSE EFFECTS TO OFF-SITE NATURAL ELEMENTS SURROUNDING
IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES, ACCORDING TO
THE STAFF REPORT.
THE STAFF HAS SAID THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY
OCCUPIED BY ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA EVER
CONFORMING TO THE RS-60 ZONING DISTRICT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
REQUIREMENT.
STAFF FIND THE PROPOSED RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ORIGINALLY
PLATTED LOTS PATENTLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE AREA.
IN ADDITION, UNDERSTOOD THE SAME SECTION, SECTION 27-136,
UNDER SUBSECTION 6, THAT THE CITY FIND THAT WE SHOULD BE

PROMOTING AND ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE IN
LOCATION, CHARACTER AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING
IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD, ENVIRONMENT AND EXISTING GEOGRAPHY.
ACCORDING TO THE STAFF, AND I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF
THIS, THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY ZONING DISTRICT RS-60
WITH EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ATTACHED ON ALL SIDES.
THE PROPOSED INTEGRATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
SURROUNDING AREA.
AND WITH THOSE, I ASK FOR A SECOND AND TO BE APPROVED.
8:12:51PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
I HAVE A MOTION.
8:12:55PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
MOTION TO DENY.
EXCUSE ME.
8:12:57PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION FROM MR. SUAREZ.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
8:13:04PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH CAPIN BEING ABSENT.
8:13:11PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
GO TO ITEM NUMBER 6.
8:13:13PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
REZ 18-39.
IT'S A REZONING REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1928 WEST UNION
STREET, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DETACHED.
8:13:25PM >>JENNIFER MALONE:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THIS IS LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT.

WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE E.
THERE IS TRANSIT CONVENIENT TO THE SITE LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF HOWARD AVENUE AND GREEN STREET, EAST-WEST
TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE.
I HAVE AN AERIAL HERE.
THE SITE IS OUTLINED IN PURPLE.
WE HAVE THE INTERSTATE TO THE SOUTH.
NORTH ALBANY AVENUE.
UNION STREET.
NORTH FREMONT.
WE HAVE COMMERCIAL USES ALONG WEST MAIN STREET.
SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
AND THEN SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED NORTH OF THE INTERSTATE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS RESIDENTIAL 20.
ZONING CATEGORY AS THEY ARE GOING FROM THE RM-16, HAVE THAT
RESIDENTIAL 20 WHICH ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY CATEGORIES.
TO THE SOUTH IS THE RED.
THAT IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 35 WHICH ALLOWS COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE USES.
WE DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
URBAN VILLAGE.
IT IS CURRENTLY A VACANT SITE.
IT'S ENCOURAGED BY THE PLAN AND WILL FORM THE INTENT OF THE
URBAN VILLAGE AND THE ADOPTIVE POLICY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
8:14:56PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
I HAVE AN AMENDED STAFF REPORT.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1928 WEST UNION STREET IN WEST
TAMPA.
IT'S RM-16.
AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT
ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE.
THERE IS A ZONING LOT.
HERE IS WEST MAIN STREET.
HERE IS UNION STREET.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S RELATIVELY NARROW. IT'S 30 FEET WIDE.
THERE IS A SMATTERING MUCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT
THIS IMMEDIATE AREA.
AND THEN TO THE SOUTH IS THE I-275.
I AM GOING TO TAKE YOU UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
I WILL NOTE THIS IS RM-16.
AGAIN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE IS FREMONT.
AND ALBANY.
TO THE NORTH SIDE IS AN RS-50.
ZONING DISTRICT.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THIS IS VACANT LOT BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
I AM GOING TO START GOING EAST.
AGAIN THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE STREET.
YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE THE HOUSES ARE AND HERE IS A VACANT
LOT WITH AN ADDRESS OF 1922 AND 1924.
1914.
1912.
ACROSS THE STREET INTO THE RM 50 ZONING DISTRICT.
BACK TOWARDS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE THESE HOUSES ARE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER.
WHICH I WILL GET TO IN ONE MOMENT AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN.
THAT MR. MIRANDA KIND SPOKE OF TO EARLIER IN THE LAST CASE.
AND THEN COMING BACK, RM 50 ZONING DISTRICT BACK TOWARDS THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE DID THE STANDARD ANALYSIS FOR EVALUATION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
I WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS IN WEST TAMPA, WEST OF THE OVERLAY
HAS A CODE PROVISION THAT YOU CAN REESTABLISH HISTORIC LOTS
OF RECORD PRIOR TO 2004.
THIS ACTUALLY IS HALF OF A LOT OF RECORD.
AND SO THEREFORE THAT'S WHY THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE
YOU TO DEVELOP THE ONE LOT, THE ONE HOUSE ON THE ONE LOT.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF THEIR PROPERTIES ARE IN COMMERCIAL, TO

THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.
THE STUDY AREA, THE STUDY AREA IS 73 TOTAL LOTS, 59 ARE
LARGER THAN 50 FEET WIDE.
AND THEN 40 SMALLER THAN 50 FEET WIDE.
THE SUBJECT LOT IS GENERALLY A LOT FACE.
THERE'S 11 LOTS.
AND 36% WERE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 50 FEET WIDE.
AND THE MAJORITY LESS THAN 50 FEET WIDE.
IF NOT 30, 35-FOOT LOTS.
THIS IS A ONE-LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
A NOTE OR COMMENT ABOUT THE AMENDED STAFF REPORT.
WHEN THE STAFF REPORT CAME OUT, BASED ON THE ORIGINAL
DESIGN, CODE REQUIRED A 24-FOOT BACKUP DISTANCE.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE THAT DISTANCE.
THEY WERE LACKING INSTEAD OF 24 FEET TO 16 FEET.
AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE STAFF REPORT, I CONTACTED THE
APPLICANT, AND THEY WERE WILLING TO MOVE THE PARKING SPACES
UP FURTHER INTO THE LOT TO REMOVE THE NEED FOR THAT WAIVER,
SO THEN THERE WOULD BE NO WAIVERS REQUIRED FOR THIS
APPLICATION PENDING THAT AGREEMENT THAT HE AGREES AND HE'S
HERE TONIGHT AND CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
SO THEREFORE HE HAS AMEND -- YOU HAVE AN AMENDED STAFF
REPORT THAT REFLECT NO WAIVERS, WITH CHANGES BETWEEN SECOND
AND FIRST READING, TO PLAN OUT SOME MISCELLANEOUS NOTES ON
THE SITE PLAN, AS WELL AS AGAIN LEAVING THAT TWO REQUIRED

PARKING SPACES FURTHER INTO THE LOT SO THEY HAVE THE
STANDARD, 24-FOOT BACK UP DISTANCE, AS WELL AS A COUPLE
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS NOTES REGARDING THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS.
BECAUSE OF THOSE CHANGES THAT WE COULD REACH AGREEMENT TO,
STAFF DOES FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
8:20:03PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
PETITIONER?
8:20:06PM >> GOOD EVENING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS JOSE GARCIA, TAMPA BAY, 122ND AVENUE, TAMPA
33612.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY ABOUT HOW WE ENDED WITH
THIS LOT, WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING RESIDENTIAL REHAB SERVICES
TO LOW-INCOME HOMEOWNERS IN THE WEST TAMPA AREA, STARTING
FROM 2009 TO THE PRESENT.
THE MOST RECENT EVENTS, OVER A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS THIS
YEAR TO REPLACE ROOFS, AND ADDRESS DAMAGES FROM IRMA STORM
LAST YEAR.
WE WORKED WITH THE BOARD TO UPGRADE AND MAKE 35 HOMES SAFER
AND HEALTHIER FOR CHILDREN LIVING IN WEST TAMPA.
SO UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE ARE LEARNING MORE OF
WHAT WE ARE DOING IN SULPHUR SPRINGS.
ONE OF OURS PROVIDED $80,000 FOR OPERATOR MARKET PROGRAM.
SHE PURCHASED EMPTY LOTS TO SIMPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSES.

SO WE HAVE ACQUIRED TWO LOTS.
EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PRETTY EXPENSIVE THERE, AND I'M SURE
YOU KNOW.
BUT THE SECOND HOUSE THAT WE WOULD BE BUILDING IN WEST
TAMPA, WE WOULD BUILD ONE BACK IN 2009 AND SINCE THEN
BECAUSE THE ECONOMY, WE DID TWO MORE, MOSTLY REHAB, BUT THIS
IS GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A FAMILY IN THE 140% OF
MEDIAN INCOME, WORKING FAMILIES, AND WE ARE HOPING THAT BY
BRINGING THIS HOUSE WE WOULD CONTINUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND
THE GROWTH OF WEST TAMPA, AND WE ARE HOPING THAT WITH YOUR
SUPPORT TONIGHT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GET THIS DONE.
THANK YOU.
8:22:14PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS?
8:22:24PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
WHAT IS THE PRAISE ON A HOUSE LIKE THIS?
8:22:27PM >> WELL, APPROXIMATELY 1,810,000.
YES.
8:22:30PM >> FIRST WAS 65,000 AND HALF OF THIS SIZE.
8:22:35PM >> YES.
PRICES ARE HIGHER THERE.
BUT WITH THE SUPPORT, AND PURCHASED THESE LOTS AND MAKE IT
EASIER FOR US OBVIOUSLY, TO BUY THIS.
8:22:51PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
8:22:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
[OFF MICROPHONE]
8:23:00PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM

NUMBER 6?
ITEM NUMBER 6.
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. MIRANDA AND SECOND BY MR. SUAREZ TO
CLOSE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
MR. VIERA.
8:23:14PM >>LUIS VIERA:
I MOVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST
READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE
GENERAL VICINITY OF 1928 WEST UNION STREET 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, RESIDENTIAL,
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
8:23:37PM >> SECOND.
8:23:39PM >>CHAIRMAN:
MOTION FROM MR. VIERA.
SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION?
OPPOSED?
8:23:44PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH CAPIN BEING ABSENT, COHEN
BEING ABSENT AT VOTE.
NEXT READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE ON OCTOBER 4, 2018 AT 9:30
A.M.
8:23:57PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.

ITEM NUMBER 7.
8:24:06PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
ITEM NUMBER 7 IS REZ 18-56.
THIS IS A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 46 COLUMBIA DRIVE FROM RS-60
TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
8:24:20PM >>JENNIFER MALONE:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT,
HIGH HAZARD AREA, EVACUATION ZONE A.
WE DO HAVE LOCATED AT TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, CLOSEST
RECREATIONAL FACILITY IS THE MARJORIE PARK YACHT BASIN.
I HAVE AN AERIAL ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU.
WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA.
WE HAVE THE WATER TO THE EAST ALONG WITH THE RECREATIONAL
USES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOMES, AND ALONG DAVIS BOULEVARD.
FUTURE LAND USE MAN, SURVEY SITE RESIDENTIAL 10, 10 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE, 0.83 ACRES, MULTIPLY THAT BY 10 TO FIND OUT
THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
SUBJECT SITE.
THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO RATE THIS.
THIS IS RESIDENTIAL.
THESE ARE PUBLIC, THE BLUE.
AND THEN THE GREEN IS RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE.
WE DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS IS IN-FILL.

AND AN AREA THAT IS PLANNED FOR UP TO TEN DWELLING UNIT PER
ACRE, IN THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE
SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS A PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT,
WILL BE OF SIMILAR FORM, SCALE, HEIGHT, WITH RESIDENTIAL
USES.
WE DID NOT FIND IT ALTERED THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
8:25:52PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
STAFF DID RECEIVE A LETTER OF OBJECTION
FROM THE DAVIS ISLAND CIVIC ASSOCIATION THAT WAS ADDRESSED
TO THE VARIANCE REVIEW BOARD BUT IT WAS FOR THIS CASE.
SO I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS HAVE IT.
[RUSTLING PAPERS] FOR THE CURRENT APPLICATION, WE ARE ON
DAVIS ISLAND AREA, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED RS-50.
IT'S A LARGE LOT.
YOU CAN SEE THIS AREA HERE, DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORY AND
DIFFERENT ZONINGS, RO-1, RM-24.
THIS IS ALL RM-24 WHICH IS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE SUBJECT
BLOCK ALONG DAVIS BOULEVARD.
THE ONLY REAL EXCEPTION FROM RS-50 FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IS BETWEEN HARBOR PLACE AND ON THE WESTERN SIDE
OF THE STREET.
ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE STREET, YOU HAVE A MIXTURE OF

KIND OF PUBLIC PRIVATE USES.
YOU HAVE TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL PARKING GARAGE.
YOU HAVE THE RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE.
THE TENNIS CLUB.
THE GARDEN CLUB.
SO THERE'S AREAS AGAIN ARE KIND OF PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC
IN NATURE.
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT THE VALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL FOR THIS APPLICATION.
ALL OF THIS AREA AGAIN IS PUBLIC QUASI-PUBLIC.
THESE BROWN MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED, THESE ARE
COMMERCIALLY ZONED SO REALLY IN THE STUDY AREA IS THE
SUBJECT BLOCK FACE.
THERE ARE 17 LOTS, DEVELOPED LOTS AROUND THIS SECTION.
47 OF WHICH ARE 60 FEET OR GREATER AND 53 ARE LESS THAN 60
FEET WIDE.
THIS IS THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WILL BE RETAINED AND BE WITHIN
THE CENTRAL LOT.
THE THREE LOTS WERE PLATTED AT 50 BY 114, WITH 5700 SQUARE
FEET, 50 BY 104.
THIS WOULD BE 200 SQUARE FEET AND THEN THE LAST LOT IS 50 BY
113, APPROXIMATELY 5600 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT 30.

AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE.
SO REALLY CREATING TWO ADDITIONAL LOTS FROM THE ONE.
THE PROPOSED SETBACKS ARE 20 FRONT, THE SIDE WOULD BE 3
FEET.
AGAIN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXISTING PORTION OF THE
EXISTING HOUSE WOULD ONLY BE THREE FEET, BUT THAT'S NOTED
AND WILL BE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEN REAR SETBACK OF 20 FEET WITH A MAXIMUM PROPOSED
HEIGHT OF 40 FEET.
THERE ARE SEVERAL CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING,
JUST MINOR MODIFIABLE CHANGES FROM THAT DEVELOPMENT.
NATURAL RESOURCES JUST WANTED ONE TREE NOTATION CORRECTED.
THAT CONCLUDE THE CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
BASED ON THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, WE ARE SLIGHTLY
MORE OF THE LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AS ORIGINALLY PLATTED,
PARTICULARLY ON THIS SECTION, THESE ARE SMALLER LOTS, A
CONTINUATION THAT PATTERN, AND THE SPECIFIC AREA.
STAFF DID FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND THERE ARE NO WAIVERS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
8:30:08PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
STAFF?
APPLICANT?
8:30:12PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS A UNIQUE PROPOSAL.
THERE WERE THREE ORIGINAL PLATTED LOTS.

THERE WERE THREE ORIGINAL PLATTED LOTS.
28, 29 AND 30.
THE ORIGINAL SPANISH MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL HOME WAS HERE.
AND THERE WAS AN ADDITION PUT ONTO IT IN THE 1910s.
THAT ADDITION WILL BE REMOVED FROM LOT 28.
AND THAT REMAINING SEPARATION BETWEEN LOT 29 AND 28 AND 30
WILL BE THREE FEET BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY
DESIGNED AND BUILT.
THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW 28 AND 29 TO BE DEVELOPED AS NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND RESTORE THE EXISTING HOME ON LOT
29.
STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSAL TO BE CONSISTENT.
IT'S SURROUNDED -- IT'S SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL AND
GOVERNMENTAL USES.
AND THE HOSPITAL.
SO EVERYTHING BEHIND HERE IS MULTIFAMILY.
THERE'S COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY DOWN HERE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HERE IN GREEN.
AND ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS HERE ARE ALL 50 FEET.
AND THEY ARE BEING SHOWN AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE
PROPOSAL IS.
IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT, YOU WILL SOON RECOGNIZE THE
HIGH-RISE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET.
ANOTHER PICTURE.
(NO ENCODER).

BASICALLY, WE ARE REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE TO BE ALTERED AND THEN RESTORED BACK TO
ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION.
I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH HISTORIC DIVISION OF THE CITY
AND THEY ARE HAPPY ABOUT TAKING IT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL
DESIGN AND BEING RESTORED.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I THINK THE STAFF COVERED THE REQUEST.
IT IS CONSISTENT.
IT'S BEING -- FOUND BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
STAFF.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.
8:33:28PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WAS BUILT WHEN?
BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED --
8:33:34PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
1925.
8:33:36PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IS IT ON ANY REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES?
8:33:40PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
BECAUSE IT WAS ALTERED IT'S NOT A
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE FOR MEDITERRANEAN
REVIVAL.
BUT WHEN IT FINISHED IT WILL BE BACK ON THAT CONSIDERATION.
8:33:49PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
SO THE ADDITION ITSELF WAS NOT PART OF THE
ORIGINAL PLAN, OR WOULD IT HAVE ADDED BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF
THE ORIGINAL 1925 PLAN?
8:33:59PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
NO, IT WAS ADDED IN 1980.

8:34:02PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
BUT IT WAS ADDED WITH MAKING IT LOOK MORE
LIKE THE 1925 DESIGN?
8:34:09PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
NO.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT GOES WITH THE REST OF THE HOUSE.
IT WOULD NOT BE WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER COMPATIBLE.
THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.
AND THERE IS ONE THAT'S A LITTLE MORE -- A LITTLE MORE
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT -- WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE IN THE
FUTURE.
WHEN THE OLD PORTIONS ARE TAKEN OFF AND IT'S RESTORED BACK
TO ITS MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL.
8:34:58PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
THAT'S THE SAME HOUSE?
WHAT IS THAT?
8:35:02PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THAT'S ANOTHER HOUSE.
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.
8:35:05PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I GOT IT.
8:35:06PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
IT WILL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOLKS AND BROUGHT BACK TO THEIR
STANDARD.
8:35:13PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
8:35:16PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
8:35:19PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN EARLIER.
AND IT'S A PD.

SO I WAS SORT OF STRUCK, TWO NEW STRUCTURES, EACH GOING TO
BE 40 FEET HIGH?
8:35:33PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FLOOD ZONE.
THE PEAK OF THE ROOF.
AND WHEN YOU ARE ON DAVIS ISLAND YOU ALREADY HAVE BEEN TO
MEET THE 10 FEET IN EXCESS BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD ZONE
ELEVATIONS.
SO 35 FEET WOULD BE NORMAL.
AND 40 FEET, THAT MEANS YOUR LOWER LIVING LEVEL ON THE NEW
STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO BE ELEVATED ABOVE THE FLOOD ZONE.
8:35:58PM >>HARRY COHEN:
THERE ARE THREE STORY BUILDINGS THAT ARE
BEING CONTEMPLATED, THOUGH, CORRECT?
8:36:05PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
YES.
TYPICALLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS PUTTING THE ENCLOSED GARAGE
ON THE FIRST LEVEL.
SO THAT YOU TAKE THE LIVING LEVEL OUTSIDE OF THE FLOOD ZONE.
8:36:13PM >>HARRY COHEN:
DO YOU HAVE RENDERINGS?
8:36:18PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I HAVE ELEVATIONS.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
8:36:49PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
[OFF MICROPHONE]
8:36:52PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
WELL, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
MISINFORMATION THAT THERE WERE PROPOSALS FOR AN APARTMENT
BUILDING.
THESE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DETACHED.
THEY EACH STAND ON THEIR OWN.

THEY ARE NOT ATTACHED.
THEY ARE NOT APARTMENTS.
THEY ARE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
8:37:07PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYBODY ELSE?
8:37:19PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
WE ARE A MEMBER OF THE DAVIS ISLAND CIVIC
ASSOCIATION AND EXPLAINED TO THEM.
THEY HAD A LETTER OF OBJECTION TO APARTMENTS THAT WERE BEING
PROPOSED THERE.
AND MET WITH THEM ON MONDAY.
AND EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT IT WASN'T APARTMENTS, THAT IT WAS
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND THEN THEY REVISED THEIR LETTER SAYING I GUESS
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WASN'T COMPATIBLE EITHER.
BUT I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE.
8:37:40PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYONE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 7?
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 7?
COME TO THE MIKE.
COME TO THE PODIUM.
8:37:58PM >> GOOD EVENING.
I AM DENISE CASSEDY, AND I AM PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIC
ASSOCIATION.
WE GOT THE INFORMATION, AND SOMETHING I SAID, I THINK THE
MAIN PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES,
THAT THE EXISTING WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, THERE'S NO
COMPLIANCE SETBACK.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
THE SETBACKS AREN'T -- THEY ARE NONCOMPLIANT.
SO IT'S 7 FEET ON A COUPLE OF SIDES BUT DOWN TO THREE FEET
ON ONE SIDE AND THAT'S NOT COMPLIANT NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK
AT IT.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE ARE HAVING.
AND THROUGH THE TREE CANOPY.
THEY HAVE TO TAKE DOWN A LOT OF TREES.
AND I KNOW THE CITY IS WORKING WITH THE DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES ABOUT THE TREE CANOPY AND THEY ARE PULLING DOWN
A LOT OF TREES.
SO THOSE ARE TWO OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS THAT THE DAVIS ISLAND
CIVIC ASSOCIATION HAS AND THE RESIDENTS ON THAT STREET.
HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH IT AS WELL.
8:38:58PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.
8:39:00PM >> AS DENISE JUST MENTIONED, OUR GREATEST OBJECTIONS RIGHT
OFF THE BAT ARE REALLY THE SETBACKS.
THERE ARE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES WITH RM-24.
AND THE RS-60, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT'S MORE CONSISTENT.
THEY GOT THESE THREE FOOT SETBACKS BETWEEN THE EXISTING
HOMES AND THE TWO NEW HOMES AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE WIDTH
OF THE LOTS IN BACK.
IT'S 38 FEET THE MIDDLE LOT.
WE HAVE GREAT PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
THE OTHER THING IS, THE EXISTING HOME, ONCE THE OTHER TWO

HOMES ARE BUILT, THERE WON'T BE ANY PARKING PROVIDED.
IT'S JUST BRICK PAVERS OUT FRONT.
SO WE FIND THAT PROBLEMATIC WHEN THE HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY
BUILT, IT WOULD HAVE HAD SOME KIND OF PARKING, PROBABLY ON
THE SIDE.
SO IT'S REALLY QUITE CHALLENGING.
THE OTHER THING WE FIND PROBLEMATIC LIKE I MENTIONED,
COUNCILMAN MENTIONED EARLIER, 40 FEET.
I REQUESTED ON SEPTEMBER 5th THAT WE GET A RENDERING
SHOWING ALL THREE HOMES SIDE BY SIDE AND I WAS TOLD THEY
WOULD WORK TO TRY TO GET IT TO US BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE STILL NOT RECEIVED.
THAT SO I THINK IT FAIR TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THAT EXISTING
STRUCTURE WILL LOOK LIKE WITH THE TWO NEW HOMES PROPOSED.
SO IN COMBINATION, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS.
THE DYNAMIC OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT ZONINGS, WE THINK IT
VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO RESPECT THE SETBACKS ON SIDE YARD
SETBACKS, FRONT YARD SETBACKS, REAR YARD SETBACKS, AND
BECAUSE I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME CHALLENGES, GOING FORWARD
WITH THAT.
THE PROPERTIES BEHIND US IN OUR RS-60 ZONING CATEGORY.
ALSO, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT MANY OF THE HOMES ON THE STREET
ARE NOT -- MANY OF THEM ARE 50 AND 60-FOOT WIDE.
IN FACT, THERE'S A NUMBER OF VERY BEAUTIFUL HOMES THAT ARE
MORE LIKE 150-FOOT WIDE.

SO I JUST WANT TO SET THAT RECORD STRAIGHT.
BEEN ON THE STREET FOR 33 YEARS.
WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN THE HOME THAT MR. MICHELINI SHARED.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
AND WE DO FIND IT PROBLEMATIC.
8:41:58PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NEXT SPEAKER.
8:42:02PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS KATHY FARZANEGAN AND I AM HERE WITH MY HUSBAND
FRED.
WE LIVE AT 82 COLUMBIA AND WE HAVE FOR 31 YEARS.
WE ARE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PD THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FOUND IS THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS
HAS BEEN DISCOURTEOUS TO OUR BLOCK.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN WHAT WE NORMALLY RECEIVE FROM OTHERS
WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING FOR REZONING.
THE PICTURES THAT YOU SAW THAT MR. MICHELINI SHARED IS NOT
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BLOCK.
IF YOU KNOW COLUMBIA DRIVE, IT'S ONE OF THE PRETTIEST BLOCKS
IN THE CITY.
AND IT IS FULL OF HISTORIC HOMES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED
BUT HAVE BEEN PRESERVED.
SO THERE'S AT LEAST SIX INCLUDING OURS ON THE STREET THAT ON
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
I AM GOING TO READ A LETTER THAT LINDA SAUL-SENA SENT TO
COUNCILMAN COHEN.

IN YOUR ROLE AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPRESENTING DAVIS
ISLAND, I INCH YOU TO REJECT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FOR
46 COLUMBIA DRIVE.
THIS SINGLE-FAMILY BLOCK OF HOMES FACING THE SANDRA FREEDMAN
TENNIS COMPLEX HAS BEEN DEPENDABLY STABLE SINCE THE FIRST
HOMES WERE BUILT THERE IN THE 20s.
IN 1977 WHEN I WAS A YOUNG PLANNER WITH THE TAMPA
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, I WROTE THE DAVIS
ISLAND PLAN WHICH IDENTIFIED BACK LOT SUITABLE FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.
PERIOD.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO CHANGE THE EXISTING PATTERN
OF ZONING.
IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE TO BE UP END AND
EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN TO SATISFY AND ARBITRARY REZONING
BLOCK.
THE ISSUE WE HAVE HERE IS THAT THE LOTS AT 46 COLUMBIA WAS
SOLD AS TWO BUILDABLE LOTS.
EVERY SINGLE HOUSE ON THIS BLOCK IS ZONED RS-60.
SO TO ARBITRARILY -- NOW, WE ARE ENCROACHED UPON BY THE REAR
AND THE BLOCK ON EITHER SIDE OF OURS, BUT THAT IS THE ONE
BLOCK THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY RESIDENTIAL.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PLAN IS ON A SCALE, AND IT ADDS
DENSITY, PARKING IS A NIGHT MAYOR ON COLUMBIA DRIVE.
SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DECLINE THIS CHANGE.

THANK YOU.
[BELL SOUNDS]
8:44:41PM >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS DON GREENE.
I'M A HISTORIAN.
I WORK AT HCC FOR MANY YEARS TEACHING HISTORY.
I LIVE AT 62 COLUMBIA DRIVE WITH MY WIFE NELL WHO IS HERE
THIS EVENING.
SEVERAL HOUSES DOWN FROM THE HOUSE IN QUESTION AT 46.
AND WE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 30 YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS.
FOREVER.
SINCE I AM A HISTORIAN I WOULD SAY SINCE THE BATTLE OF
GETTYSBURG WE HAVE BEEN AT 62 COLUMBIA DRIVE.
NOW, THE SITUATION AT 46, IT'S A RECENT PURCHASE.
THE LOT IS 153 FEET WIDE.
THERE'S ONE HOUSE ON IT RIGHT NOW.
AND THERE'S A LOT TO THE WEST WHERE YOU COULD BUILD A SECOND
HOUSE, I GUESS, WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES.
NOW, THERE WERE THREE OAK TREES, HUGE OAK TREES ON THAT LOT.
WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN.
NOW, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC BUT IT SOMETHING THAT I UNDERSTAND I
WOULDN'T OBJECT TO, BUT FOR THESE PEOPLE, TWO HOUSES ON THIS
LOT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
THEY WANT THREE HOUSES CROWDED IN ON THIS LOT.
UNDERSTOOD RS-60 THEY WOULD NEED 180 FEET LOT FOR THREE

HOUSES.
THEY HAVE 153 SO THEY ARE 27 FEET SHORT TO BUILD THREE
HOUSES.
SO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, LET'S CHANGE THE ZONING.
ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED TONIGHT IS THAT RS-60 HAS BEEN ON
THE BOOKS SINCE 1956.
I DID A QUICK CALCULATION, AND 62 YEARS.
SO RS-60 IS NOW ON SOCIAL SECURITY.
OUT OF 20% REDUCTION.
IT'S BEEN AROUND A WHILE, OKAY?
SO I GUESS YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THE RULES, YOU WANT TO CHANGE
THE RULES.
ALTHOUGH THE RULES HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 62 YEARS.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME IT'S A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT.
WHY CAN'T ANYBODY DO THIS?
ANYBODY ON DAVIS ISLAND COULD BUY UP SOME LOTS AND SAY,
WELL, WE WANT TO PUT SIX HOUSES WHERE THERE WERE TWO OR
THREE.
THERE'S NO HARDSHIP HERE. THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING
INTO WHEN THEY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.
THERE'S NO COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE THE ZONING.
[BELL SOUNDS]
AND I AM GOING TO SHOW THIS PICTURE AGAIN.
THIS IS OF THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH THE LAWYER, I
GUESS, TRIED TO MINIMIZE.

THIS IS A THREE-STORY -- THESE ARE TWO THREE-STORY BUILDINGS
ON EACH SIDE OF THE MAIN HOUSE THAT'S THERE NOW.
THREE STORIES.
THERE IS NO HOUSE ON THE BLOCK THAT IS THREE STORIES.
THERE ARE ONE STORY BUNGALOWS OR TWO-STORY HOUSES.
THESE WILL BE THE ONLY TWO, THREE-STORY HOUSES ON THE BLOCK.
THAT'S ANOTHER OBJECTION TO IT.
[BELL SOUNDS]
8:47:48PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
THANK YOU, SIR.
8:47:49PM >> OH, I HAVE MORE.
I'M SORRY.
AM I TOO LATE?
8:47:54PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
SIR, YOU ARE GOING TO GET 30 SECOND TO
SUMMARIZE.
8:48:04PM >> OKAY.
SO I'M 100% AGAINST IT.
FIRST THEY HAVE TO CUT DOWN, TO BUILD THREE HOUSES --
8:48:11PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
EXCUSE ME FOR A SECOND.
I AM GOING TO START YOUR 30 SECOND NOW BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
TURN THE CLOCK ON.
8:48:17PM >> OKAY, NOW?
ALL RIGHT.
SO WHAT THEY HAVE GOT TO DO FOR THREE HOUSES THAT THEY WANT
TO BUILD, THEY HAVE TO CUT DOWN NOT THREE OAK TREES BUT FOUR
OAK TREES.

THEY WANT TO GO TO BE 50-FOOT LOTS INSTEAD OF THE RS-60
WHICH I SAID HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 62 YEARS.
THEY WANT THREE-STORY HOUSES.
THERE ARE NO THREE-STORY HOUSES ON THE BLOCK.
SO THERE ARE WIDTH AND HEIGHT ISSUES.
SO I ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE AGAINST WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE AN
OUTRAGEOUS PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
8:48:52PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
THANK YOU.
8:48:54PM >> HELLO, GENTLEMEN.
I GUESS ALL GENTLEMEN.
COLUMBIA DRIVE, BEEN THERE FOR 17 YEARS AND IT'S
INCONSISTENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES ON THAT SPECIFIC BLOCK AND IT'S ALREADY
OVERCROWDED STREET.
WE HAVE A LOT OF CARS COMING IN FROM TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL
THAT PRETTY MUCH TAKE UP THE WHOLE STREET.
AND NOW THIS PROPOSAL IS GOING TO BE MORE CARS.
SO WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE SPACE RIGHT NOW.
IT'S A VERY DENSE AND COMPLEX LIVING ON DAVIS ISLAND.
WE HAVE SEEN IT OF WITH THE OTHER SIDE THERE.
THERE'S MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
BUT THIS HAS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
WE ARE LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 17 YEARS.
RAISING TWO CHILDREN.

LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I DON'T LIKE TO SEE THREE HOUSES.
AND DON'T LIKE TO SEE THESE LOTS SPLIT UP BECAUSE OF PROFIT
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY GET MOST MONEY OUT OF
IT.
AND I DON'T LIKE THE HEIGHT.
I DON'T LIKE -- TOO BIG FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK MAYBE FOR TWO RESIDENCE, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THEY NEED TO CONFORM TO THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S THE KEY. IT'S NOT RIGHT.
8:50:22PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
8:50:24PM >> MARIE ANTHONY.
54 COLUMBIA DRIVE.
WE NEED MORE GREEN SPACE.
AND WE DON'T WANT -- WE WANT TO ACTUALLY -- [RUSTLING
PAPERS]
AND THAT'S ALL.
AND I'M EVEN UNDERNEATH MY THREE MINUTES.
8:50:44PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
THANK YOU.
8:50:46PM >> MY NAME IS LARRY NIXON. I LIVE AT 38 COLUMBIA DRIVE.
MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 32 YEARS.
IF YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE DRIVEN DOWN COLUMBIA DRIVE RECENTLY,
WE HAVE THE HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR DP DAVIS BACK IN THE DAY.
MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1926 OR 25.

IT'S A CHARMING NEIGHBORHOOD.
TO SHOE HORN TWO MONSTROSITIES INTO THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE A
TRAVESTY AND APPARENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS ANYTHING TO YOU GENTLEMEN, BUT
IT'S AWFUL.
THANK YOU.
8:51:44PM >> I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT STANDING SOONER BUT AS I HEARD ABOUT THE
TREES, AND I SAW THE TREES ON THE SITE PLAN, I THOUGHT THAT
I HAD TO SPEAK.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE POLICY 939, URBAN DESIGN IN
NEIGHBORHOOD BY ENHANCING HISTORICAL -- DISTINCTIVE NATURAL
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS STRENGTHEN
NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONS AND REINFORCE TAMPA'S UNIFYING
DESIGN FEATURES.
THAT'S ANOTHER REASON.
TREES INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
WITHIN A 500 FOOT AROUND.
SO HAVING SEEN THE TREES ON THE PROPERTY INCREASES THE
NEIGHBOR'S VALUE MORE THAN THE PROPERTY WHERE YOU CUT THE
TREE DOWN.
SO ON AVERAGE, THESE ARE MATURE OAK TREES, $2,028 FOR EACH
TREE IN SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS PROPERTY VALUES.
SO I BELIEVE THEY HAVE PRESENTED THAT.
AND IT ISN'T LIKE THEY HAD A 100-FOOT LOT NEXT TO A 75 FOOT

LOT.
AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE THREE 58.3-FOOT LOTS.
SO IT IS SHY OF THE 60 FEET.
THEY ARE SHY 27 FEET.
SO THAT'S NINE FEET EACH.
SO THESE COULD AT MOST BE 65-FOOT LOTS.
SO THAT'S A FAR CRY FROM 60-FOOT MINIMUM.
PLEASE DENY THE REZONING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
8:53:22PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
PETITIONER.
8:53:25PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
COUNCIL, THERE'S SEVERAL PETITIONS THAT
WERE SIGNED BY FOLKS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY WHO WERE
SUPPORTING THIS PETITION.
[RUSTLING PAPERS] YOU ASKED ABOUT THE SETBACKS.
THE EXISTING HOUSE IS BEING PRESERVED.
THAT'S THE ISSUE.
IT'S A 1925 MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL HOUSE. IF THEY DEMOLISH
THE HOUSE, SURE, THEY COULD BUILD TWO HOUSES.
BUT THE POINT IS THEY WANT TO LIVE AND RESTORE THIS HOUSE.
AND YOU HAVE FOUR-FOOT SETBACK ON THIS SIDE, THREE FEET AT
THE CLOSEST CORNER, 7 FEET AT THE FRONT.
THESE ARE PIE-SHAPED LOTS.
THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY INSTITUTIONAL USES, HOSPITAL,
PARKING LOT, THE PARK ACROSS THE STREET IMMEDIATELY

ADJACENT, SOMEONE SAID THERE WERE NO THREE STORY HOUSES.
THIS IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE LOT TO THE SOUTH.
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT.
IT'S THREE STORIES.
8:54:29PM >> (SPEAKING FROM AUDIENCE).
8:54:35PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
HEY, HEY, HEY.
[SOUNDING GAVEL]
MR. MICHELINI, HOLD ON FOR A SECOND.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT OUTBURSTS IN THIS CHAMBER.
NOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THE OUTBURST WE ARE GOING TO
REMOVE YOU FROM THE CHAMBER.
DIDN'T ANY PERSON SPEAK OUT AGAINST YOU WHEN YOU CAME OUT TO
THE MIKE, SO SHOW SOME RESPECT.
GO AHEAD, SIR.
8:55:02PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I JUST POINT OUT TO COUNCIL THAT THE
STAFF AS YOU KNOW, IS DILIGENT IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ANALYZE
THE SITUATION.
AND THEY DETERMINED THAT IF YOU BACK UP TO MULTIFAMILY ON
ONE SIDE, YOU BACK UP INSTITUTIONAL USES ON THE OTHER SIDE,
AND MORE THAN 50% OF THE LOTS ON THIS BLOCK FACE ARE 50 FEET
OR LESS, AND YOU ARE COMPATIBLE.
I MEAN, THEY HAVE SAID.
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID IT.
THE CITY STAFF AGREED WITH IT.
WE HAVE NOT DISRUPTED ANY PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE CONSISTENT.
WE HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY REASON TO SEE THAT THIS IS NOT OUT A
CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT WITH WHAT HAS BEEN LOCATED THERE.
AND IN TERMS OF THE NEW PROJECT, TWO-CAR GARAGES, TWO-CAR
GARAGES, AND THIS PROPERTY HERE WHERE THEY SAID THEY HAD A
CONCERN ABOUT PARKING, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WASN'T BUILT WITH
A GARAGE.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROPOSAL FOR ON-STREET PARKING
WHATSOEVER.
WITH RESPECT TO DISRUPTING THE RHYTHM AND THE FLOW, THE ONLY
PARCEL THAT YOU CAN REQUEST AN EXCEPTION ON IS THE EXISTING
HOUSE TO BE RESTORED.
THE OTHER ONES WILL MEAT THE CODE.
WITH RESPECT TO TREES BEING REMOVED, THAT WILL HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THE REGULAR PROCESS.
WE HAVEN'T ASKED FOR A WAIVER, REMOVAL OF ANY KIND OF GRAND
TREE OR ANY KIND OF EXCEPTION FOR THAT.
IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND I WILL READ AGAIN FROM THE STAFF REPORT.
ALL OF THE EXISTING USES, PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL IN NATURE,
HAVE THE GENERAL ACC CENTER, MARJORIE PARK, DAVIS ISLAND
GARDEN CLUB WERE NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE INSTITUTIONAL
USES.
SO WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN FRONT OF A PARK THAT
BACKS UP TO MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS?

AND A HOSPITAL.
SINGLE-FAMILY, I THINK, IS COMPATIBLE.
WE ARE PROPOSING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE 1925 MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL
HOUSE.
I THINK THAT IT MEATS THE CODE.
THE STAFF AGREED.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.
8:57:16PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL?
8:57:18PM >>HARRY COHEN:
WELL, I MEAN, HERE IS THE ISSUE I'M HAVING.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE IDEA OF A HOUSE ON EITHER SIDE.
I SEE THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT AND I SEE SOME OF THESE
TREES HAVE BEEN MARKED AS HAZARDOUS SO I SEE IN FACT THEY
MAY NOT BE PRESERVABLE.
BUT THE ISSUE OF THE THREE FOOT SETBACK AND THE ISSUE OF
GOING TO 40 FEET INSTEAD OF 35 FEET IS THE HEIGHT
REQUIREMENT EVERYWHERE, AND I THINK ON DAVIS ISLAND, TOO, WE
HAD DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WHEN WE HAD ONE THAT CAME UP ON I
THINK ADALIA WHERE THERE WAS A TINY ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
35-FOOT HEIGHT.
SO IT'S NOT THE IDEA OF THE PD WITH THIS VERY UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCE BUT I JUST THINK IT TOO MUCH.
AND THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PD IS THAT YOU CAN DO WHATEVER
YOU WANT.

YOU CAN BUILD TWO HOUSES ON EACH SIDE THAT WEREN'T, YOU
KNOW, MASSIVE, AND BUSTING THROUGH THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
SO I'M NOT AGAINST THE CONCEPT.
BUT THE DETAILS HAVE GOT ME VERY CONCERNED WHEN I SEE THE
SIZE OF THOSE HOUSES.
8:58:40PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
MY CLIENT HAS JUST INFORMED ME THAT SHE
WOULD REDUCE THE HEIGHT TO A MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET.
AND THAT WE WOULD PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THAT WE COULD MAKE
THAT CHANGE ON THE SITE PLAN IF YOU APPROVE IT BETWEEN FIRST
AND SECOND READING.
8:58:54PM >>HARRY COHEN:
WHAT ABOUT THE SETBACK?
8:58:58PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THE SETBACKS FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ARE
7 FEET EACH.
FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE, WE CAN'T KNOCK OFF CORNERS OF THE
HOUSE.
8:59:06PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I THINK THAT WHAT I HEARD TONIGHT IS THAT
THEY JUST WANT THE HOUSES TO FIT INTO, YOU KNOW, THE PATTERN
ON THE BLOCK.
AND IN THE PAST WHEN WE HAD THESE TYPES OF ISSUES, THE WAY
THAT WE HAVE SETTLED IT IS BY REQUIRING THE SETBACK BETWEEN
THE HOUSES TO CONFORM TO THE ZONING.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IF IT WAS 7, 7, YOU WOULD HAVE
TO HAVE 14 FEET BETWEEN HOUSES.
8:59:37PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
WELL, THESE ARE 7 FROM THE PROPERTY LINE
TO THE NEW PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON EACH SIDE.

THE ONLY PARTS THAT ARE NOT, I MEAN IT'S 7 FEET AT THE FRONT
OF THE EXISTING HOUSE, AND IT'S 3 FEET AT THAT CORNER, AND 4
FEET AT THAT CORNER.
BECAUSE OF THE PIE-SHAPED LOT.
BUT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL MEET THE SETBACK ON THE WHOLE
SIDE.
DO I NEED TO GO OVER THAT AGAIN OR DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
9:00:05PM >>HARRY COHEN:
YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
9:00:08PM >> YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE SEE THIS SIDE YARD SETBACK BE
GREATER TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT EXISTING HOUSE.
9:00:15PM >>HARRY COHEN:
WELL, YEAH.
AND I THINK IF WE DID THAT, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT THE BLOCK ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.
I'M JUST -- YOU KNOW, IT'S A PD.
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.
ANYWAY, THAT'S MY COMMENT UNTIL THE OTHERS HAVE HAD THEIRS.
9:00:32PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THE ONLY ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE IS THE 50
FEET, YOU START MAKING THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IF YOU NEED 7
FEET ON THIS SIDE AND 7 FEET ON THIS SIDE.
YOU HAVE 36 FEET LEFT.
9:00:46PM >>HARRY COHEN:
YOU HAVE TO GET A LITTLE CREATIVE IN MAKING
IT FIT.
9:00:50PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
CAN I POLL MY CLIENT FOR A SECOND?
9:00:58PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
YOUR TIME IS UP.
9:00:59PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
WELL, IT'S STILL UP THERE.

9:01:01PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
IT SHOULDN'T BE.
MR. SUAREZ?
OKAY, MY CLIENT SAYS SHE CAN MOVE THE HOUSE, THE EXISTING
PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE OVER AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET, AND THAT
WOULD GIVE YOU 6 FEET ON THIS SIDE, AND 5 FEET AT THE
CLOSEST POINT ON THAT SIDE, 9 FEET AT THE FRONT, AND THEN
THAT WOULD BE 9 FEET, 7 FEET AT THE FRONT UP HERE.
AND WE CAN SHAVE OFF TWO FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THESE TWO NEW
PROPOSED STRUCTURES.
9:01:44PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
MR. MICHELINI, THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT YOU WANT TO SAVE,
HOW MANY STORIES IS THAT?
9:01:56PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
TWO STORY.
9:01:57PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
SO YOU ARE GOING TO TWO, TWO-STORY HOMES ON
EITHER SIDE.
AND I KNOW YOU ARE TRYING TO SAVE THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE
ITSELF.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE ENCROACHING ON THAT BY VIRTUE
OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE GOT THESE TWO LARGER BUILDINGS ON
EITHER SIDE.
AND WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NOT ONLY ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE
TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST, BUT IT IS ALSO SORT OF HOW T LOOK
AND FEEL OF IT, TOO, AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT CHARACTERISTICS IN OUR LAND USE PATTERNS AND CODES AND

EVERYTHING ELSE.
IT'S KIND OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
9:02:38PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I UNDERSTAND.
BE YOU KNOW, IF THEY WEREN'T PLANNING TO STAY THERE, RESTORE
IT AND LIVE IN THE HOME, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE
JUST PLANNING THREE HOUSES AND THEY WERE GOING TO SELL THE
HOUSE THAT THEY PLAN TO LIVE IN OFF, I WOULD SAY, YEAH,
THAT'S PROBABLY A BIGGER PROBLEM.
BUT THEIR INTENTION IS TO LIVE THERE, RESTORE IT.
THEY LIKE IT.
THEY HAVE GOT TO GO TO THE EXPENSE OF REMOVING A
NONCONFORMING ADDITION THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 80s.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS HERE FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO
DO.
AND I ASSUME THAT THEY ARE GOING IN WITH THEIR EYES WIDE
OPEN AND SAYING WE ARE GOING TO LIVE HERE.
ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH A 35 FEET STRUCTURE ON
EACH SIDE?
9:03:26PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IF I RECALL YOU DID SAY EARLIER THAT THE
STRUCTURE ITSELF BUILT IN 1925 STRUCTURE IS A
NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?
9:03:34PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
NONCONTRIBUTING BECAUSE OF THE ADDITION
THAT WAS ADDED IN THE 80s.
AND IT WAS BROUGHT BACK AND RESTORED TO THE 1925 ORIGINAL.

WE HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF IT.
CAN YOU SEE THAT?
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS.
9:04:00PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
OH, WITH THE ADDITION.
OKAY.
9:04:03PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THE GARAGE ADDITION IS WHAT'S BEING
REMOVED.
SO WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURE,
EVEN THOUGH IT'S A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE --
9:04:29PM >> I KNOW, YOU ARE SAYING CONTRIBUTED BECAUSE OF THE GARAGE
ATTACHMENT.
IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO THE
HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
9:04:36PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
IT'S POSSIBLE.
9:04:38PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
IT'S POSSIBLE.
YOU DON'T NOBODY YET.
9:04:42PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
WE DON'T KNOW YET UNTIL WE GO THROUGH
THE PRESERVATION FOLKS.
9:04:47PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I WASN'T SURE IF PRESERVATION FOLKS SAID IF
THAT'S REMOVED, THAT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
9:04:53PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
NO, THEY WOULD WANT SPECIFIC PLANS TO
EVALUATE IT AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE BRINGING IT BACK
TO ITS CONSISTENT ORIGINAL DESIGN.
WHICH WE WILL BE DOING.
THEY HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS AS YOU KNOW OF ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

9:05:06PM >> IF FOR SOME REASON, AFTER YOU GO TO THEM, THEY SAY, NO,
IT'S REALLY NOT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, THEN YOU CAN
PROBABLY TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE, OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
I'M ASKING A QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
9:05:22PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
WELL, IT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN TO BE
RETAINED.
I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE PD TO REMOVE THAT, I
WOULD THINK, AND LEGAL CAN SAY FOR SURE.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT AND THAT WOULD SORT OF BE
MISLEADING THE COUNCIL.
WHICH I AM NOT IN THE HABIT OF DOING.
9:05:42PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
NO, NO, DON'T MISS CHARACTERIZE MY WORD.
IT'S A QUESTION.
I AM NOT A CAUSING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.
I'M SAYING BY PROCESS, IF THAT IS SEEN AS A NONCONTRIBUTING
STRUCTURE, A HOMEOWNER, WHOEVER OWNS THAT HOME GOING
FORWARD, COULD COME BACK TO US TO ASK TO TEAR IT DOWN AND
BUILD SOMETHING ELSE.
THAT'S ALL I WAS ASKING.
AGAIN IT WAS NOT AN ACCUSATION.
9:06:06PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I UNDERSTAND.
IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH ANOTHER ZONING PROCESS
BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY SHOWN ON HERE TO BE RETAINED.

9:06:12PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
RIGHT.
NO, NO, I GET IT.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
9:06:17PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
9:06:19PM >>HARRY COHEN:
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE BEEN ANY?
I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD, I THINK, LIKE TO SEE WHAT A NEW PLAN
WOULD LOOK LIKE.
IT'S JUST A PD.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I SAID WHAT MY ISSUES ARE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK IT WOULD GO REALLY FAR WITH THE
NEIGHBORS TO JUST SEE WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AT 35 FEET AND
WITH THE RIGHT SETBACKS.
AND I THINK THAT MAYBE WE COULD MOVE IT ALONG.
9:06:55PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
COULD THAT BE ACCOMPLISHED BETWEEN FIRST
AND SECOND READING?
STAFF?
THE ADJUST THAT MR. MICHELINI STATED ABOUT CHANGE IT TO 35
FEET AND MAKING SOME SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS, HE WOULD HAVE TO
PUT IT ON HIS SITE PLAN, CORRECT HAD, FOR SECOND READING?
9:07:18PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
YES, SIR.
9:07:19PM >>HARRY COHEN:
IT'S MORE THAN JUST -- I WANT TO SEE THE
ELEVATIONS.
I WANT TO SEE -- THIS IS A PD SO IT'S A SITE SPECIFIC PLAN.
AND I WOULD WANT TO BE SEE WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE

WITH THE NEW CONFIGURATION?
THAT WOULD BE THE -- AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT
TO SEE IT, TOO.
AND THEN WE COULD GET A GAUGE.
I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT.
BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF WORK BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READING.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE US A VERBAL ANSWER, NOT A NOD.
9:07:45PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
YES, SIR.
IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THE APPLICANT COULD ACHIEVE BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING.
YOU CAN REDUCE THE HEIGHT FROM 45 TO 35 FEET, INCREASING
SETBACKS OF LOT TO FROM 7 FEET TO 9 FEET AND THEN THE
APPLICANT CAN REVISE THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED AT SECOND
READING.
9:08:05PM >>HARRY COHEN:
WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE WITH ALL THREE HOUSES
SO WE CAN GET A SENSE OF THE SCALE OF THE THING.
AND THEN I SUPPOSE WE WILL HEAR -- AND THAT, AND THEN I
THINK OUT OF FAIRNESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU HAVE SAID
THAT OUR EVENINGS ARE ALL BOOKED UP.
BUT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IT CONCURRENT ON ONE OF OUR
ALCOHOL NIGHTS.
9:08:32PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
THE SECOND READING?
OKAY.
9:08:36PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
MOTION BY MR. MANISCALCO.
SECOND BY MR. COHEN.
ALL IN FAVOR?
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
MR. SUAREZ.
MR. COHEN.
9:08:53PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I'LL TAKE IT.
DO WE HAVE A DATE FOR THE SECOND READING?
BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE GOING TO NEED ENOUGH TIME TO -- AND I
WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR WHEN I MAKE THE MOTION.
9:09:09PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
BASED ON YOUR CALENDAR, THE 27th
WON'T WORK.
PERHAPS OCTOBER 25th.
9:09:23PM >>HARRY COHEN:
IS THAT ENOUGH TIME, OCTOBER 25th?
9:09:29PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THAT'S FINE.
9:09:30PM >>HARRY COHEN:
SO THE SECOND READING WOULD BE OCTOBER
25th, 6:00 P.M.
I MOVE THE ORDINANCE PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL
VICINITY OF 46 COLUMBIA DRIVE 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, AND THAT THE SECOND READING
WOULD BE IN THE EVENING ON OCTOBER 25th, 2018 AT
6:00 P.M., AND THAT ALL OF THE REQUESTED CHANGES THAT WERE
DISCUSSED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING WOULD BE MADE,
AND WE WOULD HAVE ELEVATION SHOWING ALL THREE HOUSES FOR IT
TO BE REVIEWED BY US AND BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
9:10:15PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
ALSO SOME STAFF COMMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE
ADDRESSED.
9:10:22PM >>HARRY COHEN:
I WOULD INCORPORATE THOSE AS WELL.
9:10:24PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MOTION BY MR. COHEN.
SECOND BY MR. VIERA.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
GO TO ITEM NUMBER 8.
GO AHEAD AND ANNOUNCE IT.
9:10:38PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED --
9:10:43PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
MARY SAMANIEGO.
9:10:46PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
WHOA, WHOA.
9:10:47PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH SUAREZ VOTING NO AND CAPIN
BEING ABSENT.
NEXT READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE ON OCTOBER 25th, 2018
AT 6:00 P.M.

9:10:58PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 8.
9:11:02PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
I APOLOGIZE.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID ITEM NUMBER 8.
IT'S A REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 3905 WEST CORONA
STREET FROM RS-60 TO PD, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL.
9:11:19PM >>JENNIFER MALONE:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
IT'S LOCATED ALONG BE -- WEST CORONA AVENUE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE.
WEST CORONA STREET.
IT'S IN SOUTH TAMPA, WITHIN THE EVACUATION ZONE C.
WE HAVE TRANSIT LOCATED ABOUT 1400 FEET TO THE EAST ALONG
SOUTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.
SOUTH ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY OUT OF FRAME BUT IT WOULD BE
RIGHT OFF HERE.
BEFORE THE I ZOOM OUT AT MORE.
AND THE PARK LOCATED ABOUT THREE MILES TO THE EAST.
THE AERIAL IS A LOT OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
HOMES THAT GOING TO BE REFLECTED WHEN I SHOW THE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP. THIS IS RESIDENTIAL 10 IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SLIVER OF PINK ON THE EAST IS COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35.
THAT'S JUST A LITTLE OF THAT COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD BE DALE
MABRY HIGHWAY THAT WE SEE SPILL OVER ON THAT MAP.
SUBJECT SITE IS RESIDENTIAL 10, 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
WE CALCULATE THAT BY TAKING THE ACREAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE

AND MULTIPLYING IT BY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY WHICH IS
10, AND THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
WE FOUND THAT THERE'S A MIXTURE OF LOT SIZES ALONG THIS
PORTION OF WEST CORONA STREET.
WE DID ALSO FIND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENCOURAGES THE
IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING ON UNDERUTILIZED LAND.
THE POLICY IS SPECIFICALLY POLICY 1.1.16, HSG POLICY 1.3.4,
WE FOUND THIS PROPOSED PD WILL FURTHER WITHIN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT'S AN AREA PLANNED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
AND THIS DOES ALTER THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
ALONG WEST CORONA STREET.
I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE SITE.
I AM AVAILABLE.
9:13:21PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS AT 3905 WEST
CORONA STREET.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN GREEN.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S TWO LOTS TO THE WEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF CORONA AND CHURCH AVENUE.
IT THERE ARE SEVERAL REZONINGS ON THE MAP.
IT IS RS-50 OR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
GOING UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 3905.
WE ARE GOING WEST.

3907.
3907.5.
3909.
YOU CAN SEE THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
AND THE SCALE OF THE PROPERTIES.
CROSSING THE STREET COMING BACK TOWARDS THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
3914.
SINGLE STORY.
TWO STORY.
MORE CONTEMPORARY DESIGN.
LARGER HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY.
ACROSS THE STREET, TWO-STORY HOMES.
AND THEN CROSSING BACK THE SAME LOT SIZE AND NEXT TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE IS THE ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHIN THE
STUDY AREA.
DALE MABRY, THE PROPERTIES ARE COMMERCIAL, SO THEY WERE NOT
CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS.
140 TOTAL LOTS WERE REVIEWED, 74 OF WHICH ARE 50 FEET WIDE
OR WIDER.
AND THE REMAINING 26% IS LESS THAN 60 FEET THAN THE SUBJECT
LOT.
15 LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.
56% ARE 50 FEET OR LARGER OR 47 -- I'M SORRY, 44% ARE LESS

THAN 60 FEET WIDE.
ON THE BLACK FACE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHERE THERE ARE LESS THAN
60-FOOT WIDE LOTS.
TWO ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AS WELL AS ONE CATTY-CORNER TO IT.
THIS IS THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE NO WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED.
HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.
THE TWO LOTS.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL TREES, EITHER ON
ADJOINING PROPERTY, PROPERTY LINE TREES OR ON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
FOR THE EXISTING LOT, STAFF, IN AN EFFORT TO PRESERVE
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER'S TREES, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT,
BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING, WE ARE ASKING THAT THIS
LOT IS SPLIT SO THE DRIVEWAY WHICH IS NOW LOCATED HERE, IT
WILL BE A MIRROR IMAGE OF THE DRIVEWAY, AND REMOVAL OF THESE
TREES.
STAFF FELT THAT WAS ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION, TO PRESERVE THE
LARGER GRAND TREE ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE DIRECT
WEST.
THE OVERALL LOT LIGHT IS 35 FEET WHICH IS STANDARD FOR THOSE
HOUSES.
THE SIDE SETBACKS ARE -- 7, AND 20-FOOT REAR, SETBACK 35,

MINIMUM SETBACK.
BECAUSE OF THE TREE LOCATED IN THE BACK.
AND THEN THE FRONT, THIS ONE IS 7 FEET SETBACK BECAUSE OF
THE PORCH LOCATED IN THIS VICINITY.
AND THEN THIS IS A LARGER SETBACK AGAIN TO TRY TO PUSH THE
HOUSE FURTHER AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM THIS LOVE OAK TREE.
THERE ARE JUST A NOTE ABOUT THIS TWO CAR GARAGE, AND THE
CONFIGURATION OF THIS HOUSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.
BASED ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE
PATTERN OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
COMPLIANCE STAFF DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
[RUSTLING PAPERS] CHANGES TO BE MADE BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READING.
9:18:34PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
PETITIONER?
9:18:38PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER.
THE STAFF REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.
THE SETBACK IS NOT 17 FEET.
IT'S 17 FEET TO THE PORCH BUT THE PORCH IS ALLOWED TO
ENCROACH.
EIGHTS 25-FOOT SETBACK TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
AND THE FOCAL POINT, WE HAVE SOME TREES HERE.
WE ARE AGREEABLE TO FLIPPING THE DESIGN TO MOVE THE DRIVEWAY

FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TREES.
WE PROVIDED A 35-FOOT SETBACK OF ONE OF THOSE PROPOSED LOTS
TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT TREE.
AND THEN WE HAVE TRIED TO ADJUST THINGS AROUND SO WE WOULD
HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT POSSIBLE.
WE WILL BE MEETING THE 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON BOTH OF
THEM.
BOTH ARE 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE STAFF REVIEWED WITH YOU THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
AND WE ARE NOT DISRUPTING ANY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
REGARDING OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEVELOPED IN THE 50-FOOT
SPACING.
YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE ALL AROUND HERE.
OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN RED IS LESS THAN 60 FEET.
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE ARE ESTABLISHING A NEW
PAT EACH.
THE PATTERN EXISTS ALREADY FOR THE SMALLER LOT DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ADDING TO OR INCREASING ANY KIND OF
INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE WILL BE PAYING OUR OWN WAY FOR ALL THE WATER, SEWER,
TRANSPORTATION.
WE HAVE TWO-CAR GARAGES THAT ARE ON OUR PROPERTY.
WE ARE NOT RELYING ON ANY ON-STREET PARKING AT ALL.
AND THE STAFF HAS INDICATED BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
THE CITY ZONING STAFF HAS INDICATED THAT THERE ARE NO

OBJECTIONS, NONE THAT IS BEING FOUND CONSISTENT WITH BE THE
PROPOSAL.
AGAIN ON THIS PROPERTY, WE WALKED AROUND.
WE TALKED TO NEIGHBORS.
WE GAVE THEM VERY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE WERE
PROPOSING, WHAT THE SETBACKS WERE, THAT IT WAS A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, AND WHAT THE DIMENSIONS WERE, AND I HAVE A
PETITION TO BE RECEIVED AND FILED AND MADE PART OF THE
RECORD THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT A GENERIC ONE.
IT DOESN'T COVER MY GENERAL DISCONTENT OVER A PROPOSAL.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
BUT WE AGREE WITH THE STAFF, BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION AND
CITY STAFF.
AND THIS IS NOT DISRUPTIVE TO ANY OTHER ADJACENT
NEIGHBORHOOD, DOES NOT ESTABLISH NEW DEVELOPMENT PATTERN,
AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE.
9:21:18PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL TO THE
PETITIONER?
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 8, PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
9:21:26PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THREE NAMES.
JAMIE.
THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.
JEN RASE.
ANGELO FERNANDEZ.
THANK YOU.
THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
9:22:21PM >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS ANDREW PARDUN.
I'M AN ATTORNEY FOR HOWARD LEE AND AUGUSTUS PERADA, WHICH
ARE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO 3905.
THEY LIVE AT 3903.
MY LAST NAME FOR THE COURT REPORTER WHO IS PRESENT TODAY IS
P-A-R-D-U-N.
I JUST PASSED OUT SOME EXHIBITS. I AM GOING TO REFER TO
THEM.
FEEL FREE TO LOOK AT THEM.
I WILL PUT SOME THINGS ON THE PROJECTOR AS WELL.
BUT I WANT TO START WITH THE REVIEW OF THE CASE OUT OF THE
SECOND DISTRICT REGARDING LOT SPLITTING.
THE CITY OF TAMPA, 2nd DISTRICT RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD,
SAYS WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER APPLIES TO HAVE HIS ZONING
CLASSIFICATION CHANGED, THE BURDEN RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT
TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUATION OF THE PRESENT
CLASSIFICATION WOULD BE ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, OR
CONFISCATORY. I KNOW YOU ALL ARE AWARE OF THE STANDARDS BUT
I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND REVIEW THAT BEFORE WE BEGAN.

TURNING TO TAB 2, I AM GOING TO PUT THIS UP.
THIS IS A MAP OF 3909 AND 3905.
3909, 3909 IS CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL IN 2014.
IT'S ONLY TWO PARCELS AWAY FROM 3905 WHICH IS THE PROPERTY
THAT WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND IT IS REQUESTED ZONING.
CHANGE WAS FROM RS-60 TO PD.
AND THAT WAS DENIED IN 2014.
YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORTS FROM BOTH 3905 AND 3909.
THEY ARE REFLECTED ON TAB NUMBER 3 AND TAB NUMBER 4.
THESE REPORTS ARE IDENTICAL.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT 3909 FROM 2014 WAS FOUND TO BE
INCONSISTENT.
3905 WHICH WAS JUST CREATED LAST WEEK WAS FOUND TO BE
CONSISTENT.
SO I DO BELIEVE THAT FOLLOWING PRECEDENT IS IMPORTANT, AND I
DON'T KNOW HOW YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO THE DEVELOPER THAT IT WAS
DENIED IN 2014, AN IDENTICAL PARCEL, ONLY TWO DOWN THE ROAD,
AND TODAY IS BEING GRANTED AS CONSISTENT.
I BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO TAB NUMBER 5.
ALSO, I DID WANT TO MENTION ON THE ZONING REPORTS FROM 2014
AND THE PRESENT REPORT FROM 2018, ALL STATISTICS ARE THE
SAME.
WHEN YOU TAKE THE 1,320-FOOT RADIUS, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S
76% WITH LOT SIZE 60 OR GREATER AND ONLY 24% FALL UNDERNEATH

60 FEET.
SO THOSE STATISTICS ARE THE SAME.
TURN TO TAB NUMBER 5 AND LOOKING AT THE TAMPA CODE OF
ORDINANCES YOU CAN SEE THE 1,320 FEET RADIUS IS THE STANDARD
FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A LOT IS CONSISTENT OR NOT.
I AM GOING TO SITE SECTION 2711 WHICH IS THE CREATION OF NEW
LOTS, REDUCTION OF A LOT OR YARD DIMENSION FOR MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT.
THE TAMPA CODE STATES THAT NO DIVISION OR RECONFIGURATION AN
EXISTING ZONING LAW WITHOUT A RECORD MAY OCCUR WHICH IS
PATENTLY I AM CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LOT, DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN IN A RADIUS OF 1,320 FEET, A QUARTER OF A MILE.
WITHIN THIS QUARTER OF A MILE THE PROPERTIES THAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY, 75% OF THEM ARE GREATER THAN 60 FEET
AND ONLY ROUGHLY 25% ARE LESS THAN 60 FEET.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION ON ITEM NUMBER 5 THAT YOU ALL
HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ON LEONA, THAT
WAS FOUND TO BE -- THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING WAS DENIED
TODAY.
THAT'S JUST RIGHT DOWN THE STREET.
SO I DO THINK THE PRECEDENT IS IMPORTANT. IF YOU ARE GOING
TO RULE ONE WAY AND FIND THAT A PROPERTY IS INCONSISTENT
FOUR YEARS AGO I ASK THAT YOU DO THAT AGAIN TODAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO TAB NUMBER 6 WHICH
IS THE ZONING ATLAS.

RIGHT HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE ZONING ATLAS.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL OF THIS IS RS-60.
THE ONLY OUTLIER IS PD, WHICH IS EAST OF CHURCH AND RIGHT
OFF OF THE DALE MABRY CORRIDOR.
THERE ARE LOTS THAT UNDERSTOOD 60-FOOT FRONTAGE WITHIN THIS
AREA, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF A REZONING GRANTED BY
THIS COUNCIL.
THEY ARE THE SUBJECT OF 80% RULE OR THEY HAVE BEEN
GRANDFATHERED IN.
SO GRANTING THIS REQUEST TODAY WOULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM
WHAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
LASTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT ATTENTION TO TAB NUMBER 7,
THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE TAMPA URBAN DESIGN AND
LAND POLICIES.
BOTH OF THESE POLICIES STATE AN IDENTICAL VERBIAGE.
THE INTENT OF THE CITY NEW RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SHOULD BE MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE TO THE ADJACENT AREA.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THIS LANGUAGE APPEARS IN POLICIES THAT I FEEL ARE VERY
IMPORTANT.
AS YOU HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS OF VIRGINIA PARK WITH
REGARDS TO THE LEONA PROPERTY, GRANTING THESE REZONING
REQUESTS IS GOING TO DRASTICALLY AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE
PROPERTY.
THE BIG SHADED LOTS THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT BEFORE.

WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS REQUEST FOR REZONING TODAY.
THANK YOU.
9:28:23PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THREE NAMES.
BEVERLY RICHIE.
THANK YOU.
ANN BYRD.
LAURI TILTON.
THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
9:28:58PM >> IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WILL TRY TO BE AS QUICK AND
ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.
IT'S GETTING LATE.
I PROBABLY DON'T NEED ALL THREE EXTRA MINUTES.
I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL SAY MY NAME IS HOWARD TURRI, I
LIVE AT 4021 WEST LEONA.
I HAVE BEEN THERE 24 YEARS.
I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A LONG TIME,
AND WANT TO SEE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTED, AND WITH R 60
ZONING AND RETAINING THE CHARACTER THAT I HAVE COME TO KNOW
AND LOVE, BUT NOT ONLY THAT, THAT IS WHY WE BOUGHT THERE IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY MARY, THE STAFF, AS WELL AS THE
ATTORNEY.
BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT THE
SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WE GET INTO WHEN WE START TO DO THESE
ONE-OFF REZONINGS.

I'LL SAVE SOME TIME, NOT GETTING INTO HOW LONG THE 06-FOOT
FRONTAGE HAS BEEN IN PLACE.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND
IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF VIRGINIA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD IS
RS-60, AND VERY FEW, RELATIVELY FEW REZONED TO EITHER PD OR
RS-50.
THIS IS SORT OF THE DOMINO EFFECT THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN ONE
HAPPENS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE PERCENTAGES CHANGE AND THEN
ANOTHER ONE HAPPENS AND THE PERCENTAGES CHANGE EVEN FURTHER.
SO I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION ON ALL OF THESE REZONINGS.
THE 1320-FOOT, THAT'S A QUARTER MILE, 75% ARE GREATER THAN
60 FEET AND 57% ARE -- GREATER THAN 60 FEET.
75% ARE GREATER THAN 50 FEET.
I BLOCKED OUT AN AREA EAST BECAUSE THAT'S THE PALMA CEIA
NEIGHBORHOOD.
59% ARE GREATER THAN 50 FEET WIDE AND 74% ARE 60 FEET WIDE
OR GREATER.
WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, AND THEY HAVE
SAID THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER.
AND I PRESENTED HERE, AND SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
MAINLY FOR THE SMALLER GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS SUCH AS BLOCK FACE
AND BLOCK.
AND YOU GET INTO THE WHOLE RULE OF SMALL NUMBERS.
A BLOCK FACE MIGHT HAVE 14 OR A BLOCK MAY HAVE 14 OR 15
PARCELS.

A BLOCK FACE COULD HAVE AS FEW AS SIX OR SEVEN.
BY CHANGING JUST ONE OF THOSE PARCELS CAN DRAMATICALLY
CREATE A BIAS AGAINST PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE.
AND ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT IS BY EXCLUDING THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
IT'S A POINT JUST TO MAKE, TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO THAT WHEN YOU
START TALKING ABOUT SMALLER NUMBERS, EVERY LITTLE CHANGE TO
THOSE SMALLER NUMBERS CAN DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE
PERCENTAGES.
THE 1320 IS GOING TO BE THE MOST STABLE BECAUSE IT IS THE
LARGEST GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE 80% RULE, HISTORY.
WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
I THINK THAT'S BEEN WELL DOCUMENTED.
I ALSO HAVE A WARRANTY DEED FOR THE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY
THAT WAS SOLD IN 1977, LONG AFTER THE RS-60 FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD HAD BEEN SET.
THE HOUSE WAS BUILT BE IN 1952.
AGAIN, AFTER -- BEFORE THE STANDARDS BE BUT LONG BEFORE THE
CURRENT OWNER'S FAMILY OWNING THE PROPERTY CAME INTO
OWNERSHIP.
SO I BELIEVE THERE'S NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION FOR THEM TO
FEEL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THEY COULD SPLIT THE LOT AND
BUILD TWO HOUSES ON IT.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS A LOT SPLIT.
IT'S A 100-FOOT WIDE LOT AND THEY WANT TO SPLIT IT AND PUT
TWO HOUSES UP WHERE THERE IS ONE.
AND ONE LAST THING.
THE PICTURES OF THE HOUSE SHOWS THE LOVELY HOUSE.
THERE'S A LOVELY HOUSE WITH A BEAUTIFUL TREE IN THE FRONT
YARD THAT WILL CHANGE DRAMATICALLY IF THIS IS APPROVED.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION AND THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I LEFT YOU A MINUTE AND A HALF.
9:33:30PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
ONE NAME.
JEREMY WAITE.
ONE ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
9:33:51PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS AMY WAITE AND I AM A RESIDENT OF 3907 WEST CORONA
STREET.
MY PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY WEST OF THE PROPERTY AT 3905.
I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA PARK FOR EIGHT YEARS.
I AM GIVING MY EXPERT TESTIMONY, INCREDIBLE AND -- AND
CREDIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
I WOULD LIKE TO BEING PUT ON NOTICE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER.
I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY CITING POLICY 9.3.8.
IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS SHALL BE MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE TO

ADJACENT AREAS.
I BELIEVE THE REZONING REQUEST FROM 3905 WEST CORONA WILL
CREATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR THE SIX RESIDENCES THAT
LIVE TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE NEED TO REMEMBER
ALL OF THE RESIDENCES.
TWO OF THE SIX RESIDENCES INCLUDE ELDERLY RESIDENTS, ONE OF
WHICH ENDURES SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.
TO PLACE THE EXPECTATION AND STRESS OF HAVING ALL SIX
RESIDENCES CHANGE THEIR ADDRESS CREATES ENOUGH HARDSHIP ON
THE INDIVIDUALS AT THESE RESIDENCES.
I WILL HAVE TO QUESTION BY NOT UPHOLDING THE LOCAL ZONING
DISTRICT RS-60, THE CITY OF TAMPA, OR ADVERSELY IMPACTED
RESIDENT WITH DISABILITY, AND THEREBY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE DELIVERY OF ADDRESSES WILL BE
INCORRECT FOR YEARS TO COME, AFTER ADVISING EVERY SINGLE
RESIDENT TO UPDATE THEIR MAILING ADDRESS AND FOR ALL OF
THEIR CONTACT TO UPDATE THEIR RECORDS.
THIS EXPECTATION IS UNREALISTIC AND IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE
MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE.
I BELIEVE I AM AN EXPERT IN THE CONFUSION OF MAIL IN REGARD
TO SPLITTING OF LOTS.
AS STATED EARLIER, MY ADDRESS IS 3907.
AND OUR HOUSE IS A HALF BLOCK BUILT IN THE LATE 1980s
UNDERSTOOD THE 80-20 RULE.

FOR YEARS WE HAVE DEALT WITH MAIL BEING DELIVERED TO THE
CORRESPONDING HALF LOT.
THIS PAST CHRISTMAS EVE, I RECEIVED A PANIC MESSAGE FROM MY
NEIGHBOR AT 3907.5 STATING THAT SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY OF
HER CHRISTMAS GIFT FROM THE CHILDREN.
WE WERE OUT OF TOWN.
BUT ANOTHER NEIGHBOR CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD ACTUALLY PICKED
UP THE ROUGHLY 20 PACKAGES FROM OUR DOORSTEP FOR SAFE
KEEPING SINCE HE BELIEVED THEY WERE OURS.
THIS IS JUST ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN AND THE
EXCESSIVE DISRUPTION THIS WILL CREATE FOR THE MAIL AND OTHER
SERVICES WHEN HALF LOTS ARE CREATED.
WHEN YOU SQUEEZE IN AN EXTRA ADDRESS INTO A GRID SYSTEM,
DISRUPTION WILL BE CREATED, WHETHER A HALF ADDRESS IS ADDED
IN, OR WHETHER ALL REMAINING HOUSES ON THE BLOCK HAVE TO BE
RENUMBERED.
I CAN ATTEST TO THIS FIRST HAND, AS DELIVERIES AND GROCERY
DELIVERY SERVICES HAVE CONSISTENTLY KNOCKED AT MY DOOR LATE
IN THE EVENING AND WAKE MY VERY CURIOUS SMALL CHILDREN.
IN ADDITION, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT SPEAK TO THE
SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
REZONING CREATES ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT
I AM UNWILLING TO ACCEPT.
THE SHORT DRIVEWAY OF 17 FEET THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE

DEVELOPER'S UPDATED PLAN WILL NEST REPLY RESULT IN CARS ON
THE SIDEWALK AND FORCING OUR CHILDREN INTO THE STREET WHEN
WALKING OR RIDING BIKES OR SCOOTERS.
OUR CONTRIBUTION WENT TO THE INSTALLATION OF THESE
SIDEWALKS.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
9:38:01PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
9:38:02PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
ONE NAME.
KEVIN DUNNE.
THANK YOU.
ONE ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
9:38:23PM >> GOOD EVENING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M THOMAS CONNOLLY, 3823 WEST PALMIRA AVENUE AND THE
PRESIDENT OF THE VIRGINIA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I HAVE ALMOST THE EXACT SAME FACTS TO PRESENT AS I DID WITH
4024 AND I DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THAT.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS ONE PARAGRAPH AND SLIDE NUMBER 5.
IN THE ONE PARAGRAPH IS BUILT ON WHAT THE FIRST SPEAKER
SAID.
THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY YOUR SUPPORT STAFF IN
1465 FOR 3909 WEST CORONA, THREE HOUSES TO THE WEST, STATED
THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA ARE
CONFORMING WITH THE RS-60 ZONING DISTRICT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH

REQUIREMENT, AND THE PROPOSED LOT WIDTH IS PATENTLY
INCONSISTENT.
AND THAT WAS STATED IN THE REZ 1465 BY THE SAME PLANNER WHO
DID THIS ONE.
AND THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS FOR 3905 WEST CORONA.
SO JUST A SUMMATION.
I WOULD HAVE SAID ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME FACTS ON THE
HISTORY OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENT BACK IN 1956, THE RO-1, RO
60.
THE SAME POINTS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BUT I WANT TO STRESS THE FACT THAT THE SAME PLANNER AND
STAFF IN THE REZ 1465 SAID IT WAS PATENTLY INCONSISTENT, AND
NOW WITH THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS THE FIRST SMEAR STATED
AND PROVIDED IN HIS TAB IS A DIFFERENT DECISION.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE REZONING APPLICATION.
THANK YOU.
9:40:14PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THREE NAMES.
SEAN BUTLER.
THANK YOU.
CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ.
THANK YOU.
JACK HUDSON.
THANK YOU.
9:40:35PM >> MY NAME IS CAROL ANN BENNETT. I LIVE AT 4116 WEST
SANTIAGO STREET.

I WOULD LIKE TO BE PUT ON NOTICE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER.
I LIVED IN SOUTH TAMPA MY ENTIRE LIFE AND LIVED IN VIRGINIA
PARK 28 YEARS.
THIS MAKES ME AN EXPERT ON MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEREFORE I AM GIVING EXPERT TESTIMONY AND CREDIBLE AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IT'S NOT EASY KNOCKING ON DOORS.
IT'S NOT EASY GOING THROUGH A COMPLETE STRANGER'S HOUSE AND
KNOCKING ON THE DOOR AND ASKING THEM WHAT THEY THINK OF AN
ISSUE.
I EXPECT THAT SINCE YOU ARE ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT AT
SOME POINT IN YOUR LIFE YOU PROBABLY HAD TO DO THAT, BUT YOU
UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU GO DAY AFTER DAY
AFTER DAY KNOCKING ON DOORS.
I HAD TO MAKE MYSELF DO IT.
BUT AFTER A WHILE I NOTICED A TREND.
I COME HOME TO MY HUSBAND AND I SAY, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
BELIEVE WHO I MET TODAY.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THE CONVERSATION I HAD TODAY.
AND IT WAS LIKE EVERY DAY, AFTER A WHILE, I STARTED TO
REALIZE THIS IS KIND OF LIKE AN ADVENTURE AND I LOOKED AT IT
VERY DIFFERENTLY.
I COULD TELL YOU STORIES FOR AN HOUR BUT I AM GOING TO LIMIT
IT TO THE PERSON THAT I FOUND THE MOST INTERESTING.

I MET A MAN WHO IS A KOREAN WAR VETERAN AND HE STARTED
TELLING ME ALL THESE STORIES AND THEY WERE SO INTERESTING.
WE COULD HAVE JUST STOOD THERE FOR FIVE HOURS.
HE TOLD ME ABOUT HIS FATHER WHO WANTED TO ENLIST, FIGHT IN
WORLD WAR I.
HE WENT TO THE OFFICE AND THEY WEIGHED HIM AND THEY SAID YOU
DON'T WEIGH ENOUGH.
HE BUYS A STOCK OF BANANAS, DRINKS A BUNCH OF WATER AND GOES
BACK AND HAVE THEM REWEIGH THEM.
HE DIDN'T EAT ANOTHER BANANA FOR TEN YEARS.
SOMETIMES WHEN I SPEAK TO MORE ELDERLY RESIDENT I DON'T
REALLY TALK TO THEM ABOUT E-MAIL.
I WASN'T GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT E-MAIL.
THEN HE TELLS ME OF THE COMPUTER CLUB HE'S A MEMBER OF.
YOU CAN'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.
HE'S LIVED THERE FOR DECADE.
HE HATES WHAT HE SEES AS CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE LARGE LOT.
THE SHADY TREES.
THE VARIETY, THE DIVERSITY, THE HOUSES ARE DIFFERENT COLORS
AND STYLES AND SHAPES.
THEY WANT TO LIVE SOMEPLACE WHERE EVERY PERSON HAS THE SAME
NUMBER.
THEY WANT FOUR HOUSE PLANS AND THREE HOUSE COLORS.

AND THAT'S WONDERFUL FOR THEM.
AND THEY GO AND THEY LIVE IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
BUT THE PEOPLE WHO CHOSE TO LIVE IN VIRGINIA PARK CAME HERE
BECAUSE THEY HATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS.
THEY HATE COOKIE CUTTERS.
I WISH I HAD A DOLLAR FOR EVERY TIME I HEARD THE TERM COOKIE
CUTTER.
AND YOU AREN'T GOING TO WANT ANYBODY IN THE SAME HOUSE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT MR. MICHELINI SAID THIS IS NOT
DISRUPTIVE.
WELL, I WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR HIM TO GO DOOR TO DOOR AND
TELL THESE PEOPLE IT'S NOT DISRUPTIVE.
IT ABSOLUTELY BLOWS MY MIND.
IT MAY NOT BE DISRUPTIVE TO HIM BUT THEN HE DOESN'T LIVE IN
VIRGINIA PARK.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAB MY WORD FOR THIS.
WE HAVE A PETITION WITH OVER 150 SIGNATURES.
WE HAVE DOZENS OF E-MAILS.
JUST ANOTHER THING TO SHOW YOU THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS THE OAK TREE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CUT DOWN THAT'S
IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
THE TREE IS GOING TO BE GONE.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD?

THAT'S A 27-INCH LIVE OAK.
BEAUTIFUL, HEALTHY.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ROOM TO PLANT ANOTHER ONE.
THERE'S NO MITIGATING THE LOSS OF THIS TREE.
THIS TREE WHEN IT'S GONE, IT GOING TO BE GONE FOREVER.
AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE TO COME TAKE ITS
PLACE.
LOOK AT THAT TREE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO JUST BECAUSE
THEY WANT TO VIOLATE THE ZONING.
AND AGAIN I WANT TO TALK ABOUT APPLES TO ALES AGAIN.
I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE PERCENTAGES THAT YOU SEE IN
BOTH THE 2014 AND THE 2018, TWO OF THOSE LESS THAN 60-FOOT
LOTS ARE 59.5 FEET.
I KID YOU NOT.
THEY ARE 59-AND-A-HALF FEET.
I WENT TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE.
HE SAYS THEY ARE 60 FEET BUT I GUESS IN 1920s WHEN THEY
PLATTED IT, IT WAS 59 AND A HALF.
I GUESS WE HAVE TO GET A SURVEYOR TO SAY FOR SURE.
BUT THOSE ARE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE 60-FOOT LOTS.
NOW, AGAIN, I WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY 50-FOOT LOTS ARE IN
THERE.
59.5 IS NOT AN ORANGE, IT'S NOT AN APPLE.
IF IT WAS A 59.5-FOOT LOT I WOULDN'T BE HERE.
ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE MAIL SERVICE.

I AM GIVING EXPERT TESTIMONY.
I WORKED IN THE POSTAL SERVICE FOR 34 YEARS.
I BET THERE'S NOBODY IN THE ROOM THAT -- THEY WERE GOING TO
BE DISRUPTED FOREVER.
I AM HERE TO TELL YOU THE GOD'S TRUTH.
IT WILL BE DISRUPTED FOREVER.
SIX MONTHS THAT MAIL WILL BE FORWARDED.
AFTER SIX MONTHS THEY HAVE TO GO DOWN AND ALMOST NOBODY
KNOWS IT, THEY HAVE TO ASK FOR IT TO BE FORWARDED ANOTHER
SIX MONTHS AND THEN IT'S NEVER FORWARDED AGAIN.
THOSE MAILING LISTS ARE OUT THERE IN CYBERSPACE AND THEY
NEVER DIE.
MY EX-HUSBAND MOVED OUT OF THE HOUSE 27 YEARS AGO.
SOMEBODY GOT AN OLD MAILING LIST WITH HIM LIVING AT MY
HOUSE.
27 YEARS LATER I AM GETTING MAIL FROM MY EX-HUSBAND.
NOW WE ARE ON GOOD TERMS.
WE LIVE FIVE MINUTES FROM EACH OTHER BUT THAT'S NOT A
PROBLEM BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE IN EVERY SITUATION.
SO SOMEBODY IS GOING TO OPEN IT BECAUSE I OPEN MY VISA BILL
WHEN I GET IT.
I DON'T LOOK FOR THE NAME AND, OH, MY GOD, $25,000?
AND THEN THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, OH, NOT MINE.
BUT, OH, LOOK WHAT THEY BOUGHT.
AND I WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING ELSE, TOO.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
I AM TELLING YOU, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PEOPLE ORDER AND
WHAT MAGAZINES THEY SUBSCRIBE TO.
YOU WOULD BE FLOORED IF YOU KNEW.
AND THEY ARE NOT ALL UNDER BROWN PAPER.
SOME OF THEM ARE GARDENS AND SAL A MEANDERS.
WHO KNEW, HE HAD A THING FOR SAL A MEANDERS?
THEIR MAIL WOULD BE DISRUPTED FOREVER.
AND MAYBE THEIR DOG POOPED ON THE YARD, I DON'T KNOW, THERE
IT GOES IN THE TRASH.
THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO GET THAT MAIL.
PEOPLE NEVER EVER NOT BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THEIR MAIL.
HOW IS THAT MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE?
ONE OF THE RESIDENT WHOSE ADDRESS IS GOING TO BE CHANGED IS
OVER 90.
CURBS, HOUSES, MAILBOXES, STATIONERY, BUSINESS CARD.
IT ALL HAS TO BE CHANGED.
NOT MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE?
THANK YOU.
[BELL SOUNDS]
9:47:13PM >> I LIVE AT 4920 WEST OBISPO STREET.
I'M TERRI ROTH.
I CAN SPEAK AS A NATIVE OF SOUTH TAMPA AND I GREW UP IN THE
FLOOD ZONE ON EL PRADO BOULEVARD.
I HAVE LIVED 42 YEARS IN MY HOME.

I HAVE SEEN SO MANY CHANGES.
BUT ONE OF THE GREATEST IS THE FACT THAT WE NOW HAVE SO MANY
CARS THAT PARKING ON THE STREET.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED WHEN I FIRST LIVED THERE.
IT IS HAPPENING EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THERE ARE NO LESS THAN THREE TRUCKS PARKED ON MY BLOCK ALONE
EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS WRITTEN.
IT SEEMS LIKE NO ONE TOOK THIS INTO ACCOUNT.
THE NARROWNESS OF OUR STREET AS I DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE
CITY'S OWN WEBSITE, INFORMATION, SHOWS THAT IT SHOULD BE AT
LEAST 26 FEET.
THIS ONE IS 24 FEET.
AND IT DOES RUN INTO PROBLEMS.
AS I SAID EARLIER, THE GARBAGE TRUCKS, YOU CAN HEAR THEM
HONKING IN THE MORNING.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT REALLY GIVE YOU STRESS BECAUSE THEY
COME THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT 6 A.M.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU ALL BUT THAT'S WHEN THEY COME THROUGH
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHEN THAT GARBAGE TRUCK, THAT SANITATION TRUCK, THE TREE
DEBRIS PEOPLE CAN'T GET THROUGH, THEY ARE HONKING THEIR
HORN.
SO AS I SAID EARLIER, MY SON IS IN PASCO FIRE RESCUE.
HE SAYS THAT MANY CARS AND TRUCKS PARK IN THE STREET.

WHAT IF IT WAS A PERSONAL TRUCK, A FIRE TRUCK?
HAVING TO TURN AROUND AS I HAVE DONE TWICE THIS WEEK IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET THROUGH.
THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT INFRINGE ON OUR LIFESTYLES.
AND PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON THE STREET.
THEY MAY NOT DO IT TODAY, BUT DOWN THE ROAD THESE ENORMOUS
HOUSES ARE GOING TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THEM THAT GOING TO GROW
UP AND IT GOING TO CONTINUE.
SO WHEN IT MATTERS FOR THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OR FIRE
PERSONNEL THAT DOESN'T RESPOND BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET DOWN
THE STREET, WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE?
PLEASE DENY THIS MOTION.
9:49:37PM >> I'M CYNTHIA DUNCAN, 3205 WEST BARCELONA STREET.
I DON'T ENVY YOUR JOB.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE CITY REPORT.
YOU HAVE TO WAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AND THEN ALL
THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU.
SO PLANNING COMMISSION LIKE I SAID, IF IT'S 35 FEET WIDE, WE
KNOW THAT'S COMING IN HERE.
THE CITY STAFF -- AND I WANT TO THANK PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CITY STAFF FOR MEETING WITH US AND TRYING TO EXPLAIN
THIS TO US.
BUT ONE WEEK AGO TODAY THE VIRGINIA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION WAS SITTING DISCUSSING THIS MEETING AND OTHER

MATTERS AND GO, OH, LOOK, CITY JUST POSTED THEIR REPORT.
AND WE ARE SITTING THERE ON PINS AND NEEDLES.
WHAT IS STAFF GOING TO BE DO?
IT'S GOING TO BE CONSISTENT?
IT'S GOING TO BE INCONSISTENT?
HOW IS IT THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE PUSHED ALL THE
NUMBERS.
WE KNOW ALL THE NUMBERS.
HOW IS IT KNOWING ALL THOSE NUMBERS, WE HAVE TO FLIP A COIN
GUESSING WHETHER CITY IS GOING TO FIND IT CONSISTENT OR
INCONSISTENT?
AS MR. PARDUN EXPLAINED THE SAME NUMBERS, SAME PROPERTY, WAS
FOUND INCONSISTENT AND TODAY TWO HOUSES DOWN WITH THE SAME
NUMBERS THEY FIND IT INCONSISTENT.
SO I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BE INORDINATELY BURDENING
A PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE MAKING THE
PROPERTY NO LONGER ABLE TO GIVE HIM A REASONABLE INVESTMENT
BASED ON EXPECTATIONS.
ANYBODY WHO BUYS A PROPERTY IN VIRGINIA PARK AFTER 1956 IN
THIS AREA KNOWS THE 60 FEET MINIMUM.
AFTER THE REZONING, THEY KNOW IT'S A 60-FOOT MINIMUM.
SO YOU SHOULD HAVE NO EXPECTATION THAT WE CAN SPLIT THAT
LOT.
NOBODY BOUGHT TWO 50-FOOT LOTS AND COMBINED THEM INTO ONE.
THEY BOUGHT A 100 BY 120 LOT WHOSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS TWO

OF THESE LOTS.
THEY DIDN'T BUY TWO LOTS.
I HAVE A LOT AND IT'S A WHOLE LOT AND HALF OF A LOT ON ONE
SIDE AND HALF A LOT ON THE OTHER.
CAN I SELL THOSE TWO AND HAVE A 50-FOOT LOT IN THE MIDDLE?
NO.
IT'S JUST THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
SO AGAIN, HERE ARE THE NUMBERS.
AND I KNOW YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER CORONA ON ITS OWN MERITS.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY DECIDE WHICH NUMBERS DO WE LOOK
AT?
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLOCK TODAY, THE HOUSE ON EITHER SIDE ME
HAVE DOES NOT MAKE A NEIGHBORHOOD. EVEN THE BLOCK FACE, THE
BLOCK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THAT'S NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE NINE BLOCK IS MAYBE GETTING CLOSER TO APPROXIMATING THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND LEONA'S NUMBERS ARE WORSE.
SO REALLY YOU NEED TO LOOK -- I KNOW YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE
REPORTS.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DATA IN THOSE REPORTS, TOO.
AND THEN YOU FIND THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT.
ALSO, THERE'S ANOTHER TREE COMING DOWN.
28-INCH TREE.
WE LOST OUR CANOPY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
IT IS JUST ONE MORE TREE.

WITH THAT LOT AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND DRIVEWAY.
ONE OF THOSE TREES HAS TO GO IF YOU APPROVE THIS, WHICH I
HOPE YOU DO NOT.
PLEASE DENY IT.
PLEASE ALLOW NATURAL RESOURCES TO TRY TO SAVE THAT TREE.
THANK YOU.
[BELL SOUNDS]
9:52:54PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
ONE NAME.
MIKE FANNING.
THANK YOU.
ONE ADDITIONAL MINUTE, PLEASE.
9:53:09PM >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS JIM HOPES.
I LIVE AT 3818 WEST CORONA STREET.
JUST A STEP FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
I REALLY WANTED TO SHARE THREE THINGS WITH YOU.
A SPEAKER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC
TONIGHT, BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU.
ONE IS, IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE IT.
WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE DEVELOPERS. NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ARE THRILLED TO DEVELOP NEW HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN
VIRGINIA PARK.
AND YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEW HOMES THAT'S BEEN BUILT IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMES HAVE BEEN
TAKING DOWN ONE HOUSE AND BIDDING ONE HOUSE IN ITS PLACE.

IN FACT THAT'S HOW I CAME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT SIX
YEARS AGO.
THERE WAS A 1950 RANCH ON NORTH CORONA THEY TORE DOWN AND
BUILT MY HOUSE.
AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THE MAJORITY ONE HOUSE DOWN, ONE
HOUSE UP, AND THE OTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT, IT IS VERY
VIABLE FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE A HANDSOME PROFIT.
BY ESSENTIALLY TAKING ONE LOT AND TEARING DOWN ONE HOUSE AND
PUTTING ANOTHER ONE UP.
OVER THE LAST THREE HOURS I HAVE HAD A LOT OF TIME SITTING
AT MY PHONE ON ZILLOW AND CHECKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I FOUND
SEVEN HOUSES THAT UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR PROPOSED NEW
CONSTRUCTION, ALL ON NORMAL SIZE LOTS AND NOT ASKING FOR ANY
KIND OF REZONING, AND THEY ARE ALL FOR SALE FOR SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN 1 MILLION AND $1.3 MILLION.
SO IT IS VERY VIABLE TO DEVELOP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M A BUSINESSMAN MYSELF.
I UNDERSTAND HOW THE NUMBERS WORK.
BUT IT'S VERY VIABLE TO DO THAT.
IT'S REALLY NOT NECESSARY TO TRY TO RING THE LAST FEW
DOLLARS OUT OF EVERY ONE OF THOSE LOT.
WHAT HAPPENS IS WE HAVE EXITING PARTIES, TYPICALLY A
RESIDENT THAT WANTS TO LEAVE, SELL THEIR PROPERTY, AND THEN
THE DEVELOPER IS GONE, BUT WE STILL HAVE MARKET OF THE
CHARACTER THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO TRY TO MAINTAIN.

SO WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF DEVELOPERS AND WE THINK MORE
AND MORE WILL COME INTO VIRGINIA PARK AND BUILD BEAUTIFUL
HOMES, TEARING DOWN ONE HOUSE, PUTTING ANOTHER HOUSE IN ITS
PLACE.
THE OTHER THING IS WE LIKE OUR NEIGHBORS.
IT'S A VERY FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NEVER MET THE DUNAWAYS BUT I KNOW PEOPLE
THAT DESCRIBED THEM, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL PEOPLE.
AND WHAT HAPPENED IS IF WE EVER GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE
WE ARE LOGGERHEADS WITH NEIGHBORS, LOOKING TO SELL AND MOVE
OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN COMPETING INTEREST CAN COME
ABOUT.
AND SO THE RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO GET AS MUCH MONEY WITH
THE DEVELOPER BUILDING AS MANY HOUSES AS POSSIBLE, BUT WHEN
WE THINK ABOUT IT, WE REALLY CARE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, AND WE
WANT TO HAVE THE CAMARADERIE IN MAINTAINING THE FEEL OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT REALLY SHOULD COME DOWN TO MORE THAN JUST PROFIT.
I DON'T KNOW MANY OF YOU FANS ARE 80s HIT MUSIC, BUT CYNDI
LAUPER HAD A HIT IN THE 80s, MONEY CHANGES EVERYTHING.
THAT WAS THE NAME OF THE HIT. IT WAS A HIT SONG AND IT'S
REALLY TRUE WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT.
THEY ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE FLOW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO MANY TIMES.
THERE'S NO OTHER REASON REALLY TO SPLIT THESE LOTS THAN IN
ORDER TO MAKE MORE PROFIT BY PUTTING TWO HOUSES WHERE THERE
WAS ONE BEFORE.
IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.
IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A LOW DENSITY PROBLEM IN SOUTH TAMPA
OR A LOW DENSITY PROBLEM IN VIRGINIA PARK.
IT'S LIKE WE GOT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HOUSES ARE TOO FAR A
PART SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION.
IT ISN'T ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S REALLY JUST THE CASE OF HOW MUCH MONEY CAN BE MADE BY
MAXIMIZING THAT PARTICULAR LOT FOR THE EXISTING PARTY.
THE OTHER THING WE WANT YOU TO KNOW IS WE ARE GRATEFUL,
OKAY, TO YOU AS A COUNCIL, IF YOU LOOK AT IT AGAIN THE MAP,
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE REALLY IS NO CONSISTENT PATTERN OF
REZONING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO LARGELY OVER THE YEARS, YOU PROTECTED US AND WE
APPRECIATE THAT.
AND WE ARE PROTECTED IN 2014 WITH AN IDENTICAL REQUEST ONLY
THREE DOORS DOWN, AND THAT WAS INCONSISTENT.
SO WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PROTECT US ONE MORE TIME.
THE OTHER THING IS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I PUT TOGETHER A
SURVEY MONKEY, SENT IT OUT BE ON NEXT DOOR SITE, AND WE
ASKED PEOPLE WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THE LOT SPLITTING, SENT
IT ONLY TO VIRGINIA PARK.

[BELL SOUNDS]
AND YOU CAN SEE 9.
SO THANK YOU.
WE APPRECIATE YOU GIVING US TIME TO SHARE OUR THOUGHTS HERE
TODAY.
9:57:25PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
PETITIONER?
9:57:26PM >> IF I MAY.
REBECCA KERT, LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD, THERE WERE SOME STATEMENT
EARLIER ABOUT WHAT THE BURDEN IS IN A REZONING CASE, AND THE
MOST RECENT FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, MANY CASES ON IT, ABOUT
YOU THE CASE IN 1993, SNYDER, BROWARD COUNTY CASE, WHICH
STATES THAT THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE BURDEN, BUT THE
BURDEN IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS STATED EARLIER.
THE LAND OWNER HAS THE BURDEN IN A REZONING TO PROVE THAT
THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ALL OF YOUR OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
IF THEY DO THAT, THEN IT SHOULD BE GRANTED UNLESS, AND THEN
THE BURDEN SHIFT TO THE CITY TO SEE THERE'S STILL LEGITIMATE
REASON.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON THAT.
9:58:16PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT, APPLICANT.
9:58:18PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
TO CLARIFY THE RECORD, THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE OF THE 1320 AND CITING THE CODE.
THAT IS THE CODE SECTION FOR THE REORIENTATION OF LOTS AND

RECONFIGURATION OF NEWLY CREATED LOTS.
WE HAVE PLOTTED LOTS SO THEY RUN NORTH, SOUTH, YOU HAVE A
CORNER LOT, AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO FLIP IT, WHERE THE
REORIENTATION, SO NOW THE LOT LINE IS THE WHERE THE PRIVATE
USE WAS, THAT'S THE SCENARIO THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE 1320 PERIMETER AROUND THAT LOT IS FOR REORIENTATION
OF THE LOT.
TYPICALLY THESE CASES ARE FOR THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE
ZONING LAWS WHERE THE LOT LINES DON'T FOLLOW THE SAME
PATTERN.
SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
MR. COHEN.
9:59:11PM >>HARRY COHEN:
BEFORE WE GET TON THIS PETITIONER, I JUST --
AND AWFUL LOT WAS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT ABOUT THE ONE THAT WAS
DENIED IN 2014 THAT APPEARS TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THIS.
BUT THE OTHER THING THAT APPEARS TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THIS
IS THE ONE WE CONSIDERED EARLIER IN THE EVENING.
AND I JUST AM WONDERING HOW YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE WAY THAT THE STAFF REPORT CAME OUT ON THESE DIFFERENT
ITEMS IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD WITH VERY SIMILAR FACT
PATTERNS.
AND SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ONE WHERE THE RED-BLUE ANALYSIS
SEEMS TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY, NOT
CONSISTENCY.
I AM A LITTLE BIT PUZZLED.

10:00:10PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
AGAIN, AS I HAVE STATED, STAFF TAKES
THESE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
THIS IS REQUIRED.
THE ZONING MAP.
I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE WAS DISCUSSING
THIS LOT WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DENIED.
STAFF DID FIND THIS INCONSISTENT.
IN THIS SCENARIO, AGAIN IN BETWEEN TWO PLATTED LOTS ON
EITHER SIDE, ONE HERE AND THEN ONE HERE AND ONE BEHIND IT.
SO COMBINATION OF THAT, IT'S STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION
THAT THAT WOULD BE A CONSISTENT DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY.
10:00:58PM >>HARRY COHEN:
AND THE NUMBERS OF WHAT'S LARGER AND SMALLER
THAN 60 FEET.
10:01:02PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
STAFF LOOKS AT ALL THE DATA AND MAKES OUR
RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF PURELY GOING OFF THE NUMBERS.
WE LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.
WE LOOK AT WHERE THE PATTERN, THE LOTS ARE CREATED, AND THEN
WE TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WITH OUR PROFESSIONAL
EXPERTISE AND MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION.
10:01:21PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
EXCUSE ME, YOU ARE SAYING IN YOUR
PROFESSIONAL OPINION IT'S AN ART AND NOT A SCIENCE?
10:01:35PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
CORRECT.
10:01:35PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
THANK YOU.
10:01:37PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

ALL RIGHT.
10:01:38PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
COUNCIL, YOU HAVE HEARD A LOT OF
TESTIMONY ABOUT NOT GETTING THE RIGHT MAIL, NOT GETTING THE
RIGHT ADDRESSES.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS CODE.
THE STAFF HAS PRESENTED YOU WITH COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES MEAT THE CODE, AND IT'S CONSISTENT.
BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY STAFF.
DOES IT PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE LAND AND
INFRASTRUCTURE?
YES, IT DOES.
IT'S USING THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
YOU HAVE A STATE CODE THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT BUILD WITHOUT
INFRASTRUCTURE.
OFF COUNTY CODE IN THE COMP PLAN THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT BUILD
OUTSIDE OF YOUR MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE
INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A CITY CODE, AND THE CITY COMP PLAN THAT
SAYS EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
WE COMPLY WITH ALL OF THEM.
THE INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT LAND USES AND DENSITIES.
WE COMPLY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL 10.
THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF A 30-FOOT LOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S COMPLETE HYPERBOLE.
IT'S A 50-FOOT LOT.

IT'S 120 FEET DEEP.
IT'S 6000 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S ESTABLISHED BY PLAT.
AND WE ARE ASKING TO RESTORE THAT.
PROVIDE A PROCEDURE WHICH IN THE TYPE AND DESIGN AND LAYOUT,
WE ARE MEETING THE CODE REGARDING SETBACKS.
WE ARE MEETING THE 25 FEET MINIMUM.
THE 20 FEET REAR MINIMUM.
AND THE 7 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
CHANGING NEED ON ECONOMICS THAT SAYS IT'S NOT APPLICABLE,
BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THE PRESSURE FOR
REDEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH TAMPA AND THROUGHOUT TAMPA IS BECAUSE
LAND VALUES ARE GOING SO HIGH.
IT'S BECAUSE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE.
IT'S BECAUSE THE STREETS, THE ROADS, THE WATER, THE
TRANSPORTATION, THE SEWER, THE SCHOOLS, THEY EXIST.
AND THEY ARE SUPPORTING THE IN-FILL DENSITY THAT IS
REQUIRED.
EVERYTHING THAT YOU LOOK AT, LOOK AT YOUR PROJECTIONS ON
POPULATION.
LOOK AT YOUR PROJECTIONS ON TAXES AND REVENUE.
THEY ARE ALL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE.
ENCOURAGE FLEXIBLE LAND DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS NOTHING MORE.
YOU SAW THE RED-BLUE MAP.

YOU SAW THE STAFF TELL YOU THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT.
AND EVERYONE WAS SINGING THE VIRTUES OF THE STAFF WHEN THEY
FOUND ONE OF OURS INCONSISTENT.
BUT WHEN THEY FIND BOTH CONSISTENT, NOW WE WANT TO FIND
EXCEPTIONS TO IT, AS THE RESIDENT HAVE TESTIFIED.
THEY DON'T LIKE THAT FINDING.
BUT WE PLAYED BY THE SAME RULES.
WE COULD GO SHOPPING FOR OTHER ZONING REPORTS THROUGHOUT THE
DISTRICT AND SAY, OH, WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE?
WHAT ABOUT THAT ONE?
WE DIDN'T DO THAT.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE ONE SO THEY DECIDED TO BRING UP ANOTHER
ONE.
PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE AND
LOCATION IN CHARACTER.
THIS IS APPROPRIATE.
IT HAS THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT HAS THE STREETS.
IT HAS EVERYTHING IN IT THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE AND WE
ARE ASKING TO RESTORE THE PLAT AS IT ORIGINALLY WAS
DESIGNED.
PROMOTE DESIRABLE LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS.
NO ONE HAS PRESENTED ANYTHING ON THE RECORD, ANYTHING, THAT
HAS SAID THAT THIS WAS INCOMPATIBLE OR THAT SOMEHOW WAS
GOING TO OBSTRUCT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER THAN THEY MIGHT NOT

GET THEIR MAIL, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THIS, OR YOU MIGHT HAVE
TO REMOVE A TREE, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THIS.
THAT'S ALL PART OF PERMITTING.
ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT IS DONE BY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEPARTMENT,
NOT PART OF THIS.
THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND ELEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT.
WE HAVE MOVED THE PROPERTY, MOVED THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT
AROUND TO ACCOMMODATE AND SAVE TREES.
WE HAVE INCREASED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO DO THAT.
RETENTION AND REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDING STOCK.
WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE IT AND
BUILD TWO NEW HOUSES.
IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION, I MENTIONED TO YOU IT ADDS 6
TRIPS PER DAY WHICH IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
THE STAFF HAS TOLD ME.
THAT I HAVE MET WITH THEM.
I HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM.
THAT'S BY THE ITE MANUAL.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES GENERATE SIX ADDITIONAL TRIPS PER
DAY.
YOU HAVE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
YOU HAVE EXISTING WATER, SEWER, FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE
PROTECTION, STREETS, ROADS, WATER, SEWER, SCHOOLS.
WE HAVE MET EVERY ONE OF THE NINE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED AND
THE STAFF HAS VERIFIED THAT.

BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE CITY STAFF.
WE HAVE MET THE CODE.
SO IN TERMS OF MEETING THE BURDEN OF, WE HAVE DONE.
THAT WE DIDN'T SAY WE DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE OF SOME NEBULOUS
THING THAT WE DON'T WANT THE NEIGHBOR CHARACTER TO CHANGE.
THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK.
YOU WERE SHOWN THE RED-BLUE MAP.
IT SHOWED THAT.
ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WAS PUT ON THE RECORD THAT SHOWS
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN TELL YOU.
WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH 9.3.8.
THE CITY STAFF SAID IT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID IT.
IT IN YOUR REPORT.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THIS IS ACCOMMODATED BY DIFFERENT SIZES, IT A MIX.
OTHERWISE THE POSITION FOR THE RS 6 CHANGE FROM REZ 10
RESIDENTIAL 10 TO R 6 WOULD HAVE COME THROUGH BUT BACK THEN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND AND CITY COUNCIL FOUND THAT IT
WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL 6 WHICH WOULD BE LOWER
DENSITY.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.
[BELL SOUNDS]

10:06:58PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
QUESTIONS BY CITY COUNCIL?
A MOTION TO CLOSE?
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. MANISCALCO.
SECONDED BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION?
OPPOSED?
WHO WILL TAKE NUMBER 8, ANYBODY?
MR. VIERA.
10:07:14PM >>LUIS VIERA:
I HEREBY MOVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED
FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING
PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 3905 WEST CORONA 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 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
10:07:35PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
I GOT A MOTION FROM MR. VIERA.
DO I HAVE A SECOND?
IN A ONE.
GOING TWICE?
GOING THE LAST TIME.
MOTION FAILS.
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A NEW MOTION?
10:07:55PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
BEFORE I START, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY

THAT'S BEEN HERE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY FOR ATTENDING
AND ACTUALLY TALKING, BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE YOUR
HOMEWORK.
YOU REALLY HAVE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT THINGS.
YOU BROUGHT SOME VERY GOOD APPLICATIONS TOWARDS WHAT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS AND WHAT THE LAW IS.
AND I ESPECIALLY ENJOYED THE FACT THAT UNDERSTOOD EVERY
SUCCESSFUL POSTAL WORKER BEATS THE HEART OF A FAILED COMIC
SOMEWHERE.
SO I AM GLAD THAT YOU WERE HERE TONIGHT.
(LAUGHTER)
IT'S LIVENED UP THINGS FOR SHOWER. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION, CHAIR, THAT WE DENY THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING:
UNDER OUR CODE UNDERSTOOD POLICY 18.4.10, IT'S THE INTENT OF
THE CITY, NEW RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED PROJECTS SHOULD BE
MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE TO ADJACENT AREAS, AND THAT BASED ON
THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THIS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.
IN ADDITION, UNDERSTOOD 27-136, WE HAVE UNDER SUBSECTION 1,
SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR THE PROPERTY AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, AND THEN UNDER THE SAME HEADING,
127.136 ON SUB C 6, THAT THE CITY IS ALWAYS TRYING TO
PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE IN

LOCATION, CHARACTER AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING
IMPACTED AREA.
THIS PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THAT STANDARD BASED ON THE ZONING
DISTRICT RS-60 AND THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT
ARE THERE.
10:09:43PM >> SECOND.
10:09:44PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. SUAREZ.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
10:09:53PM >> NAY.
10:09:54PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH CAPIN BEING ABSENT AND
VIERA VOTING NO.
10:10:04PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
VIERA AND REDDICK.
10:10:07PM >> VIERA AND REDDICK VOTING NO.
10:10:09PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
WE GO TO ITEM NUMBER 9.
10:10:12PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
ITEM NUMBER 9 IS REZ 18-72.
THE APPLICANT WAS PRESENT BUT DUE TO A FAMILY EMERGENCY IS
REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE OCTOBER 25th EVENING
MEETING.
10:10:25PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ITEM NUMBER 9?
10:10:30PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
YES, SIR.
10:10:31PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 9?
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 9?

ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, CAN WE GET A MOTION TO CONTINUE?
10:10:45PM >> SO MOVED.
10:10:45PM >> SECOND.
10:10:46PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. MANISCALCO.
SECONDED BY MR. VIERA.
TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 25th.
6:00 P.M.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY YAY.
OPPOSED?
OKAY.
WE GO TO THE LAST ITEM OF THE NIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 11.
10:11:08PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
REZ 18-79 IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR
PROPERTY AT 514 NORTH ROME, 1701 WEST GRAY STREET, 1706 WEST
CARMEN STREET, 505 AND 501 NORTH FREMONT AVENUE FROM RS-50
AND IG TO PD RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL SALES,
CONVENIENCE GOODS, WITH BONUS PROVISION AGREEMENT PURSUANT
TO 27-140 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCREASE THE
INTENSITY FROM 1.0 TO 2.0 F.A.R. IN THE CMU 35 LAND USE
CATEGORY.
10:11:49PM >>JENNIFER MALONE:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THIS WILL LOOK FAMILIAR.
I HAD THE COMPREHENSIVE DOCUMENT EARLIER TONIGHT, 18-10, IN

THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT, IN THE WEST TAMPA URBAN
VILLAGE.
JULIAN B. LANE IS THE CLOSEST PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITY.
WE HAVE TRANSIT LOCATED ABOUT 0.4 MILES TO THE SOUTH ALONG
KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
THIS IS A DESIGNATED TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
HERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
AND YOU SEE WE ARE MISSING A PARCEL BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE
SWATH BETWEEN ROME, GRAY, FREMONT AND CARMEN.
WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH.
MULTIFAMILY TO THE EAST, THE WEST IS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
RESIDENTIAL.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS OUT OF DATE AS OF A FEW HOURS
AGO.
SINCE YOU APPROVED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EARLIER.
COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 RIGHT HERE ON THE PARCEL.
AND EARLIER TONIGHT YOU APPROVED THE PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THESE PARCELS, AND THIS PARCEL TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE
35 AND COMPLETE THE BLOCK PATTERN.
WE HAVE COMMUNITY MIXED 35 TO THE SOUTH.
COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 TO THE EAST.
THIS IS CMU.
THE CMU 35 IS DEFINITELY A PATTERN WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN TRANSITION.

WE DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SPECIFICALLY, POLICIES RELATED TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE
FRONT PORTION OF THE STREET WITH THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
THAT IS HIGHLY ENCOURAGED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICY
9.1.2.
WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE MASSING AND ARTICULATION OF THE
PROJECT WOULD BE ORIENTED THE STREET FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE ACTIVELY ENGAGING IN THE
PUBLIC REALM FOR THE POLICY 1.2.26.
UM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
10:13:55PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE
ZONING MAP.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S ALMOST AN ENTIRE BLOCK.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE INDIVIDUAL LOT THAT IS NOT MART OF
THIS APPLICATION BOUND BY CARMEN STREET TO THE NORTH, NORTH
FREMONT TO THE WEST, AND ROME AVENUE TO THE EAST.
HERE IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY.
SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL USES AND PERSONAL SERVICES WITHIN ZONE
WAREHOUSE.
THEN WAREHOUSES WHICH WILL BE DEMOLISHED WITH THE PROJECT.
I WANT TO LOOK AT THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY BURIED IN THIS AREA
KIND OF GOING AROUND THE BLOCK.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AGAIN.
THIS BUILDING WILL BE DEMOLISHED.

ONE OF THE HOUSES AT THE CORNER OF FREMONT AND GRAY STREET.
THIS WAS APPROVED TO PD IN 2015.
THIS IS THE SQUARE.
THIS IS THE SAME SHOT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE ON FREMONT THAT
WILL BE DEMOLISHED.
A SECOND HOUSE ON FREMONT.
NOW TURNING TO THE CORNER COMING BACK ON CARMEN STREET.
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THEN ACROSS CARMEN STREET, A SERIES OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
AND THEN GETTING BACK TOWARDS ROME, ANOTHER OLDER INDUSTRIAL
USES THAT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HISTORIC PATTERN THAT HAS
BEEN TRANSITIONING.
AS YOU CAN SEE CATTY-CORNER FROM THE SITE, ANOTHER
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON ROME AND OREGON.
DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS AN OFFICE BUILDING.
THEN DOWN BY GRAY AND ROME IS ANOTHER MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, AS YOU KNOW --
10:16:20PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
A QUICK QUESTION.
WOULD YOU SHOW US THE HOUSE THAT'S NOT BEING TORN DOWN?
I KNOW YOU MUST HAVE BUT I DIDN'T SEE WHICH ONE IT WAS.
10:16:29PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.
[RUSTLING PAPERS]
SHALL I ASSUME SORRY TO MAKE YOU GO THROUGH THAT.
10:16:51PM >> NO, THAT'S FINE. THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE

REMOVED.
10:16:54PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I APPRECIATE IT.
10:16:55PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
YOU'RE WELCOME, SIR.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
IT IS FOR 212,253 SQUARE FEET FOR FOUR-STORY BUILDING FOR A
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF 226 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS
AND 1100 SQUARE FEET OF CONVENIENCE RETAIL WITH INTEGRATED
PARKING GARAGE IN THE MIDDLE.
THE TOTAL SITE IS 2.76 ACRES WITH RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICE
INTO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED AS I
STATED AS WELL.
I WILL NOTE HERE IS THE PROPERTY AT 1720 WEST CARMEN STREET
THAT WILL REMAIN, AND THIS PROJECT WILL BE IN EFFECT
DEVELOPED AROUND IT.
THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE WEST TAMPA OVERLAY, AND TO
BE REVIEWED BASED UPON THOSE STANDARD.
THE BUILDING SETBACKS TO THE NORTH ARE 5 FEET FOR THE
GARAGE, 10 FEET FOR THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING,
AND THEN 10 FEET FROM ALL OTHER PROPERTY LINES.
AS WE WATCHED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, STAFF FEELS IN OUR
PROFESSIONAL OPINION NEED A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET SETBACK IS
APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE STREETSCAPE THAT THEY WANTED TO
PHILANTHROPIST THESE AREAS SEVERAL MONTH AGO AND SHOWED YOU
WHEN THERE'S SMALLER LANDSCAPING AREAS BETWEEN THE SIDEWALKS
AND THE BUILDINGS AND YOU TRY TO PLANT A TREE AND AS THE

TREE GROWS THE CANOPY OF THE TREE STARTS RUNNING INTO THE
BUILDING AND INTO THE BALCONIES.
SO STAFF FEELS IT'S MINIMUM TO HAVE 10 FEET FOR BUILDING
SETBACK.
THAT 10-FOOT AREA ACCOMMODATION WITH THE GRASS AREA ON THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL GIVE US SUFFICIENT RAM FOR LANDSCAPING
ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGES.
ON THE PROPERTY, THEY ARE ELIGIBLE BY RIGHT FOR A ONE TO
FOUR AREA RATIO WHICH MEANS THAT FOR THE LOT SIZE THAT THEY
ARE WITH THE 2.76-ACRE FOR EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF LAND, ONE
FOOT OF BUILDING, THEY ARE PROPOSING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WHICH LEGAL DEPARTMENT WILL SPEAK TO IN A MOMENT TO INCREASE
THE OVERALL FLORIDA AREA RATIO TO 1.76, WITH THE PROVISIONS
A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION.
TO STAY FOR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT IN THIS OVERALL WEST TAMPA AREA.
AS FAR AS THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, THERE ARE SIX REQUESTED
WAIVERS.
THE FIRST ONE IS SECTION 13-135-B, CONTRIBUTE TO THE TREE
FUND FOR MITIGATION AND REQUIRED TREES.
BASED ON THE SITE DESIGN, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH AREA TO PLANT
ALL THE REQUIRED TREES PLUS THE MITIGATION TREES REMOVED SO
THAT'S A REQUIRED WAIVER.
THE SECOND WAIVER IS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD AVERAGE ON
CARMEN STREET FROM 20 TO 5-FOOT FOR THE GARAGE AND 10 FEET

FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
AGAIN, WEST TAMPA CODE REQUIRES ...
THE THIRD WAIVER IS REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM 407
SPACES TO 348 PARKING SPACES, THAT'S A 15% PARKING
REDUCTION.
AGAIN, BASED ON THE COMBINATION OF USES BETWEEN MULTIFAMILY,
THE STANDARD PARKING, GUEST PARKING SPACES, AND THE SQUARE
FOOT RETAIL USE, TOTAL OF 407 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED.
THEY ARE WANT THAT DOWN TO 15% WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 348
PARKING SPACES ON-SITE.
THEY ARE WANTING A WAIVER TO REDUCE THE LOADING BERTH FROM 2
TO ZERO.
THE WAIVER IS TO ALLOW LOADING TO OCCUR IN MORE THAN ONE
CONTINUOUS MANEUVER TO ALLOW MANEUVERING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN THIS GENERAL AREA.
ALONG GRAY STREET.
THIS MANEUVERING WILL BE MORE THAN BE -- PART OF IT WILL BE
IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
AND THEN THE LAST WAIVER IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF
MULTIFAMILY GREEN SPACE BASED ON 350 SQUARE FEET PER
DWELLING UNIT AND A TOTAL OF 220 DWELLING UNITS.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LITTLE OVER 39,000 SQUARE FEET
OF OPEN SPACE.
THEY ARE PROPOSING 22,800 SQUARE FEET, AT TIME OF
PERMITTING.

LAND DEVELOPMENT DID FIND THIS INCONSISTENT.
AS I STATED, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A DENSITY BONUS TO
INCREASE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THEIR SITE BY ALMOST A
LITTLE OVER 99,000 SQUARE FEET.
HOWEVER, IN TURN, THEY ARE ALSO ASKING TO WAIVE A PORTION OF
THE REQUIRED PARKING, AND A PORTION OF THEIR MULTIFAMILY
GREN SPACE.
IT IS STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THE INTENT OF THE
DENSITY BONUS THAT YOU CAN INCREASE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
YOU HAVE TO MEET THE BASIC CODE REQUIREMENTS TO SERVE THAT
USE AS WELL AS TO IMPACT THAT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE
SURROUNDING AREA, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR OFF-SITE
IMPROVEMENT N.THIS INSTANCE THEY CANNOT SUPPORT THE ADDED
DENSITY WITHIN THEIR SITE.
SO THAT'S THE SUMMATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT'S CONCERN AND
FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY.
TRANSPORTATION FOUND IT INCONSISTENT FOR THE PARKING WAIVER,
AS WELL AS THE MANEUVERING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND URBAN
DESIGN DID FIND IT CONSISTENT.
THEY HAVE SOME CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
NATURAL RESOURCES FOUND IT CONSISTENT.
AGAIN WITH CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
IF IT IS THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS, THERE
ARE SEVERAL PAGES OF CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND

READING PENDING THE WAIVERS.
BUT OVERALL THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLAINS STAFF DID
FIND THIS INCONSISTENT.
10:23:40PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
10:23:44PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE PARKING.
[RUSTLING PAPERS] --
10:24:02PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
NO, SIR.
10:24:03PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
SO THE RETAIL -- [RUSTLING PAPERS]
10:24:08PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
NOT AS FAR AS REQUIREMENT, NO.
10:24:11PM >> HOW ABOUT PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS A PLANNER?
10:24:14PM >>MARY SAMANIEGO:
MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IT'S GETTING
CLOSER TO THE INTENT OF THE MIXED USE PROJECT.
10:24:19PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
MEANING THE -- [RUSTLING PAPERS]
10:24:24PM >> THE SIZE OF THE RETAIL IS CERTAINLY PREDICT AN INCREASE
BUT THERE'S NO STANDARD.
10:24:28PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE IT.
10:24:32PM >>REBECCA KERT:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
AS WAS MENTIONED, THIS REZONING DOES HAVE AN ACCOMPANYING BE
PERCENTAGE AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO PASSING ON SECOND READING
WILL COME BEFORE YOU, AS CALCULATED UNDERSTOOD YOUR CODE,
THE AMOUNT THAT THEY HAVE TO EITHER PAY OR PROVIDE TO
AMENITIES IS SLIGHTLY OVER A MILLION DOLLAR.
1,024.

THE AMENITIES THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING ARE TAKING WEST CARMEN
STREET, GRAY STREET, FREMONT STREET, PUBLIC PARKING IN 36
SPACES, UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES, AND ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO A
CIT PROJECTS IN THE AREA.
THIS IS THE REZONING THAT WAS GOING ALONG WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT YOU HEARD ON FIRST READING
TONIGHT.
BECAUSE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS DO NOT GO INTO EFFECT
UNTIL AFTER 30 DAYS AFTER APPROVAL, THIS REZONING, IF IT'S
THE DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD, NEEDS TO BE SET FOR SECOND
READING 30 DAYS AFTER THE COMP PLAN.
10:25:42PM >>CHAIRMAN:
ALL RIGHT.
PETITIONER.
10:25:49PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
305 SOUTH BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA.
I HAVE WITH ME THIS EVENING ANTHONY EVERETT OF POLLACK
SHORES WHO IS THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER.
MR. EVERETT IS GOING TO GIVE YOU A NUMBER OF PARTICULARS
ABOUT THE PROJECT AND I WILL SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY.
I DID WANT TO RESPOND, THOUGH, TO MARY'S FINDING OF
INCONSISTENCY.
SHE JUST SAID THAT THE JUST TAKE POSITION BETWEEN THE
REQUEST FOR A BONUS AND THE REQUEST FOR THE PARKING WAIVER
AND THE GREEN SPACE WAIVER CREATED AN INCONSISTENCY WHICH IN
HER PROFESSIONAL OPINION RENDERED THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CODE.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO CITY COUNCIL THAT POLLACK
SHORES, THE SAME CLIENT, DEVELOPED THE HAVANA STORE ACROSS
THE STREET, ACROSS GRAY STREET, A FULL BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.
IT HAS VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE SAME PHYSICAL SIZE,
CHARACTERISTICS.
WE ALSO ASKED FOR A BONUS, AND WE ASKED FOR THE SAME WAIVERS
THAT SHE FOUND OBJECTIONABLE.
IN THAT REPORT IN 2015, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT PROJECT
TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THAT PROJECT AND
THIS PROJECT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
YET THAT WAS FOUND CONSISTENT, AND THIS COUNCIL APPROVED IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AS YOU CONSIDER THE ISSUES
THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU.
10:27:22PM >> GOOD EVENING.
I'M ANTHONY EVERETT, AND I RESIDE -- ACTUALLY, BAYSHORE,
TAMPA, FLORIDA.
POLLACK SHORES IS A MULTIFAMILY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
COMPANY THAT IS HEADQUARTERED IN ATLANTA.
WE WERE FORMED IN 2006.
AND SINCE 2006 WE HAVE ACQUIRED OR DEVELOPED APPROXIMATELY
19,000 UNITS.
THE BULK OF THOSE ARE IN CENTRAL FLORIDA BY ABOUT 4 THAT YOU
UNITS IN THE PORTFOLIO AND WE OPERATE IN SIX STATES ACROSS

THE SOUTHEAST.
WE ARE PARTNERING WITH MANY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS YOU
MIGHT RECOGNIZE.
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE.
ALLIANCE BERNSTEIN.
BOB BUCKHORN WAS HOPING TO STIMULATE REDEVELOPMENT IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ASKED US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE.
OUR GOAL HAS BEEN IN THIS REAL ESTATE CYCLE DEVELOP PARENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN MORE AFFORDABLE THROUGH A WIDER RANGE OF
RESIDENT.
MOST PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING FOR THE ABSOLUTE TOP OF THE
MARKET AND ESPECIALLY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WHERE THE
AVERAGE RENT IS APPROACHING $2000 TO 2200 A MONTH.
WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FOCUS RENTS BETWEEN 1350 AND 1550 IN
SOUTH TAMPA AND WE FIND THERE'S A HIGH DEMAND BECAUSE OF THE
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IN TAMPA.
OUR FIRST PROJECT WAS BE NOHO FLATS. IT'S 311 UNITS AT THE
CORNER OF ROME AND FIG STREETS.
WE MET WITH MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS IN TRYING TO THIS DO THIS
PROJECT AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME FROM THIS PROJECT
THAT WE INCORPORATED INTO HAVANA SQUARE.
ONE OF THE THINGS TO LOOK AT IS THE STREETSCAPE HERE AT
HAVANA SQUARE.
THIS STREETSCAPE IS MUCH WIDER THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY DID
AT HOHO FLATS AND AS A RESULT OF NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT WE

WIDENED THE STREETSCAPE AND ABOUT 18 TO 20 FEET FROM THE
CURB TO THE FACE OF THE BUILDING ALL AROUND THIS BUILDING.
SO GOING FORWARD IF THIS PROJECT AS PROPOSED IS APPROVED
THIS EVENING WE WOULD MAINTAIN THOSE SAME DISTANCES AND SAME
SETBACKS AND SAME STREETSCAPE DETAIL THAT WE HAD.
THIS JUST GIVES YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THE INTERIOR FINISHES.
THEY ARE ALL CLASS A LUXURY PROJECTS.
THIS IS A SAMPLE OF OUR EXTERIORS. THIS IS THE INTERIOR
COURTYARD OF HAVANA SCARE AND THIS IS A PROJECT OVER IN
CLEARWATER THAT WE DID
WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS, MET WITH STAKEHOLDERS, MET WITH
THE CITY ON MANY OCCASIONS AND TRADE TO BRING TOGETHER A
LIST OF THINGS THAT WERE NEEDED FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND
WHAT WE COULD PUT IN OUR PROJECTS THAT MIGHT ADD TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE AN ENHANCEMENT.
WE TALKED TO STANDARD STREETSCAPE THAT THOUGHT OTHER
DEVELOPERS MIGHT EMULATE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD SUCCESS IN THAT BUT WE BELIEVE THAT HAVANA
SQUARE STREETSCAPE HAS GOT A STANDARD THAT WE THINK REALLY
WORKS WELL.
ONE OF THE REQUESTS WE HAD FROM THE NEIGHBORS WAS FOR AN
OPEN PARK AND ON NOHO FLATS WE DID BUILD A POCKET PARK
THAT'S BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
AT ALL TIMES.
AROUND THE BLOCK ONE OF THE THINGS WE KEPT SEEING WERE

OVERHEAD POWER LINES THAT WE WANT TO PUT UNDERGROUND.
SO WE ACTUALLY PUT THESE OVERHEAD POWER LINES UNDERGROUND AT
OUR COST, WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO DO SO.
WE ALSO HAD CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE ADDRESSED.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD STORMWATER PROBLEMS AT ROME AND FIG, AND
WE HAD FLOODING THERE.
SO WE DID HAVANA SQUARE.
WE ACTUALLY INCORPORATED DRAINAGE INTO OUR RETENTION SYSTEM
TO HANDLE SOME OF THE STORMWATER ISSUES GOING ON ON ROME.
AROUND ALL OF OUR BLOCKS WE PUT THE STREETLIGHT IN, THAT
ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT HELP SECURE THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
AND WE PAID FOR THOSE AND WE PAY FOR THE ELECTRIC ON ALL OF
THAT ON ALL OF OUR PROJECTS
AGAIN, IN THESE PROJECTS WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE A REALLY
PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY STREETSCAPE AND TO INTERACT WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, SEE MORE INTERACTION WITH BEDS AND THE
SIDEWALKS AND WHAT SNOT.
SO THIS IS THE STREETSCAPE DESIGN AT HAVANA SQUARE.
ONE THING WE DO ON ALL OF OUR PROJECTS IS WE INCORPORATE
THESE FRONT PORCHES ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
THESE FRONT PORCHES, EVEN THOUGH THE RESIDENT PARK IN THE
GARAGE AND ACCESS THE UNIT FROM THE BACK BREEZEWAY, THEY CAN
ACCESS AND ENTER IN AND HOW THE TO THE STREET FROM THESE
FRONT PORCHES AND IT REALLY CREATES A GREAT INTERACTION WITH

THE STREET.
YOU SEE PEOPLE WALKING THEIR DOGS IN THE MORNING, PEOPLE OUT
JOGGING, OR GOING FOR A WALK.
ANOTHER THING WE DO ON OUR STREETSCAPE IS WE PUT IN PUBLIC
BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES AND BIKE RACKS, ALL THAT WE
PAY FOR AND MAINTAIN.
AGAIN, WE HAVE THE STREETLIGHTS ALL AROUND THE BLOCK WHICH
WE MAINTAIN AND PAY FOR.
THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED IS 226 UNITS WITH ONE RETAIL SPOT.
IT IS IN A FOUR-STORY CONFIGURATION AROUND THE CENTRAL
COURTYARD.
WE DID MAKE PAINSTAKING EFFORTS TO TRY TO INCLUDE THE
SINGLE-FAMILY IN OUR PROJECT BUT THE FAMILY COULD NOT AGREE
UPON WHETHER OR NOT TO SELL, AND DECIDED NOT TO COME FORWARD
WITH IT.
WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL BUFFERS AROUND THE PROJECT AND AROUND
THIS SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE SEVERAL LARGE TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY
AND ALSO ON OUR PROPERTY.
AND WE ARE PROTECTING THOSE TREES AND MAINTAINING THE PROPER
PROTECTED RADII AROUND.
IN OUR CENTRAL COURTYARD IT'S MUCH LIKE THE LUXURY RESORT.
WE HAVE A POOL AREA TO THE RIGHT, FIRE PITS AND SEATING AREA
TO THE LEFT, WITH OPEN GREEN SPACE.
AND THEN IN THE CENTER IS A SEATING AREA WITH OUT DOOR

KITCHEN.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION ALONG GRAY STREET.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION ALONG CASS STREET.
IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THESE AREAS HERE, THESE ARE THE FRONT
PORCHES THAT YOU SEE ALL ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION LOOKING BACK FROM ROME TO THE WEST.
AND THIS IS OUR RETAIL COMPONENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE KEPT HEARING FROM THE NEIGHBORS
THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE SOME LEE TAIL ON THIS PROJECT.
UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING TOO
MUCH RETAIL IN IT.
BUT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS WHAT WE ARE CALLING THE CORN
STORE WHICH IS A CONVENIENCE STORE, AND IT'S A BISTRO TO
PICK UP THINGS FROM COFFEE TO PREPARED FOODS.
I THINK MAYBE COUNCILMAN MIRANDA WAS ON THIS BOARD WHEN I
CAME BEFORE YOU AND PUT IN A SIMILAR PROPERTY OUT AT ROCKY
POINT.
WE ASKED THE RESIDENTS THAT HAD TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY TO
WESTSHORE TO GET A QUART OF MILK AND WE PUT IN A CONVENIENCE
STORE LIKE THIS.
IT WAS ABOUT A THIRD THE SIZE OF THIS ONE. THIS IS REALLY
MORE OF THE SIZE OF A STANDARD CONVENIENCE STORE.
IT'S NOT A WA-WA BUT A STANDARD CONVENIENCE STORE.
BUT IT WAS -- I THINK IT WILL BE POPULAR WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE MULTIFAMILY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WE ARE SUGGESTING THIS USE BECAUSE IT WILL ENERGIZE THE
STREET.
IT'S A PEDESTRIAN USE THAT WE THINK IS SUSTAINABLE.
I THINK SUSTAINABILITY IS A KEY HERE WITH RETAIL.
AND ONE THING I WANT TO MENTION IS IF THIS PROJECT IS
APPROVED, WE WILL BE COME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL SEEKING
APPROVAL FOR BEER AND WINE PACKAGE SALES FROM THIS FACILITY
BECAUSE WE DO BELIEVE THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE
SUSTAINABILITY.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEVEL OF RETAIL IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE TWO RETAIL PROJECTS THAT CURRENT CURRENTLY UNDER
CONSTRUCTION NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE INTERIOR BUILDOUT GOING
ON AND THAT CONCERNS US THAT IS IT LEASED, IS IT NOT LEASED,
WHY?
YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS, WHAT I AM TRYING TO AVOID
IS WHAT I CALL ZOMBIE RETAIL.
AND I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A SECOND.
BUT THERE ARE LOW TRAFFIC COUNTS ON ROME.
WE ARE WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE HYDE PARK VILLAGE, THE
ARMATURE WORKS, WATER STREET, MIDTOWN.
ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BETTER LOCATIONS AND ARE REALLY
MORE DESIRABLE FOR RETAILERS AND USERS TO BE GO TO.
AND IF THEY HAVE RADIUS RESTRICTIONS, WHICH SOME OF THE
USERS WILL HAVE, THEY CANNOT COME TO OUR LOCATION.

SO WE ARE VERY CONSCIOUS OF THAT.
I HAVE BUILT MANY, MANY RETAIL AND MIXED USE PROJECTS, BUILT
OVER A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.
AND RETAIL THESE DAYS IS NOT IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME
TYPE OF USE.
YOU KNOW, NOW WITH AMAZON AND UBER EATS, WE ARE GETTING
PACKAGES OR FOOD DELIVERED TO 25 TO 30% OF OUR RESIDENTS
EVERY SINGLE DAY.
WE EVEN GOT RESIDENT GETTING UBER EATS FROM MCDONALD ON
KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
THIS IS MY EXAMPLE OF WHAT I CALL ZOMBIE RETAIL.
I CALL IT ZOMBIE RETAIL BECAUSE IT HAS NO LIFE OR PURPOSE,
IT JUST SORT OF EXITS, AND YOU SEE IN THE LOTS OF MARKET
WHEREOF THE RETAIL IS FORCED AND NOT REALLY MARKET DRIVEN.
THIS IS OVER IN CHANNELSIDE.
SLIDE PROJECT. THIS IS OVER IN LAKE LILY IN MAITLAND.
MAITLAND HAS A REALLY TERRIBLE REQUIREMENT WHERE ARE THEY
REQUIRE RETAIL IN ALMOST EVERY MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AND YOU
SEE VACANT RETAIL EVERYWHERE.
A USE YOU CONTINUALLY DON'T EXPECT.
IT DOESN'T ENERGIZE A PROJECT LIKE A RESTAURANT OR STORE
MIGHT.
THIS IS LEASED TO AFFIRM OVER IN CHANNELSIDE.
WHILE IT GREAT THIS SPACE IS LEASED IT DOESN'T CREATE THAT
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC THAT WILL GET FROM A CONVENIENCE STORE OR

A RESTAURANT.
ONE THING I WANT TO MENTION IS ALL THREE OF THESE PROJECTS
WERE FORECLOSED BY THEIR LENDERS AT SOME POINT.
SO FINANCIALLY THEY DID NOT -- WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL.
DAVID HAS ASKED ME TO TALK A LITTLE ABOUT THE WAIVER
REQUEST.
THE GREAT SPACE WAIVER IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SEEN ON ANY
TYPE OF NEW PROJECTS IN SOUTH THAN THE.
IT'S BEEN ON OUR SIDE OF THE RIVER.
AND CHANNELSIDE TO DOWNTOWN YOU DON'T HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT
BUT ON OUR SIDE OF THE RIVER YOU HAVE TO HAVE 350 SQUARE
FEET PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND IT'S BEEN WAIVED ON COUNTLESS
PROJECTS.
AS YOU CAN SEE IF WE MET IT, 67% OF OUR SITE WOULD HAVE TO
BE USED FOR GREEN SPACE.
AND ON THE TREE DONATION, WE WILL TRY TO PUT ALL OF OUR
TREES ON OUR SITE, BUT WE ARE SAVING 50% OF THE TREES, AND
WE ARE REQUIRED BY CODE, AND WE HAVE TO MITIGATE FOR THE
ONES WE ARE REMOVING.
WE WILL TRY TO PUT EVERYONE ON-SITE.
BUT WHAT THIS WAIVER ALLOWS US TO DO IS CONTRIBUTE TREES TO
THE TREE BANK FOR THOSE WE CANNOT FIT IN ON OUR SITE
THE WAIVER WE TALKED ABOUT ON OUR GOAL WITH A 10-FOOT
SETBACK WHICH LEADS WITH THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO AN AVERAGE
OF BETWEEN 18 TO 20 FEET FROM THE BACK OF CURB TO THE FACE

OF BUILDING.
THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS SETBACK REQUEST IS BECAUSE OF THE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WHICH WOULD DICTATE OUR NORMAL AND LARGER
SETBACK.
BUT THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SETBACK THAT'S APPROVED ON HAVANA
SQUARE
AGAIN ON PARKING, IT THE SAME REDUCTION THAT WE REQUESTED ON
HAVANA SQUARE.
IT SEEMS 15% BUT THAT'S NOT FACTORING IN THE ON-STREET
PARKING.
WE ARE PLANNING TO BUILD OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACE AND OUR
WAIVER WOULD ACTUALLY BE 6%.
ONE THING THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WE GOT USE
ESPECIALLY IN THE BLOCK WE ARE TRYING TO REDEVELOP, WE DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SO THEY ARE USING ALL OF THE PARKING.
WE GOT A GEM THAT WITH CLASSES OR WORKOUT TIMES WE HAVE CARS
PARKING ON THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IT'S NOT OUR PROJECTS THAT
ARE GENERATING THIS PARKING DEMAND.
IT'S SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE THEIR
OWN PARKING THAT GENERALLY HAS ABOUT 10 OR 15 SPACES AND
THEY PROBABLY NEED 40 OR 50.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THE LOADING ZONE.
WE WILL HAVE ENACTED AND FULLY FUNCTIONAL LOADING ZONE.
THIS IS BASED ON A DESIGN WE USE IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND

THAT'S WHY WE ARE HAVING TO ASK FOR A WAIVER FOR IT BUT IT'S
A FULLY FUNCTIONAL LOADING ZONE THAT'S BEEN APPROVED IN
MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEAST.
LASTLY, WHILE WE ARE NOT PROVIDING 100% OF EVERYTHING THAT
EVERYBODY ASKED FOR, WE ARE PROVIDING A HIGH QUALITY
PROJECT, AND WE TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE INPUT THAT WE GOT AND
TRY TO DIRECT THAT AS BEST THAT WE CAN IF APPROVED.
ANOTHER HEY QUALITY PROJECT IN THE NORTH HYDE PARK AREA THAT
WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE STREETSCAPE, THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO
THE SECURITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH THE SECURITY LIGHTS
WE ARE PUTTING IN AND PAYING FOR, AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT YOU HAVE OR COMMENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ADDRESS.
10:40:13PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
10:40:15PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ZOMBIE RETAIL.
AND I KNOW THE LAW FIRM YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY
OVER ON CHANNELSIDE.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU NEED PEOPLE IN ORDER TO DRAW RETAIL.
BUT YOU ALSO NEED RETAIL TO DRAW PEOPLE SOMEWHAT.
SO THAT COMBINATION OF THINGS.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE ASKING YOU THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S THE
AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU ARE USING FOR RETAIL OR OTHER
TYPES OF MULTI-USE?
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME OTHER THING.

AND OBVIOUSLY THE AREA THAT YOU ARE GOING INTO IS GOING TO
HAVE A LOT, HAS ALREADY GOT A LOT, AND SO WHAT'S THE VISION
OF HOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT
INVIGORATING STREETSCAPE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WALK AND
GO THROUGH ALL THESE DIFFERENT PLACES?
10:41:05PM >> WELL, IN MY OPINION THE FIRST THING WE COULD DO IS TAKE
THE STREET SAFE DESIGN IF WE LIKE IT, THE ONE LIKE IN HAVANA
SQUARE AND THEN ASK OTHER DEVELOPERS TO REPEAT IT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.
AND BY CREATING THOSE GUIDELINES, WE END UP WITH A
CONSISTENCY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE ARE NOT SEEING RIGHT
NOW.
SO THAT'S ONE THING.
BRINGING IN MORE RETAIL USES IS TOUGH.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOT SO MANY OTHER RETAIL CHOICES IN THE
AREA AND NEARBY, AND KENNEDY BOULEVARD IS REALLY MORE OF A
RETAIL CORRIDOR.
AND SO THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USE IN THIS AREA HAS TO GET
SIGNIFICANTLY DISCOUNTED RENTS BEFORE THEY'LL COME THERE.
SO WE ARE PIONEERS HERE.
AND I AM TRYING TO DO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS LOOKING FOR.
AND WITH THIS USE, I THINK IT WILL WORK, AND WE MAY END UP
LOSING MONEY ON IT, AND THAT'S FINE BECAUSE WE ARE DOING
THIS AS AN AMENITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE TO MAKE MONEY

ON IT.
BUT I THINK RETAIL IN THIS AREA NEEDS TO MOVE MORE SLOWLY
AND MORE CAREFULLY, AND SEE HOW THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
LEASES UP.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT TIME TO CHARGE FORWARD WITH 20 OR 30
OR 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES.
I'M AFRAID WE ARE GOING TO END UP WITH A BUNCH OF ZOMBIE
RETAIL ON ROME.
10:42:24PM >>MIKE SUAREZ:
GOT IT.
THANK YOU.
10:42:27PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO BE SPEAK ON
ITEM NUMBER 11?
ANYONE THAT'S STANDING THAT IS PLANNING TO SPEAK THAT HASN'T
BEEN SWORN IN, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO WE CAN DO THIS.
(OATH ADMINISTERED BY CLERK)
10:42:59PM >> GOOD EVENING.
10:43:00PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
STATE YOUR NAME.
10:43:05PM >> MY NAME IS BRENDA LINDSEY, 1916 WEST LEMON STREET IN
NORTH HYDE PARK.
I HAVE LIVED THERE FOREVER.
SINCE THE 60s SHALL.
MRS. CAPIN AND I WENT TO SCHOOL TOGETHER, SECOND GRADER.
SO I HAVE LIVED THERE A LONG TIME.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO BE THE LAST ONES ON THE LIST, EVERY SINGLE
TIME WE COME TO THIS COUNCIL?

MAYBE WE COULD MOVE UP ONCE OR TWICE.
BUT I COME TO YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE NORTH HYDE PARK
COMMUNITY.
THE NORTH HYDE PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION WAS FORMED IN 1972,
WITH ROBERT ALLEN AT THE HELM.
SINCE OUR FORMATION, WE HAVE DEDICATED OUR TIME TO IMPROVING
NORTH HYDE PARK.
ONE OF OUR PROJECTS WAS WORKING ON THE WEST TAMPA OVERLAY
DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARD.
WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 2004 WITH A CITY ORDINANCE.
THE WEST TAMPA OVERLAY DOCUMENT STATES IN SECTION 27-241-B,
THE PURPOSE AND INTENT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL
TYPES OF NEW IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR ADDITIONS ARE
COMPATIBLE IN BUILDING ORIENTATION, DESIGN ELEMENT, HEIGHT,
PUBLIC SAFETY, AND OTHER SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS PRESENTED
WITHIN THE AREA.
IT GOES ON TO SAY IN SECTION 27-241-C, COMPLIANCE: EACH
APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR MAJOR RENOVATION AS
DEFINED IN CHAPTER 27, CITY OF TAMPA CODE OF ORDINANCE, OR
ANY DEVELOPMENT UNDERGOING A CHANGE OF USE, INCREASE OF
INTENSITY, REVIEW SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL COMPATIBLE OVERLAY
DISTRICT AND UNDERLYING ZONING STANDARDS, AND IS APPLICABLE,
THESE SPECIFIC STANDARD OUTLINED IN THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED SITE PLAN.

THE REASON WE QUOTE THE CITY ORDINANCE ABOVE IS BECAUSE OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE HAD MANY PROJECTS THAT SEEM, AS WE
UNDERSTAND THESE CODES THEY ARE LOST.
WAIVERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED THAT CIRCUMVENT THE ORDINANCES AND
SET PRECEDENT FOR MOST IF NOT ALL DEVELOPERS IN THE
COMMUNITY.
PLEASE CONSIDER GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUEST FROM THE
DEVELOPERS THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT AND THAT WILL COME BEFORE
YOU IN THE FUTURE.
NO GREEN SPACE HAVE TO ENDURE THESE CHANGES.
WE THE NORTH HYDE PARK COMMUNITY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE NO
GREEN SPACE, NO PARK, POOR INFRASTRUCTURE, FLOODING AND
CROWDED STREETS, TALL BUILDINGS, WITH NO SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSES.
PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.
THANK YOU.
[BELL SOUNDS]
10:46:21PM >> GOOD EVENING. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ.
I APOLOGIZE IF I GET EXCITED.
MY ACCENT GROWS THICKER SO I WILL DO BE MY BEST HERE. THIS
DEVELOPMENT IS REPLACING A LOT OF BUSINESSES.
IT'S KIND OF FUNNY THAT THEY MENTION ABOUT RETAIL.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE DISPLACED.
THIS IS WHAT RETAIL SPACE LOOKS LIKE.
THAT LITTLE CORN THERE, THE SUBURBAN PROJECT IN AN URBAN

PLACE.
YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, THIS BUSINESS CAN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ONCE THOSE WAREHOUSES TURN INTO
ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PLACE?
DEMOGRAPHICS SHOW SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS, RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
THAT ARE VACANT.
ACTUALLY THAT'S FALSE.
HOW DO I KNOW THIS?
I TOURED ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT HE MENTIONED.
I WAS INVITED BY ONE OF THE BROKERS, AND WAS GETTING CLOSE
EVERY DAY ABOUT THE REST OF THE PROJECT.
SO THAT'S INACCURATE.
HE ALSO SHOWED NOHO JUNCTION.
HE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TENANTS.
IT HAS TO DO WITH DEVELOPERS SO THAT'S INACCURATE.
THEY PUT HAVANA SQUARE, THEY MAKE SOME MONEY.
ABOUT $11 MILLION AT WHOSE COST?
OUR COST.
THESE ARE ALL PROJECTS IN SEMINOLE HEIGHTS.
IN YOUR CITY.
AND WE GOT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
53 UNITS.
NOTHING FOR RETAIL.
81 UNITS.
7,000.

282 UNITS.
WHAT DO WE GET?
A CONVENIENCE STORE.
FROM THE RETAIL, MAYBE THEIR RENTS ARE TOO HIGH IN THE
CHANNELSIDE, THEY CANNOT AFFORD RETAIL. I DON'T KNOW.
THANK YOU.
10:48:31PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. RAMIREZ HAS TWO NAMES.
BRYAN GENTRY.
AND TERESA DAVIS.
TWO EXTRA MINUTES.
10:48:52PM >> CARLOS RAMIREZ.
I'M CURRENTLY ON THE BOARD OF THE NORTH HYDE PARK CIVIC
ASSOCIATION AS THE VICE PRESIDENT.
I'M ALSO THE CRIME WATCH COORDINATOR.
I SERVE AS SECRETARY AND CAC MEMBER ON THE WEST TAMPA CRA.
FOR THE REZONING TODAY IS REGARDING CHANGING THE PROPERTY TO
A PD.
SECTION 27, THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I WILL GET BACK TO THAT.
1.
ARE CHARACTERIZED BY UNIQUE CONDITIONS AND SITUATIONS WHICH
OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS CANNOT ACCOMMODATE AND 2, INCLUDING
MIXTURE OF APPROPRIATE LAND USES.

IT'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD 4-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH A
SMALL CORNER STORE.
AS HE POINTED OUT, THIS IS THE WHOLE BLOCK.
A 4 STORY BUILDING ALL THE WAY AROUND IT.
NOW, IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTARY
AND THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME KEY
CHARACTERISTICS.
THIS IS THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE YOU READ THAT TINY LITTLE WRITING.
BE I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE SOME KEY
CHARACTERISTICS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO MEET.
THERE'S 12 OF THEM.
I HIGHLIGHTED FIVE OF THEM.
BUT PRETTY MUCH ALL THESE FIVE TALK ABOUT BEING MIXED USE.
MORE INTENSE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT INTERSECTIONS BUT STEP
DOWN RESIDENTIAL IN BETWEEN.
BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT ARE HIGHER AT THE INTERSECTIONS AND
THEN COME DOWN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PEDESTRIAN USES OUTDOOR CAFES AT THE STREET LEVEL.
PUBLIC AND SEMI PRIVATE SUCH AS COURTYARD AND SIDEWALK
CAFES.
I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT GOING ALONG WITH THE CMU 35.
THEY ARE ASKING FOR A PARKING WAIVER, A 15% PARKING WAIVER
WHICH END UP BEING 59 PARKING SPACES.

I DID A LITTLE MATH BECAUSE I AM AN ENGINEER AND I LIKE
MATH.
SO THAT'S 59 SPACES.
THERE ARE 36 SPACES AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY ARE
PLANNING ON.
THERE ARE 59 CARS ARE GOING TO USE THOSE SPACES ON SURFACE.
THAT'S 23 SPACES THAT STILL NOT BEING MET.
NOW, AN AVERAGE SPACE IS -- YOU COULD PUT THEM ALL ALONG A
FOOTBALL FIELD AND STILL HAVE FIVE CARS DRIVING AROUND
LOOKING FOR A PARKING SPOT.
WE HAVE A PARKING PROBLEM ALREADY WITH NOHO FLATS AND WITH
HAVANA SQUARE THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE SAME
DEVELOPER.
WE HAVE MORE VEHICLES COMING IN.
IN THE PAST, WE HAD PARKING WAIVERS.
IF THERE HAS BEEN A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT IS TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS
TO WALK TO THE CONVENIENCE STORE, TO WALK TO A RESTAURANT,
OR THE POST OFFICE, OR THE KINKOs OR CLEANERS.
GET PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS TO WALK AROUND.
THERE IS NOWHERE TO WALK AROUND IN NORTH HYDE PARK.
WE HAVE TO GET IN OUR CARS TO GO SOUTH OF KENNEDY, TO GO
NORTH OF 275, TO GO TO DOWNTOWN, TO GO TO WESTSHORE.
THERE'S NOWHERE TO WALK OR BIKE TO.
WE NEED MORE MIXED USE, REAL MIXED USE TO COME INTO THE

NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THE COMMUNITY THAT WE NEED.
I'M ON THE CAC, WEST TAMPA CRA, AND TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS
AREA, TRYING TO CREATE JOBS, TRYING TO CREATE A SENSE OF
COMMUNITY.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO OUT AND GO TO THE OTHER SIDE
OF TOWN.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CREATE JOBS AND TRAINING WITHIN THE
WEST TAMPA COMMUNITY.
AND BY TAKING BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND JUST
ADDING MORE APARTMENTS, NOT REALLY DOING IT JUSTICE.
THANK YOU.
10:53:54PM >> BENJAMIN BUCKLEY, 9072 NORTH ROME AVENUE.
I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CAC FOR THE NORTH HYDE PARK
CIVIC ASSOCIATION, ALSO.
AND BY THE WAY, WE ARE WORKING ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED YET FOR THE WEST TAMPA AREA.
I RESPECTFULLY -- WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DISAPPROVE
THIS PROJECT AN VOTE NO.
AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YEARS AGO, A LONG TIME AGO, THE
CITY LEADERS CAME UP WITH AN IDEA TO MAKE A PLAN, YOU KNOW,
AND THIS TURNED INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
TODAY.
IT'S AN AWARD-WINNING PLAN, RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY WITH THE
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
THEY WON AN AWARD IN 2016.

WE NEED TO START USING THAT AND RELYING ON THE ADVICE OF THE
PLAN.
THE LEADERS OF OUR CITY A LONG TIME AGO, THEY HAD A VISION.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE JUST SPONTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH
COULD GO ANYWHERE.
SO THEY SAID WE NEED A PLAN.
AND THEY DIDN'T COME UP WITH A PLAN.
THEY HIRED PROFESSIONALS TO COME UP WITH A PLAN.
AND IT'S A WRITTEN PLAN.
AND THIS PROJECT, I DON'T SEE THIS PLAN IN LINE WITH THE
PLAN OF THE PROJECT IN LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I HAVE READ IT.
AND I CAN READ JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
THE OTHER THING, GREAT CITIES OF THE WORLD ARE LEADERS,
PROBABLY READ ABOUT THEM.
MAYBE THEY VISITED THESE CITIES.
AND WE ARE NOT DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH SOME OF THESE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
NOT JUST THIS ONE, OTHER ONES, TOO.
AND THE PLAN IS A TOOL TO BE USED MUCH LIKE A GARDEN TOOL
FOR CULTIVATION OF CROPS WHICH IS USE THE PLAN TO CULTIVATE
AN ENTIRE CITY.
AND THIS IS -- BY THE WAY, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS PART OF THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OR THE CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE ARE AN
URBAN VILLAGE, OKAY.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS TO VOTE NO.
NOW, I WAS READING OVER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BROCHURE.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THERE'S FOUR POINTS.
PEOPLE, PLACES, NATURAL SPACES, AND GOVERNANCE, AND
IMPLEMENTATION.
I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY HAVE MET ANY OF THESE THINGS IN THIS
PLAN.
HE DID NOT EVEN -- THIS DEVELOPER DID NOT COME TO OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP TO DISCUSS OR TELL US ABOUT THE PLAN.
WE DID ALL THIS RESEARCH AND FINDING OUT THINGS ON OUR OWN.
SO HE MISSED THE PEOPLE.
AND THE PEOPLE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ASSET HERE IN THIS
CITY.
THANK YOU.
[BELL SOUNDS]
10:57:13PM >> JAMIE WILSON, 1506 WEST FIG STREET.
I APOLOGIZE.
IT LOOKS -- WHATEVER NOTES I PUT DOWN.
BUT WE HAD A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR NORTH HYDE PARK, AND
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE ARE REALLY FOLLOWING THAT.
WE WANT TO MAKE A WALKABLE AREA, WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT WE HAVE NOWHERE TO WALK TO.
AND WHEN WE ARE WALKING AROUND, I TAKE MY DOG A COUPLE OF
TIMES A DAY, AND ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT OR EARLY MORNING ON THE

WEEKENDS, YOU HAVE TO WATCH OUT WHERE YOU STEP, PROBABLY
EVERY TEN STEPS EITHER WALKING AROUND NOHO FLATS OR HAVANA
SQUARE BECAUSE THE TENANTS THAT LIVE THERE NEVER PICK UP
AFTER THEIR DOGS, SO YOU ARE EITHER STICKING IN THE DOG'S
DINNER OR THE TENANT'S DINNER FROM WHAT THEY PUKED UP
EARLIER IN THE NIGHT.
AND I WOULD SAY EVERYONE CAN AGREE INCLUDING TAMPA POLICE,
THE PARKING SITUATION IN THAT AREA.
LUCKILY, THE CITY IS NICE ENOUGH TO INSTALL IN A-PARKING
SIGNS ON OUR STREET BECAUSE WE HAD OVERFLOW FROM NOVO FLATS
PARKING ACROSS OUR LAWNS AND THERE'S NOTHING TO DO ABOUT IT
BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED CITY PROPERTY.
BUT IT TAKES TIME TO GET ALL OF THAT INSTALLED, AND THEN THE
SAME WITH HAVANA SQUARE.
THEY FINALLY PUT UP IN A-PARKING SIGNS AROUND THE CORNERS
BECAUSE THE SAFETY RISK FOR ANYONE TRYING TO TURN OFF OF
ROME, OFF OF FREMONT OR TO GRAY OR WEST FIG STREET, IN CASE
THERE'S ANYONE TRYING TO CROSS, AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU
PUT THE SIGNS ABOUT TENANTS PARKING SOMEWHERE ELSE SO IF
THEY ARE ASKING FOR A PARKING WAIVER, IT'S JUST GOING TO
MAKE THINGS WORSE WITH.
AND HAVANA SQUARE, I DON'T BELIEVE, HAD A PARKING WAIVER,
AND THEY HAD THE PARKING GARAGE IS COMPLETELY EMPTY.
THAT'S WHY I KNOW TAMPA POLICE IS VERY HARD ON THAT AREA ON
THOSE CASES GIVING OUT TICKET, BECAUSE PARKING ALL OVER THE

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD WHILE THE TOP TWO FLOORS OF THE PARKING
GARAGE ARE EMPTY.
SO WE ASSUME IF THEY ARE GOING TO GET A PARKING WAIVER AND
IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE SQUARE HOW IS THAT SITUATION GOING TO
BE AND HOW IS IT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE SAFE FOR PEDESTRIANS
TO WALK OR BIKE?
SO BASICALLY, WE CAN ASSUME THAT EVERYONE IN THIS AREA, NONE
OF THEM HAS BEEN HAPPY, I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS BEEN HAPPY
THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ARE THERE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[BELL SOUNDS]
11:00:26PM >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS NICOLE -- AND I LIVE AT 1513 WEST NORTH B STREET
AND ALSO ASKING FOR YOU TO VOTE NO TO THIS PROJECT.
I HAVE LIVED IN NORTH HYDE PARK FOR TWO YEARS.
THE MAIN HOME RESIDENT.
LOVED THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT AS A NEW KID ON THE BLOCK, WITH NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS
WHO LIVED THERE FOR OVER 30 AND 40 YEARS, I FELT THAT MY
RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE ACTION AND TRY TO INTEGRATE MYSELF
INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO IT'S NOT JUST KEEPING -- ACTUALLY, I CLEAN UP THE
STREET FROM ALL THE TRASH, LITTER, NOT JUST IN MY YARD BUT
UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
WHEN I AM WALKING MY DOG, I TRY TO SAY HELLO TO MY NEIGHBORS

SO I CAN -- ACTUALLY THE NAMES OF THE DOGS BUT THE OWNERS,
AND TRAY TO HAVE MY EXISTING NEIGHBORS FEEL LIKE I AM
WELCOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I FEEL THIS DEVELOPER HAS
TAKEN THE TYPE OF ACTION TO BE WELCOME INTO OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THE WAIVERS FOR THE TREE, THE PARKING AND THE
SETBACKS ARE JUST A FEW OF THE REASONS BUT I THINK MOST
CRITICAL IS LACK OF RETAIL SPACE.
INSTEAD OF CREATING A PLACE WHERE EXISTING RESIDENTS, NEW
RESIDENTS, AND THE INFAMOUS UT STUDENTS CAN ALL COME
TOGETHER, BREAK BREAD, HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE, AND BUILD UP
COMMUNITY, WE ARE GETTING THIS SMALL SPACE, AND INSTEAD WE
ARE GOING TO END UP WITH ANOTHER APARTMENT MONSTROSITY, MORE
PARKING PROBLEMS, FEWER -- LESS GREEN SPACE.
SO FUNDAMENTALLY I DON'T THINK THIS PROJECT IS ADDING A
POSITIVE CHANGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I ASK THAT YOU REJECT IT.
THANK YOU.
11:02:19PM >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.
I LIVE AT 2714 MONROE.
I KNOW MANY OF YOU PERSONALLY.
I AM GOING TO START BY TELLING YOU THAT NOHO CAME IN TO GET
APPROVAL FOR NOHO.
AT THAT TIME I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF DEACON BOARD AT MISSION
BAPTIST CHURCH WHERE MR. MIRANDA PUT US TOGETHER AND WORKED

SOMETHING OUT THAT WOULD HELP MY CHURCH, HELP THE COMMUNITY.
NOW, I'M FOR APPROVAL OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GREAT
THING.
NOW, NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE LIVE IN THAT AREA.
I WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE NOHO BOARD AT ONE TIME FOR TWO AND A
HALF YEARS SUCCESSFULLY.
BUT WHAT I AM GOING TO TELL YOU IS BE THIS.
FOR US TO BE A GREAT CITY, FOR US TO SERVE OUR COMPANIONS IN
THE COMMUNITY, WE HAVE GOT TO THINK MORE THAN OURSELVES.
WE HAVE GOT TO REACH OUT AND TRY TO MAKE THINGS THAT ARE
AFFORDABLE.
WE ARE COMPLAINING, BUT THEY ARE LIVING IN AN AFFORDABLE
AREA BECAUSE OF US.
BECAUSE OF US.
WE MOVED OUT.
THEN ALL OF THIS CAME THROUGH.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE WERE BUT THEY WEREN'T THERE THEN.
I WAS THERE FOR 15 YEARS FEEDING THE HOMELESS, THE POOR,
HELPING KIDS DO THINGS FOR MY CHURCH.
HOWEVER, WITHOUT THEIR HELP, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO
ANYTHING.
HE SET IT UP.
ALL I'M SAYING TO YOU AT THIS TIME, WE CAN THINK OUTSIDE
THIS BOX.
I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN HERE ALL NIGHT.

I HAVE SINCE 5:30.
AND I KNOW YOU ARE TIRED.
BUT WE HAVE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HELP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
BE COMPREHENSIVELY.
I SAID I WOULD DO ANYTHING TO HELP.
WHAT ARE WE DOING NOW?
SO WHEN WE HAVE GOT A DREAM, WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE THE DREAM
HAPPEN.
SO I SUPPORT THIS, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO DO BETTER
OUR BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEING DILAPIDATED.
LOOK AT IT.
RIDE BY IT. THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HAVE A GOOD
DAY.
[BELL SOUNDS]
11:04:58PM >> I AM THADDEUS JENKINS.
BEAR WITH ME.
I AM ALSO SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.
I THINK POLLACK SHORES HAS DONE SOME GREAT THINGS FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, WE TOUCHED ON TWO SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS.
BOTH NET POSITIVES FOR THE AREA.
IMPROVES DENSITY WHICH IS IMPORTANT LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT TO
SUPPORT RETAIL.
MY NAME IS FRANK PETERSON, BY THE WAY, OWN A BUSINESS 1727

WEST CYPRESS STREET.
SO I AM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I AM ACTUALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS CORNER STORE.
COULD THERE BE MORE RETAIL?
ABSOLUTELY.
BUT I AM EXCITED TO WALK DOWN THE STREET TO GRAB A COFFEE OR
SODA OR SNACK IN MY BUSY DAY.
AGAIN, I THINK THE DENSITY IS MORE.
I THINK IT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS SITE.
I THINK POLLACK HAS DONE A LOT OF THINGS WITH LANDSCAPING,
BURYING POWER LINES, ET CETERA.
TO REALLY COMPEL THIS AREA FORWARD.
I DID WITNESS THE DEVELOPER REACH OUT TO SOME -- POSSIBLY
NOT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TRY TO INCORPORATE SOME OF
MY CONCERNS.
THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PIECES AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS AS EASY
AS IT LOOKS.
I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT FOR THE AREA AS A WHOLE.
KIND OF PROPELS THAT EFFORT TO MATURE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND
FURTHER THE GOAL OF THE URBAN VILLAGE.
SO AGAIN I ENCOURAGE YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
11:06:20PM >> IT LOOKS LIKE I'M THE LAST ONE.
CORRINA KENSEY.
I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
AND I MOVED INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE WERE

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, BASICALLY ONE AND TWO STORIES TALL.
I HAD NO IDEA THAT A THREE OR FOUR STORY BUILDING WAS GOING
TO GO ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOME.
I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN WHO JUST LEFT.
I DO NOT SEE THIS AS A DILAPIDATED NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY HOME IS NEWLY REMODELED.
MY NEIGHBOR IS REMODELING HIS HOME RIGHT NOW AND MY NEIGHBOR
ACROSS THE STREET AND TO EITHER SIDE OF ME, THE HOUSES ARE
WELL MAINTAINED.
I HAVE THREE ISSUES WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY ARE SITE
LINES, TRAFFIC AND PARKING, AND STORMWATER MITIGATION.
THE SITE LINES ARE BE A FOUR STORY BUILDING ACROSS THE
STREET FROM OUR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WHICH IS ONE STORY, WOULD
INVADE MY PRIVACY AND I FIND THAT DISRUPTIVE I.DON'T WANT A
BUNCH OF PEOPLE LOOKING DOWN AT ME AND IN MY YARD.
THAT'S A SECURITY ISSUE AND A PRIVACY ISSUE.
TRAFFIC AND PARKING.
EVERYBODY HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.
CARMEN STREET IS A VERY NARROW STREET AS ARE A LOT OF THE
STREET.
BORDERING THIS NEW PROJECT, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON CARMEN
STREET.
SO I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A WAIVER OF THE PARKING.
WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK?
ALL THESE FOUR STORY BUILDINGS THAT ARE THREE AND FOUR

STORIES, MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PARKING
IS BUMPER TO BUMPER.
SO THAT I FIND VERY DISRUPTIVE.
AND LASTLY, STORMWATER MITIGATION, CARMEN STREET FLOODS ON A
REGULAR BASIS.
THIS SUMMER HAS BEEN REALLY A LOT OF RAIN AND IT'S BEEN
FLOODED ON A REGULAR BASIS.
SO DOING A WAIVER ON GREEN SPACE, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE
STORMWATER IS GOING TO GET WORSE.
I AM WONDERING WHAT THE PERMEABLES, THE NONPERMEABLE RATIO
WOULD BE FOR THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.
GIVEN THAT THEY ARE BUILDING WAY OUT TO THE LOT LINES RIGHT
NOW.
I THINK YOU HAVE GOT 25-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
IS THE S THIS BUILDING GOING TO BE -- I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
THIS IS A NONTRANSIENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1972.
MY NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST HAS BEEN THERE SINCE, MY ADJACENT
NEIGHBOR, SINCE 1954.
SO THIS IS VERY DISRUPTIVE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS FAMILY
TIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD TIES.
[BELL SOUNDS]
THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST DENIAL OF THIS PROJECT.
11:09:03PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
PETITIONER, FIVE MINUTES.
11:09:07PM >> FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR MR. BUCKLEY WITH NOT
MEETING WITH HIM.
I DID MEET WITH SEVERAL NEIGHBORS. NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE
NORTH HYDE PARK ALLIANCE AND WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF
OTHER THINGS AND THEN DAVID HAS A FEW THINGS HE WOULD LIKE
TO BE SAY.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE RETAIL BULL I DON'T THINK IT
VIABLE RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WE NEED MORE RESIDENTIAL USE AND FOR THE RETAIL USE
TO BE OCCUPIED AND THAT AM WILL STIMULATE MORE RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
ON PARKING, STEVE HENRY, OUR PARKING ENGINEER, IS GOING TO
TALK ABOUT OUR RATIOS, BUT THE CITY OF TAMPA RATIO AT 1.8 IS
HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU SEE IN MOST MUNICIPALITIES .
1.6 PER UNIT IS REALLY WHAT WE SEE IN MOST MUTINY.
AND IF YOU DO CONSIDER OUR ON-STREET PARKING, WE WOULD HAVE
A RATIO OF 1.7 PER UNIT.
ONE THING THAT WAS MENTIONED TODAY WAS ABOUT THE STORMWATER.
THIS SITE IS MUCH MORE IMPERVIOUS THAN WHAT WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE.
SO WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY HELP THE STORMWATER ISSUES IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALSO THE PARKING DISTRIBUTION ISSUE WHERE PEOPLE ARE USING
THE ON-STREET PARKING THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE USING OUR
GARAGE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT AS AN ISSUE.
I'M MEETING WEDNESDAY WESTBOUND THE CITY OF TAMPA PARKING
DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF WE MATE GET PARKING METERS ON ON-STREET
PARKING THAT WOULD HELP WITH TURNOVER AND MAYBE BE AN
ADDITIONAL REVENUE GENERATOR FOR THE CITY BECAUSE SOMETIMES
OUR RESIDENTS ARE PARKING OH IT STREET WHERE THEY SHOULD BE
IN THE GARAGE.
BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT THE PROBLEM.
THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE GOT A LOT OF USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING SO THEY ARE PARKING ON
STREET.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ON SIMILAR PROPERTIES WE HAD A DNA
PROGRAM WHERE WE TEST THE DNA OF OUR PET RESIDENTS AND I AM
GOING TO ASK OUR MANAGEMENT FOLKS TO AGREEMENT THAT SO WE
CAN TRACE THE FECES OF THE DOGS THAT ARE NOT BEING PICKED UP
AND ALSO ASK FOLKS, TO PLACE TRASH RECEPTACLES AROUND OUR
SITE ON THIS PROJECT, AND THE ONE AT HAVANA SQUARE SO WE CAN
ALLEVIATE AT LEAST THE PET PROBLEM.
I DID NOT REALIZE THAT.
11:11:07PM >>DAVID MECHANIK:
I'LL TALK REAL QUICKLY.
YOUR CODE RESPECTFULLY DOES NOT HAVE MINIMUM RATIO FOR
RETAIL, THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT, BECAUSE THE ECONOMY AND THE

MARKET HAVE A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH IT, AND YOU DON'T WANT
TO BE FORCING PROPERTY OWNERS TO BUILD BUSINESS SPACE,
OFFICE SPACE, WITHOUT A MARKET TO SUPPORT IT.
MR. EVERETT IS VERY QUALIFIED TO KNOW HOW MUCH THAT AREA CAN
SUPPORT.
1100 FEET IS A NORMAL SIZE CONVENIENCE STORE WHICH WOULD
PROVIDE A GOOD SERVICE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE COULD NOT BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE IN THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS NOT AN ENTERTAINMENT VENUE.
THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR REASONABLY COST RENTAL UNITS.
AND FINALLY, OF COURSE, STORMWATER IS A MATTER OF
CONSTRUCTION, REGULATIONS.
WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCHARGE MORE WATER OR AT A GREATER
FLOW THAN WHAT THE CURRENT CONDITION ALLOWS FOR.
AND WE WILL BE IMPROVING THOSE CONDITIONS FOR HYDE PARK.
11:12:19PM >> LINKS AND ASSOCIATES, 5023 WEST LAUREL, TAMPA 33607.
THE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER HAS A PARKING MANUAL THAT THEY
HAVE, AND THEY HAVE DONE STUDIES ON URBAN APARTMENT
PROJECTS.
AND IT SHOWS BY 1.6 RATE PER UNIT IS WHAT THEY HAVE.
WE HAVE ON STREET PARKING SO MEET THAT ITE HAS DOCUMENTED IN
THEIR STUDY.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS?
11:12:54PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

ALL RIGHT. NEED A MOTION.
ANYTHING STAFF NEEDS TO SAY BEFORE WE CLOSE?
NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE.
11:13:01PM >> MOVE TO CLOSE.
11:13:02PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. MANISCALCO.
SECONDED BY MR. COHEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE WISH TO READ NUMBER 11?
11:13:14PM >>LUIS VIERA:
MOVE AN ORDINANCE PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL
VICINITY OF 514 NORTH ROME AVENUE, 1701 WEST GRAY STREET,
1706 WEST CARMEN STREET AND 501 AND 505 NORTH FREMONT AVENUE
IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY AND IG INDUSTRIAL GENERAL TO
PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL
SALES, CONVENIENCE GOODS, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
11:13:57PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. VIERA.
SECONDED BY MR. COHEN.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
11:14:05PM >>THE CLERK:
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MANISCALCO AND REDDICK

VOTING NO AND CAPIN BEING ABSENT.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE NOVEMBER 15th AT
9:30 A.M. TO BE 30 DAYS AFTER THE RELATED PLAN AMENDMENT.
11:14:23PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ALL RIGHT.
ANY NEW BUSINESS?
MR. SUAREZ?
ANY NEW BUSINESS, MR. COHEN?
11:14:31PM >> [OFF MICROPHONE]
11:14:37PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
ANY NEW BUSINESS, MR. MIRANDA?
11:14:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
NO, SIR.
11:14:41PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
MR. VIERA?
11:14:42PM >>LUIS VIERA:
NO, SIR.
11:14:43PM >>FRANK REDDICK:
NEED A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
GOT A MOTION FROM MR. MANISCALCO.
SECONDED BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? OPPOSED?
ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME?
ALL RIGHT. WE STAND ADJOURNED.
(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.
ANY PERSON WHO NEEDS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS MAY NEED TO HIRE A COURT REPORTER.