TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2021
6:00 P.M.
DISCLAIMER:
THIS FILE REPRESENTS AN UNEDITED VERSION OF REALTIME
CAPTIONING WHICH SHOULD NEITHER BE RELIED UPON FOR COMPLETE
ACCURACY NOR USED AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
ANY PERSON WHO NEEDS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS MAY NEED TO HIRE A COURT REPORTER.
18:07:30 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
-- FOR JUNE 10, 2021 NOW IN SESSION.
ROLL CALL PLEASE.
18:07:33 >>BILL CARLSON:
HERE.
18:07:35 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
HERE.
18:07:39 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
HERE.
18:07:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
HERE.
18:07:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HERE.
COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER AND VIERA ADVISED THEY WILL BE A
LITTLE LATE, BUT THEY WILL BE HERE VIRTUALLY THIS
EVENING.
MR. SHELBY, CAN YOU GIVE THE HOUSE RULES OF THE CITY
COUNCIL, PLEASE.
18:08:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
YES, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, MARTIN SHELBY, CITY ATTORNEY.
JUNE 10 OF ALL CITY HALL FOR TONIGHT'S QUASI-JUDICIAL
AND LAND USE RELATED MATTERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHICH
IS HELD DURING THE COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY.
THE MEETING IS CONDUCTED LIVE WITH AN IN-PERSON QUORUM
PRESENT IN CHAMBERS.
I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN VIERA WILL BE APPEARING VIRTUALLY
WHEN HE DOES ARRIVE.
IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS, MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AS COMMUNICATION MEDIA
TECHNOLOGY OR CMT.
TONIGHT'S MEETING IS HELD WITHIN THE ACCORDANCE OF THE
EMERGENCY RULES OF PROCEDURES AND IS AMENDED BY
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020-490 AND 2021-241.
PUBLIC AND CITIZENS OF TAMPA ARE ABLE TO WATCH THIS ON
CABLE STATION 640, FRONTIER CHANNEL 15, AND ON THE
INTERNET AT TAMPA.GOV/LIVESTREAM.
ONE WORD.
NOW THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS FOR THE PUBLIC TO
PARTICIPATE IN A HYBRID PUBLIC HEARING ON
QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER.
AND ONE WAY IS TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY THROUGH CMT.
THAT REQUIRES PREREGISTRATION AND THOSE INSTRUCTIONS
ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT TAMPA.GOV/QUASI.
AND THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THESE MEETINGS AND THE NOTICES
FOR THESE MEETINGS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE
CITY'S WEB PAGE, THE CITY COUNCIL'S WEB PAGE AT
TAMPA.GOV/CITYCOUNCIL.
ONE WORD.
NOW IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE VIA CMT REMOTELY, THE
PUBLIC MUST HAVE ACCESS TO A CMT DEVICE SUCH AS A
TABLET OR COMPUTER EQUIPPED WITH A CAMERA OR
MICROPHONE.
THESE SPECIFIC TWO-WAY VIDEO VIRTUAL FORMAT.
SMART PHONES AND CELL PHONES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE BECAUSE
THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOW TODAY SHARE THEIR CAMERA.
WITH REGARD TO OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE,
THOSE HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO SUBMIT VIA E-MAIL U.S.
MAIL.
AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO SEE AND TO READ IN
ADVANCE BEFORE THE MEETING AND THE INSTRUCTIONS AGAIN
ARE AT TAMPA.GOV/QUASI.
FINAL NOTE, IF YOU WERE PARTICIPATING BY THE GO TO
MEETING PLATFORM, THERE IS A CHAT BOX.
PLEASE BE REMINDED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT CHAT BOX
IS NOT TO BE USED COMMUNICATING WITH CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS OR ANYBODY ELSE WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF
TONIGHT AGENCIES ONLY FOR TECHNICAL ISSUES AND BRINGING
TO LIGHT ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE SOLVED.
FINALLY, COUNCIL, REQUEST FOR THOSE TESTIFYING TONIGHT
AT THE HEARING.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND
YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WILL
YOU PLEASE STATE IN YOUR COMMENTS TO INFORM CITY
COUNCIL.
THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU.
18:11:21 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
LET'S GO OVER THE HOUSEKEEPING NOTES,
YOU AND STAFF, PLEASE, SIR.
18:11:36 >> HOUSEKEEPING NOTE, ITEM NUMBER 4 ON THE AGENDA
CANNOT BE HEARD DUE TO A MISNOTICE.
ITEM 4, PLEASE TAKE OFF OF THE AGENDA.
18:11:47 >> MOTION TO MOVE, PLEASE.
18:11:48 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18:11:59 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYTHING ELSE, SIR?
18:12:01 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
CAN WE PLEASE SWEAR IN.
18:12:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER ONE -- I.T., WE CAN GET
HIS VOLUME UP.
I CAN'T HEAR HIM.
18:12:14 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
18:12:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF WE CAN, MR. CHAIRMAN.
18:12:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
1-10, MINUS 4.
18:12:25 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CITRO.
18:12:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE ON THE
SECOND FLOOR HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
18:12:36 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
18:12:39 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
STAFF HAS NOT SWORN IN.
CAN I PLEASE SWORN.
18:12:44 >>CLERK:
CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOU WILL TELL THE TRUTH, THE
WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
18:12:50 >> YES.
18:13:02 >>CLERK:
THANK YOU.
18:13:05 >> ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING, ZANE HUSAIN, DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION.
CASE NUMBER 1, REZ-21-06, 6008 NORTH ARMENIA AVENUE
FROM CI TO PD.
TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
18:13:29 >>DANNY COLLINS:
THIS IS DANNY COLLINS.
CAN YOU SHARE MY SCREEN?
CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN?
18:13:45 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE CAN SEE YOUR SCREEN.
18:13:47 >>DANNY COLLINS:
DANNY COLLINS WITH YOUR PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
FIRST CASE IN THE UNIVERSITY PLANNING DISTRICT PUBLIC
SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY NORTH ARMENIA BY HART ROUTE 16
THAT CONNECTS THE SUBJECT SITE FROM THE TRANSFER CENTER
AND BRITON PLAZA.
SUBJECT SITE IS NOT WITHIN A KNOWN NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION AND NOT WITHIN AN EVACUATION ZONE.
AN AREA MAP OF THE SURROUNDING SITE AND PROPERTIES.
IT IS OUTLINED IN THIS PURPLE COLOR ON THE WEST PORTION
OF NORTH ARMENIA AVENUE WHICH CONTAINS PREDOMINANTLY
NONRESIDENTIAL USES.
THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THE
SUBJECT SITE.
HERE IS THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS IN THE -- WITHIN THE CC-35
DESIGNATION.
THIS SHOULD ALSO EXTEND OVER TO -- THE ADJACENT PARCEL
TO THE WEST WHICH IS RECOGNIZED UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL-6
FUTURE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATION AND
BOND READS WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE FOR HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY.
THERE IS CC-35 PREDOMINANTLY ALONG ARMENIA AVENUE.
AND THEN THERE IS RESIDENTIAL-10 A COUPLE OF BLOCKS TO
THE EAST AND BLOCKS TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REVIEWED THE PROPOSED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE SEVERAL OF THE MIXED USE POLICIES
DUE TO LACK OF INTERNAL CONNECTIONS.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS CONCERNS OF
ACCESSIBILITY.
AND ENSURE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND
TRANSIT STOPS ARE PROVIDED.
PEDESTRIAN BETWEEN BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO AND NONE OF
BUILDING THREE AND THE EXISTING 10,000-SQUARE-FOOT
BUILDING.
NOT CLEAR HOW PEDESTRIANS WILL SAFELY NAVIGATE BETWEEN
USES WITHIN THE SITE.
THIS LAND USE POLICY 16.2.6 ENCOURAGES BUSINESS
ENTRANCES TO BE CONNECTED TO A PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
BUILDING ENTRANCES ARE NOT RECORD ON THE SITE PLAN AND
DOES NOT PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO BUILDINGS
ONE AND TWO WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS POLICY AND
LAND USE POLICY 152.6.
GIVEN THE PD PROPOSES OFFICE USES IN ADDITION TO
FACTORY USES AND IN A MIXED USE CORRIDOR AND TRANSIT
EMPHASIS CORRIDOR.
THESE CONCERNS ARE ON REVISED PLANS.
BASED ON CONVERSATION, PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS IT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR
ANY QUESTIONS.
18:16:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT MR. DINGFELDER
HAS ARRIVED.
18:16:53 >>CLERK:
I HAVE GOT IT, YES.
18:16:56 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS?
18:16:57 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
THANK YOU, DANNY.
MAY I PLEASE HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN?
WONDERFUL.
CAN EVERYONE SEE MY SCREEN?
18:17:08 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE CAN SEE YOUR SCREEN.
18:17:12 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
CASE NUMBER REZ-21-06.
THE APPLICANT AND OWNER IS JEREL MCCANTS, 6008 NORTH
ARMENIA AVENUE.
PROPOSED REZONING FROM CI COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO PD,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAREHOUSE.
NO PROPOSED WAIVERS.
LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN HERE, YOU WILL SEE THE
PROPOSAL IS WORTH THREE WAREHOUSES HERE.
ONE, TWO AND THREE WHERE MY CURSORS ARE.
THREE STRUCTURES CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 10,400 SQUARE
FEET.
WHILE RETAINING THE EXISTING 10,000-SQUARE-FOOT
STRUCTURE TO THE SOUTH.
THE TOTAL SITE HAS ACREAGE OF 1.9 ACRES AND THE
REQUIRED PARKING ON THE SITE IS 62 SPACES AND THE
APPLICANT IS PROPOSING HERE 28 SPACES.
SO A WAIVER WILL BE REQUIRED AND MUST BE RECEIVED --
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN -- OR LOOKING AT THE OVERHEAD
AERIAL VIEW HERE, THE SITE IS ACTUALLY SPLIT WITH THE
CITY AND THE COUNTY.
SO THE CITY IS ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE COUNTY AS YOU
SEE THIS LINE IS SEPARATED IN THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST
SIDE HERE.
ALL ACCESS COMES OFF NORTH ARMENIA TO THE SITE.
TO THE SOUTH, YOU HAVE WEST HENRY AVENUE, WEST CLIFTON
AND TO THE NORTHWEST HANNA, WEST PARIS.
THE PROPOSED SETBACKS OF THE STRUCTURE ARE TO THE
NORTH, YOU HAVE 11.2 FEET.
SOUTH, 5.1.
TO THE EAST 35 FEET.
AND TO THE WEST YOU HAVE 21 FEET.
ALL THE SURROUNDING USES ARE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AND ALSO COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST.
YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY ALSO SCATTERED TO THE SOUTH.
MOVING ALONG, SECOND SLIDES, YOU HAVE THE ELEVATIONS OF
THE WAREHOUSES.
AND ALSO YOU HAVE THE PICTURES OF THE SITE.
SO THE PICTURES TO THE VERY LEFT IS THE EXISTING.
ALSO TO THE -- THE PICTURE IN THE CENTER IS ALSO THE
EXISTING SITE, BUT PROPOSED BUILDING ARE GOING TO BE
PLACED.
TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE, WE HAVE NEW USED TIRES SHOP.
TO THE EAST OF THE SITE, YOU HAVE TAX SERVICE REFUND
SHOP.
AND TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, YOU HAVE THOSE RENTAL
APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT AND FIND THE REQUEST
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE.
PLEASE REFERENCE FINDINGS FROM DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION
RELATED TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE
IMMEDIATE AREA.
IF IT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE
THE APPLICATION, FURTHER MODIFICATIONS MUST BE
COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND
READING OF ORDINANCE AS STATED ON THE REVISION SHEET.
THANK YOU AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
18:20:31 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
ANY QUESTIONS?
WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
18:20:40 >> HELLO, HELLO.
YES, GOOD EVENING.
YES, ONE CORRECTION I WANTED TO NOTE THROUGH THE STAFF
ANALYSIS THAT WE ARE REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS --
18:20:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM SORRY TO
INTERRUPT.
IF WE CAN HAVE HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD.
18:20:59 >> THIS IS JEREL MCCANTS.
I AM JEREL MCCANTS, THE AGENT TO THE OWNER ALLIED
PROPERTY HOLDINGS.
WE ARE REQUESTING A CHANGE FROM CI ZONING TO PD.
THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED IS THE PROPOSED AREA WHICH IS
CONTROLLED BY THE CITY AND FRONTS ALONG ARMENIA AVENUE.
THE PARCEL TO THE EAST IS CONTROLLED BY THE COUNTY.
THE PURPOSE OF OUR REZONING IS THAT THIS SITE FACES AN
UNIQUE CONDITION WHICH WE HAVE -- WHICH IS A REASON FOR
OUR REZONING BASED ON -- ON THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED IS THAT REAR PARCEL THAT IS
CONTROLLED BY THE COUNTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS
TO ANY THOROUGHFARE OR ANY LOCAL ROAD.
SO IT IS -- IF IT IS CENTRALLY LANDLOCKED.
SO WE ARE ONLY PROPOSING TO USE THE PD FOR THE
CITY-OWNED LOT.
THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE -- OF THAT PARCEL THAT
IS CONTROLLED BY THE CITY THAT FRONTS ALONG ARMENIA
AVENUE IS PRIMARILY VACANT LOT.
THIS IS THE VIEW TO THE NORTH WHERE YOU CAN SEE BEYOND
THE MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX.
AND THE VIEW TO THE SOUTH WHERE YOU CAN SEE BEYOND
RESIDENTIAL AND ALSO ABUTS ON TO COMMERCIAL.
THIS IS THE FRONT FACADE OF THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE THAT
WE ARE PROPOSED TO MAINTAIN.
THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE.
AND THE USE WILL CONTINUE CURRENTLY AS THE WAREHOUSE
AND ABUT ON TO ARMENIA AVENUE AND THIS WAREHOUSE IS
ABUTTING TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THAT PARCEL.
THIS IS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF THE SAME WAREHOUSE
ORIENTED TO THE NORTH WHERE WE INTEND TO PROVIDE OUR
SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSES.
FURTHERMORE, PURPOSE FOR REZONING IS A SUFFICIENT AND
SUSTAINABLE USE OF LAND AND TO INTEGRATE THAT LAND AND
IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT.
BASED ON THE SITE PLAN DESIGN, AND WE ARE TRYING TO
INCORPORATE AND USE INGENUITY AND INNOVATION INTO THE
SITE PLAN ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ALSO
WILL SHOW THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, PRESENT
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT WILL BE COMPLEMENTING TO
THE COMMUNITY.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE OF
ARMENIA AVENUE AND THE THREE PROPOSED WAREHOUSES AND
ALSO THE PARCEL THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE COUNTY.
WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO PROVIDE RETENTION AND GREEN
SPACE.
WE PROVIDED PROPOSED PARKING AND ACCESS WITHIN THE SITE
TO THE WAREHOUSE WHICH ALREADY HAS ACCESS TO ARMENIA
AND CREATE A NEW ACCESS FROM ARMENIA TO THE PROPOSED
PARKING AREA.
WE COMPUTED OUR PARKING BASED ON A WAREHOUSE FORMULA
AND SUCCEEDED THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING FOR A
WAREHOUSE.
HERE IS A LARGE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT, THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE.
OUR CONTAINMENT FROM TRASH COLLECTION.
WE CREATED ALSO THE VEHICLE TURNS FOR LARGE VEHICLES
FOR THE SANITARY, FOR TRAVEL RETRIEVAL, AND ALSO FOR
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS AND TURN AROUND, WHICH WAS
CONSISTENT.
THE TWO WAIVERS WE ARE REQUESTING IS A REDUCTION TO THE
BUFFER THAT IS FROM TEN FEET TO EIGHT FEET ON THE
NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
ALL OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA WAS MET.
THE SECOND WAIVER WAS A REDUCTION IN PARKING DUE TO THE
UNAVAILABILITY OF THE LOT THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE
COUNTY.
THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WE ARE COMPLEMENTING WITH
STUCCO AND WITH BRICK-FACED STUCCO BANDING, OVERHEAD
DOORS, STOREFRONT DOORS AND WINDOWS.
THIS WILL BE PREENGINEERED METAL BUILDING AND FOLLOW IN
SIMILAR STYLE TO THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS.
THIS IS A BUILDING TO THE SOUTH THAT IS SMALLER THAN
THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE ORIENTED EAST-WEST ON THE
NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
IN CONCLUSION, WE BELIEVE WE MET THE CONDITIONS BASED
ON THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
OUR SITE PLAN HAS BEEN FOUND CONSISTENT.
THE DENSITY WE ARE NOT EXCEEDING BASED ON THE LAND USE
CATEGORY.
OUR REGULATIONS, WE ARE NOT -- WE HAVE NO ADVERSE
EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
WE ARE ENHANCING IT BASED ON EXISTING PHOTOS YOU SAW
PREVIOUSLY.
WE MET ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
OUR SITE PLAN AND OUR ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
18:27:03 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
18:27:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. MCCANTS.
I DON'T -- I GUESS I NEED TO ASK STAFF FIRST IF THERE
IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN STAFF REPORT AND THE
PRESENTATION WE JUST HEARD AS RELATED TO PARKING.
BECAUSE THE STAFF REPORT SAYS 62 SPACES REQUIRED, 25
SPACES PROVIDED.
SO WHAT ARE WE HEARING?
ZANE?
18:27:39 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
CORRECTION OF THE STAFF REPORT.
AND TO THE POWERPOINT SLIDE, THERE ARE TWO WAIVERS
HERE: REDUCTION TO THE BUFFER AND REDUCTION OF PARKING.
AND THIS WILL NOW BE CONSIDERED INCONSISTENT BY STAFF.
18:27:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. MCCANTS, GOING TO YOU THEN, AND
I AM LOOKING AT PAGE A-3 OF YOUR -- OF YOUR PD SITE
PLAN.
ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE PROVIDING THE 62 SPACES?
OR ARE YOU ACKNOWLEDGING THAT --
18:28:13 >> NO, YES, WE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR
THE REDUCTION IN PARKING.
18:28:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
HOW MANY SPACES ARE YOU PROVIDING
BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR SITE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE
YOU GOT 62 SPACES NUMBERED.
18:28:33 >> THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN INCLUDED THE INCORPORATION OF
THE COUNTY LOT WHICH WE DID MEET, AND WE WERE
INSTRUCTED BY THE COUNTY WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR THE
CONTINUANCE THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW PARKING ON THE
COUNTY-CONTROLLED LOT AND WE COULD ONLY USE THAT REAR
PARCEL THAT IS LANDLOCKED FOR RETENTION.
18:28:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO YOU HAVE A SUBSTITUTE PAGE, A-3
OR --
18:28:57 >> NO.
THIS WAS THE FINAL PAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IS ON
THE ELMO.
WE REMOVED THE PARKING --
18:29:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
LET'S SEE THAT AGAIN THEN.
THAT MUST BE A DIFFERENT -- IT IS A DIFFERENT A-3 THEN
WAS PROVIDED MAYBE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO?
18:29:19 >> YES, BUT THIS WAS SUBMITTED AS THE -- WHEN WE FOUND
OUT THAT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT ALLOW PARKING ON THEIR --
ON THE PARCEL THAT IS CONTROLLED.
WE UPDATED THE SITE PLAN AND THE -- AND THE TRASH AND
FIRE AUTO TURN THAT WE HAD TO ASK FOR A REDUCTION IN
PARKING TO FIT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE PARCEL THAT IS
CONTROLLED BY THE CITY ONLY.
18:29:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY.
SO IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENT
FOR A WAREHOUSE IS DERIVED FROM THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
--
18:29:56 >> YES --
18:29:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THAT ARE EXPECTED TO BE AT THE
WAREHOUSE.
YOU MAY HAVE A WAREHOUSE AND TWO PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE
WAREHOUSE, BUT IN THIS CASE I THINK THERE IS SOME
INDICATION OFF BUNCH -- WELL, EVEN THIS PAGE SAYS 58
OCCUPANTS.
18:30:14 >> I USE THAT TO INTENTIONALLY EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS
TO TRY TO PLOT THE WAREHOUSES ON A HIGHER PARKING RATIO
THAN -- THAN THE FACTOR.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT WAREHOUSING FACTOR IS .6 TO THE
MAXIMUM STAFF THAT WILL BE AT THAT FACILITY DURING THE
TIME OF DAY WHENEVER HOURS THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE
APPLICANT.
SO -- SINCE THEY ARE SHELL BUILDINGS, I -- I ONLY USED
A HIGHER COUNT.
SO USED .6 TIMES THE SQUARE FOOT OF THE BUILDING TO
OBTAIN A HIGHER NUMBER EVEN THOUGH WHOEVER CHOOSES TO
RENT OUT ONE OF THE WAREHOUSES, THEY WILL HAVE MORE
THAN ENOUGH PARKING BASED ON WHATEVER USE THEY HAVE.
THEY MAY HAVE FIVE PEOPLE WORKING.
18:31:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO YOU CREATED YOUR OWN
INCONSISTENCY BY OVERESTIMATING THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES?
18:31:15 >> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALLOWING FOR
PARKING FOR THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE IN THE SOUTH AND
THREE NEW WAREHOUSES.
18:31:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DO -- HAVE
SOMEONE THAT NEEDS MORE PARKING SPACES.
IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OVERFLOW?
WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO?
AND WILL THEY BOTHER ANY NEIGHBORS.
18:31:39 >> THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO AND WHEN WE
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, WE WERE GOING TO USE THAT
LANDLOCK PORTION FOR OVERFLOW PARKING AND THAT IS THE
WHOLE RATIONAL FOR CREATING ADDITIONAL PARKING AND
HANDICAP PARKING TO EXCEED THE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE
THERE MAY BE PEAK TIMES, CERTAIN TIMES OF DAY WHERE
THERE MAY BE MORE PEOPLE FREQUENTING ONE OF THE
WAREHOUSES AND ALL PACED ON THE USE.
SO IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE USE OF WAREHOUSING
SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN MOST OTHER USES DUE TO THE
FUNCTIONALITY OF WAREHOUSES ONLY BEING SHIPPING AND
RECEIVING OR JUST TYPICAL STORAGE.
18:32:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
ONE LAST QUESTION TO STAFF.
OTHER THAN THE TECHNICAL DEFICIENCY IN PARKING, DO YOU
HAVE A PLANNING OBJECTION TO WHAT IS BEING OFFERED HERE
AS PLANNERS NOT AS -- NOT IN REGARD TO, YOU KNOW,
EXACTLY WHAT THE CODE SAYS.
I KNOW THE CODE MAY SAY 62 AND HE IS EVERYTHING 25 AND
THAT SORT OF THING.
18:32:45 >> I UNDERSTAND.
THE INCONSISTENCY IS BASED ON THOSE TRANSPORTATION
FINDINGS.
18:32:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO YOU -- OTHERWISE, YOU ARE OKAY
WITH IT?
18:32:57 >> YES.
18:32:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY.
18:33:01 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MIRANDA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
18:33:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I WANT TO KNOW FROM STAFF WHAT DOES
A WAREHOUSE MEAN?
A BIG BUILDING WITH NOBODY IN IT?
OR GET A WAREHOUSE ZONING AND PUT A FACTORY AND HAVE 30
PEOPLE WORKING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER.
18:33:19 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
STAFF?
18:33:23 >> I WILL GET ON MEDIA THE DEFINITION FOR YOU.
18:33:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THE CURRENT ZONING, MR. MIRANDA, IS
COMMERCIAL INTENSE THAT DOES ALLOW LIGHT MANUFACTURING.
18:33:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
SURE, BUT ONE BUILDING, I GUESS --
I AM TALKING TO MYSELF.
DON'T WANT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING -- WHEN BUILT THREE
OTHERS THAT KICKS OFF THE PARKING PROBLEM.
18:34:06 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
WAREHOUSE IS PRINCIPLE USE OF CONCISE
PRODUCTS OF MATERIALS FOR FEE OR CHARGE OR DISTRIBUTION
TO OTHER LOCATIONS OPERATING BY THE SAME BUSINESS OR
ESTABLISHMENT.
A WAREHOUSE MAY INCLUDE ACCESSORY WHOLESALE SALES, BUT
SHALL NOT INCLUDE RETAIL SALES OR MINI WAREHOUSES.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE CODE.
18:34:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
BUT IT DOES INCLUDE MANUFACTURING?
18:34:37 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
NO, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURING,
NO.
18:34:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I CAN HARDLY HEAR YOU.
I THINK YOUR MIC IS WAY LOW.
18:34:44 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURING.
18:34:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
THANK YOU.
18:34:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IN THAT CASE WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR
SECOND READING AT THE TOP OF THE FIRST PAGE IT SAYS --
IT SAYS AN PROPOSED WAREHOUSE FACTORY AND OFFICE.
SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET THEM TO CHANGE THAT -- THAT
TITLE ON THE TOP JUST SO NO CONFUSION 20 YEARS FROM
NOW.
18:35:13 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
ALL RIGHT.
18:35:16 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE?
ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THIS ITEM?
ANYONE ON SECOND FLOOR FOR THIS ITEM?
18:35:32 >>AILEEN ROSARIO:
THIS IS AILEEN ROSARIO, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT.
WE DON'T HAVE NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK.
18:35:41 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE REGISTERED?
18:35:44 >>CLERK:
NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
18:35:46 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED.
MR. MANISCALCO, WILL YOU MIND.
18:35:51 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I HAVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 6008 NORTH
ARMENIA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, AND
DESCRIBED IN ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION CI
COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
WAREHOUSE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND I BELIEVE THE
APPLICANT HAS MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF FOR COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AS
CONDITIONED AND SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CITY CODE AND I FIND
THAT THE REQUESTED WAIVERS DO NOT IMPACT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE.
IF WE CAN -- WHAT IS THE WORD, MANUFACTURING?
AND THERE ARE NO ISSUES WITH THAT.
SO WE KNOW THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING IN THIS WAREHOUSE
SETTING.
JUST FOR CLARITY --
18:36:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MAY I INQUIRE, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT
ABOUT THE OFFICE?
WAS THAT PART OF THAT?
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.
IN TERMS THE USE, MR. DINGFELDER, DID YOU HAVE AN
ISSUE?
18:36:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK STAFF IF
THIS IS AN ALLOWED USE IN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED AS A, QUOTE, WAREHOUSE.
SOMETIMES DO YOU HAVE A SMALL LITTLE OFFICE ATTACHED TO
A WAREHOUSE.
18:37:10 >> DO WE --
18:37:12 >> MOVE TO OPEN.
18:37:12 >> SECOND.
18:37:16 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MIRANDA WILL REOPEN.
SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED?
18:37:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF WE CAN INQUIRE OF STAFF.
18:37:28 >>RYAN MANASSE:
RYAN MANASSE, LAND DEVELOPMENT.
COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, YOU ARE CORRECT.
OFFICE USE, NOT REALLY A USE BUT ACCESSORY BECAUSE THE
WAREHOUSE WILL BE THE USE AND THE PROPOSED USE AND HAVE
THE ANCILLARY OFFICE IN A WAREHOUSE SETTING.
SO STAFF DOESN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN OF THE
MANUFACTURING ON THE SITE PLAN AND SHOULD BE REMOVED
BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND READING AND THE ONLY USE
FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE WAREHOUSE USE.
18:37:59 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
18:38:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WITH THE TECHNICAL STAFF TURN UP
THE VOLUME FOR OUR ZONING STAFF BECAUSE ZANE WAS FAINT
AND RYAN WAS FAINT.
18:38:13 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
TEST, TEST.
CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW?
18:38:19 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
IT IS GETTING THERE.
18:38:21 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
I WILL STEP MY SIDE UP TOO.
18:38:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
BEFORE YOU CLOSE JUST TO CONFIRM FOR
MR. MANISCALCO'S SAKE, THERE ARE REVISIONS THAT ARE
REQUIRED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING IN ADDITION
TO THAT CHANGE, THAT'S CORRECT?
18:38:34 >>RYAN MANASSE:
THAT IS CORRECT AND BASED OFF THE
STAFF REPORT.
THE ADDITION.
I THINK THE WAIVERS -- SORRY IF I DON'T HAVE THAT IN
FRONT OF ME.
BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT, MR. SHELBY.
18:38:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO MOVE TO CLOSE.
SECOND, MR. DINGFELDER.
ALL IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED.
18:38:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
JUST TO ADD ON --
18:38:58 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
JUST TO ADD TO THE MOTION FOUND
WITH THE PORTION OF ARMENIA WITH LAND USE POLICY 15.2.1
AS WELL AS THE REVISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING.
WE ALREADY SAID THE -- TO STRIKE THE MANUFACTURING AS
WELL FROM THE SITE PLAN OR FROM THE -- THE REVISION
SHEET.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IT.
18:39:25 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO HAS MOVED THE ITEM.
SECOND?
18:39:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I WILL SECOND IT JUST WITH A
COMMENT.
18:39:32 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
SECOND BY MR. DINGFELDER.
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
18:39:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
A BIG WAIVER OF PARKING SPACES BUT
A STRANGE CODE PROVISION AND THE APPLICANT HAS EVEN
ACKNOWLEDGED I THINK IF HE HAD COME TO US AND SAID,
YEAH, WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE 15 OR 20 EMPLOYEES,
THEN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES WILL DROP
ACCORDINGLY.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS PARTICULAR
WAREHOUSE PARKING REQUIREMENT WORKS.
AND SO ANYWAY.
IN LIGHT OF THAT, I THINK HE CREATED HIS OWN HARDSHIP
IN A POSITIVE WAY AND I CAN ACCEPT AND ENDORSE THE
MOTION.
18:40:15 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO MOVED AND COUNCILMAN
SECOND.
18:40:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
18:40:18 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
18:40:19 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
18:40:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
18:40:25 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
18:40:29 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
NO.
18:40:33 >>CLERK:
MOTION CARRIES WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT AND
CITRO VOTING NO.
SECOND READING.
18:40:45 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER TWO.
18:40:50 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
20-102 FOR 3604 WEST IOWA AVENUE
PROPOSING FROM RS-60 TO RS-50.
I WILL PASS IT ALONG TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
DANNY?
18:41:03 >>DANNY COLLINS:
HI, EVERYONE, DANNY COLLINS WITH OUR
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
THE NEXT CASE IS IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICTS.
MORE SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE INTERBAY NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY IS SKY VIEW PARK HALF A MILE
EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
PUBLIC TRANSIT SPOT 1400 FEET TO THE WEST ALONG SOUTH
DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.
THE SITE WITHIN A LEVEL B EVACUATION ZONE.
AN AERIAL MAP OF SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES.
THE SUBJECT SITES ARE OUTLINED IN THIS PURPLE COLOR ON
SOUTH SIDE OF IOWA AVENUE.
AND JUST TO THE EAST OF -- SORRY TO THE WEST OF S.
HIMES AVENUE.
PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER.
HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP.
HERE IS THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL-10 FUTURE LAND USE OF SINGLE
FAMILY ATTACH THE RESIDENCES SURROUNDED BY -- ONE BLOCK
OF THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS RESIDENTIAL 20.
AND JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS LAND
UTILIZED -- LAND RECOGNIZED UNDER THE PUBLIC-SEMI
PUBLIC DESIGNATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION
AND FOUND NO ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD.
REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE HEIGHT AND SCALE OF THE
RESIDENTIAL USES ALONG THIS PORTION OF WEST HUDSON
AVENUE.
AND SUPPORTS MANY OF THE POLICY NOTICE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN WITH HOUSING THE CITY'S POPULATION.
THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENCOURAGES NEW HOUSING ON
UNDERUTILIZED LAND TO HELP MEET THE NEED OF TAMPA'S
PRESENT POPULATION.
FINALLY THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LONG-RANGE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL-10 FUTURE
LAND USE.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF
TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I AM AVAILABLE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
18:43:16 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
CITY STAFF.
18:43:20 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
THANK YOU.
CAN I HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, ZANE HUSAIN HERE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION,
REZ-20-102.
APPLICANT IS BLAKE FRAZIER.
PROPOSED FROM RS-60 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO RS-50,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY.
AND A EUCLIDIAN ZONING REQUEST, THEREFORE NO WAIVERS
ARE PERMITTED HERE.
LOOKING AT THE OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE SITE OUTLINED IN
THE RED.
TO THE NORTH IOWA AVENUE.
TO THE EAST S. HIMES AVENUE.
TO THE WEST SOUTH STERLING AVENUE.
AND BELOW, OHIO AVENUE.
THE REZONING IS TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF TWO TASK FORCE
RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
IF YOU SEE THE SURVEY HERE.
THAT THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 100 X 147 FEET.
A TOTAL LOT AREA OF -- OF 14,700 SQUARE FEET.
THE ONE PROPERTY HERE LOCATED TO THE WEST -- OF THE
WEST IOWA AND S. HIMES AVENUE INTERSECTION HERE IS LOT
4.
AND HERE TO THE EAST, YOU HAVE LOT 3 OF BLOCK 3.
MOVING ALONG HERE, YOU SEE THE PLAT.
AS YOU SEE LOT 3 AND 4 ARE LABELED OR SHOWN HERE WITH
THE GREEN BORDER.
AS YOU LOOK AT THE CONFIRMING MAP, YOU SEE THE
SURROUNDING AREA BEING SURROUNDED TO THE NORTH, WEST
AND EAST WITH THE RS-60 ZONING AND TO THE SOUTH, YOU
WILL SEE RS-50 AND RS-60 ZONING ALSO AS YOU SEE THE LOT
RIGHT HERE.
THE PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE IN 1914.
IT HAD LOTS VARYING FROM 50 FEET TO 138 FEET IN WIDTH
FROM 139 FEET TO 294 FEET.
148 -- 148 ZONING LOTS WERE ACTUALLY ANALYZED HERE.
61% OF THOSE LOTS HAD A WIDTH OF GREATER THAN 60 FEET.
AND 39% OF THOSE LOTS HAD A WIDTH OF 59.99 FEET OR
LESS.
PURSUANT TO THE REVIEW OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS 20 TOTAL LOTS.
SIX OR 30% OF THOSE LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH THE
WIDTH OF 60 FEET FOR GREATER AND 14 OR 70% OF THOSE
LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH A WIDTH OF 59.99 FEET OR
LESS.
THE BLOCK OF WEST IOWA AVENUE CONTAINS 16 TOTAL ZONING
LOTS, 56% OF THOSE LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH 60
FEET OF WIDTH OR GREATER AND 44% OF THOSE LOTS HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED AS WIDTH OF 59.99 FEET OR LESS.
BASED ON THOSE ANALYSIS, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST
INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF
THE STUDY AREA BLOCK AND BLOCK FACE.
MOVING ALONG HERE, YOU WILL SEE PICTURES OF THE SITE.
THIS IS THE DEAD-ON STRAIGHT PICTURE OF THE SITE.
TO THE EAST OF THE SITE, YOU SEE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY, ALSO YOU SEE THIS SECTION.
TO THE WEST OF THE SITE, YOU SEE RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY INTERSECTION TO THE WEST.
AGAIN, RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AFTER REVIEW OF THE
APPLICATION FOUND THIS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF
TAMPA CODE ORDINANCES.
THANK YOU, AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
18:47:23 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
ANY QUESTIONS?
I GUESS WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
18:47:32 >> HI, MY NAME IS BLAKE FRAZIER.
I AM THE AGENT FOR THIS REZONING APPLICATION.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CITY STAFF AND COUNTY
STAFF FOR PREPARING THIS REPORT.
AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A EUCLIDIAN REZONE FROM RS-60 TO
RS-50 TO SPLIT THE PARCEL WITH THE PLATTED LOT LINES
AND CONFORM TO THE PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND US.
HONESTLY I WAS PRETTY SURPRISED EARLIER THIS WEEK WHEN
I RECEIVED STAFF REPORT.
I PERSONALLY HAVE REZONED SEVERAL PROPERTIES WITHIN
THIS IMMEDIATE AREA INCLUDING THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE
STREET AT 39 -- SORRY, 3609 WEST IOWA.
AND ALL THOSE STAFF REPORTS WERE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE ORDINANCES WERE
ADOPTED FOR THE REZONE.
ALSO, I USED TO WORK FOR A COMPANY THAT HAS DONE
SEVERAL REZONES IN THERE PRIOR TO MY TENURE IN THEM,
AND EACH OF THOSE REPORTS WE WERE FUNDS CONSISTENT AND
ORDINANCES WERE ADOPTED PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO AFTER RECEIVING THE REPORT, I DECIDED TO DO A STUDY
OF MY OWN.
YOU KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT MY FINDINGS FOR THE
OVERALL AREA AND CYCLE BACK TO THE STAFF REPORTS AS WE
CONCLUDE.
18:48:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. CHAIRMAN.
18:49:00 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
POINT OF ORDER.
18:49:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
DOES THE ACTION HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH -- THIS IS JUST YOUR OWN?
18:49:10 >> YES.
18:49:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I WAS CONCERNED OF A POTENTIAL
CONFLICT.
18:49:17 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
OKAY, SIR.
18:49:22 >> ON MY FIRST DIAGRAM, IT SHOWS THE OVERALL AREA THE
ORIGINAL PLAT FROM 1914, EXCLUDING SOME PROPERTIES DOWN
HERE THAT HAVE BEEN REPLATTED INTO ANOTHER SUBDIVISION.
AND IF YOU END UP COUNTING ALL THESE RS-50S AND PDS UP
HERE, YOU WILL SEE THERE IS AT LEAST 17 REZONES WITHIN
THIS OVERALL AREA.
THE NEXT DIAGRAM I HAVE IS THE -- IS THE OVERALL PLAT
AS WELL.
AND I HAVE SEPARATED THAT PLAT INTO THE COMMERCIAL
PROPERTIES, MULTIFAMILY, MUNICIPALLY-OWNED PROPERTIES,
AND PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN REPLATTED TO OTHER
SUBDIVISIONS.
THE COMMERCIAL IDENTIFIED IN PURPLE.
THE MULTIFAMILY IN ORANGE.
THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED PROPERTIES IN RED.
AND THE GRAY PROPERTIES DOWN HERE ARE THE PROPERTIES
THAT HAVE BEEN REPLATTED TO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS AND THIS
LIGHT GRAY STRIP IS THE EXPANSION OF SOUTH DALE MABRY
HIGHWAY.
NEXT, I ALSO PRESENT A REPORT THAT TOTALS THE NUMBER
OF LOTS BY BLOCK, THE NUMBER OF LOTS WITH FRONT
FOOTAGES LESS THAN 59 FEET -- YEAH, 59.99 FEET OR LESS.
A NUMBER OF LOTS WITH 60 FEET OR MORE OF LOT FRONTAGE
AND THE PERCENT OF THE NONCONFORMING LOTS PER THE
OVERALL SUBDIVISION.
OR THE LOTS THAT WOULD BE 59.99 FEET OR LESS.
THE TOTALS ARE OBVIOUSLY AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS REPORT.
GOING BACK TO THE PLAT, I WILL LIKE TO POINT OUT TWO
THINGS.
THE FIRST IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION I INCLUDED
THIS SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT.
YOU KNOW, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THESE LOTS HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN -- ARE NOW IDENTIFIED AS SOME SORT OF
REPLAT REVISION OR RESUBDIVISION OF THE INTERBAY PLAT,
INCLUDING THIS PORTION DID NOT WORK OUT IN MY FAVOR.
IT ACTUALLY LOWERS THE PERCENTAGE OF NONCONFORMING LOTS
BY TWO AND A HALF PERCENT.
BUT THEN ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ON THIS PLAT
THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS EXCLUDING THE
SOUTHEASTERN PORTION WOULD BE PLATTED AS 50 FOOT LOTS
THROUGHOUT.
ONLY THE -- THE TWO WESTERNMOST LOTS ON THESE FIVE
BLOCKS ARE 60 FEET OR MORE AND THEN A HANDFUL OF LOTS
WITHIN BLOCK SIX AND SEVEN ARE 60 FEET FOR GREATER AS
WELL, MAINLY DUE TO THE IRREGULARITY OF HOW THE
ROADWAYS WORK THROUGH THOSE SPECIFIC BLOCKS.
ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION AND IN THIS REPORT THAT
I -- THAT WE -- WE FOUND THAT 74 -- OR 74 LOTS WITHIN
THE OVERALL AREA HAD EITHER OBTAINED RS-50 AND PD -- PD
ZONING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR SPECIFIC LOT FRONTAGES.
AND THIS WAS 15% OF THE OVERALL STUDIED AREA.
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TRANSITION BACK OVER TO THE -- TO
THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PREVIOUS REZONE THAT I HAD
GOTTEN AT 3609 WEST IOWA AVENUE ACROSS THE STREET
WHICH WE WERE FOUND CONSISTENT AND THAT LOT WAS REZONED
TO RS-50.
I HAVE THE OVERALL MAP HERE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SUBJECT AREA IS A MUCH SMALLER
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA.
MUCH SMALLER SAMPLE SIZE.
SO IF WE WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO FOLLOW THIS -- THIS
STYLE ANALYSIS PATTERN AND EXAMINE ONLY THE
NONREPLATTED PORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL -- OF THE
ORIGINAL PLAT, WE WOULD IDENTIFY NINE DIFFERENT BLOCKS
FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAT INCLUDING THE BLOCK THAT THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON.
THAT WILL BE BLOCKS THREE, SIX, SEVEN, 23, 24, 29, 30,
31 AND 32.
ON THESE -- ON THE SUBJECT BLOCKS, THERE ARE 103 TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
56 OF THOSE LOTS ARE NONCONFORMING.
47 OF THOSE LOTS ARE CONFORMING TO RS-60.
SO THAT WILL BE 54.37% NONCONFORMING TO RS-60 WITHIN
THE IMMEDIATE BLOCKS SURROUNDING OUR PARCELS.
HE BELIEVE THAT THIS DATA PROVES THAT THIS EUCLIDIAN
REZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I WOULD ASK THAT COUNCIL TAKE THESE FINDINGS INTO
CONSIDERATION WHILE DETERMINING, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IF NEEDED.
18:54:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
18:54:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU.
JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, MR. FRAZIER.
WHEN YOU PUT UP THE -- THAT ONE ILLUSTRATION THAT HAS
-- I THINK FOUR DIFFERENT TABLES.
DID YOU HAVE THAT ONE HANDY?
18:55:10 >> YES, SIR, IT IS ON THE SCREEN NOW.
18:55:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
NO ATTRIBUTION.
WHO GENERATED THIS?
DID DO YOU THIS YOURSELF?
18:55:20 >> YES, THAT IS A SELF- STUDY.
18:55:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
ON THAT POINT, HAVE YOU ALREADY
SUBMITTED THESE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD?
18:55:27 >> NOT AS OF THIS TIME, NO, SIR.
WE GOT THE STAFF REPORT, I BELIEVE, ON MONDAY SO I HAVE
NOT UPLOADED IT YET.
18:55:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. SHELBY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE
HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE PAST WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS
CASES, BUT I GUESS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WHEN PEOPLE
HAVE DOCUMENTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THAT THESE
DOCUMENTS GET TO THE CLERK.
18:55:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WELL, WE CAN MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
THAT.
HE HAS THE ABILITY TO E-MAIL THEM WITHIN 24 HOURS TO
THE ADDRESS OF THE LOCATED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS.
18:56:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THAT SOUNDS A LITTLE LOOSEY-GOOSEY.
18:56:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
YES, THAT IS TRUE, BUT THE OBLIGATION
IF THE PETITIONER WANTS THAT ON THE RECORD.
IF HE HAS THESE DOWNSTAIRS ON THE SECOND FLOOR?
18:56:19 >> YES, SIR.
18:56:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
DO YOU WISH -- IS THIS YOUR ONLY COPY
OR DO YOU HAVE OTHER COPIES.
18:56:27 >> IT IS MY ONLY COPY BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO BRING IT
UPSTAIRS.
18:56:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I PERSONALLY DON'T NEED IT.
YOU HAVE SHOWN IT TO US.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE, MR. SHELBY, AS YOU DO THAT THE
RECORD IS CLEAR ON ALL OF THE CASES.
18:56:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I CAN GO DOWN AND PUTS THEM IN THE
RECORD IF HE WISHES OR IF HE WANTS TO KEEP THE
ORIGINAL.
I DON'T HAVE THE INSTRUCTIONS IN FRONT OF ME.
18:56:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YOU GUYS CAN FIGURE IT OUT MAYBE
AFTER THE CASE IS OVER.
18:56:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
NO, I THINK IT IS A GOOD POINT,
COUNCILMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU CAN JUST BEAR WITH ME.
18:57:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO MY OTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN,
IS TO STAFF, WHILE MR. SHELBY IS LOOKING INTO THOSE
LEGALITIES.
STAFF, YOU HEARD A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS FOR THIS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE?
18:57:21 >>RYAN MANASSE:
GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, RYAN MANASSE,
LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER.
THE MAP IN THE STAFF REPORT IS THE CURRENT MAP TO DO
THEIR STAFF ANALYSIS.
WHERE WE TAKE A 13-FOOT RADIUS AND BREAK IT DOWN FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE EXISTING LOT OR BLOCK.
AS YOU PROBABLY SEE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, WE EXCLUDED
SOME CG PORTION PROPERTIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE
THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED OF COUNCIL TO GET A
FURTHER DEFINED STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN OF THE BLOCK -- BLOCK AND THE MAP THAT THE
APPLICANT IS SHOWING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD
REVIEW UPON, THE MAP OR SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT IS
WHAT WE ARE BASING OUR STAFF ANALYSIS ON TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, SIR.
18:58:12 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER?
18:58:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
NOT HAVING THEM SIDE BY SIDE THAT
WE BEING THE CITY STAFF, OR YOU BEING THE CITY STAFF
ARE USING A TIGHTER OR SMALLER AREA AND DID HE GO MUCH
BROADER THAN THAT.
IS THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING, RYAN?
18:58:35 >>RYAN MANASSE:
YES, SIR.
YOU KNOW IF YOU GO DIFFERENT WAYS ON MAPS, IT CAN PULL
IN DIFFERENT LOTS THAT CAN AFFECT THE NUMBERS OF THE
OVERALL STAFF ANALYSIS.
THE NARROWER VERSION.
THE 1320 RADIUS AND NARROW IT DOWN WE WON'T CROSS OVER
SOUTH DALE MABRY ON THE CONFORMING MAP.
TO THE EAST THORPE AND MAIN STREET AND WE START
BREAKING IT DOWN TO THE BLOCK FACE AND SUCH AND GET THE
OVERALL CONSISTENCY FINDING.
ON THE STAFF REPORT ON THE CONFORMING MAP PAGE.
YES TO THE SOUTH ON OHIO, A LOT OF LOTS THAT ARE 50 TO
54 FEET IN THE BLUE, BUT IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE STAFF ANALYSIS ON BLOCK AND
BLOCK FACE, THOSE WOULD BE SKEWED AND IT WILL GO AFTER
THE WIDTH, THE PERCENTAGES.
18:59:35 >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU.
18:59:39 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
MR. SHELBY, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
18:59:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WE HAVE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY.
MISS ROSARIO TAKEN THOSE DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOCOPIED AND
JUST FOR MR. FRAZIER AND OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE,
OTHER APPLICANTS IN THE RULES OR THE INSTRUCTION IT IS
STATES JUST SO I CAN STAY AND MAKE IT CLEAR, APPLICANTS
AND ALL OTHER PARTICIPANTS WHO SUBMIT SHARING EVIDENCE
SHARING THEIR SCREEN MUST SUBMIT A COMPLETE ELECTRONIC
COPY DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING -- THE MAIL ADDRESS,
COUNCILQUASISUBMISSIONS@TAMPA.GOV WITHIN 24 HOURS OF
THE HEARING.
THOSE INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY OF COUNCIL
WEB PAGE.
IF YOU CAN GIVE THEM TO THE CLERK.
19:00:37 >> I WILL SURE TO DO THAT.
THE DOCUMENTS, MR. FRAZIER, ARE BEING HAND THE OUT TO
MAKE PART OF THE RECORD.
19:00:50 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT?
SECOND FLOOR?
19:00:57 >> AILEEN ROSARIO, ZONING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK OF THIS ITEM.
THANK YOU.
19:01:04 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MADAM CLERK, ANY REGISTERED --
19:01:08 >>CLERK:
NO REGISTERED SPEAKER FOR THIS ITEM.
19:01:10 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
19:01:11 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
MOVE.
19:01:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
SECOND.
19:01:15 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL IN FAVOR.
ANY OPPOSED.
MR. CARLSON, CAN YOU READ NUMBER TWO.
19:01:23 >>BILL CARLSON:
CAN I PASS PLEASE.
19:01:26 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. CITRO.
19:01:30 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
FILE NUMBER REZ-20-12, AN ORDINANCE
PRESENTED FOR FIRST REEDING IN CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL
VICINITY OF 3604 WEST IOWA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA,
FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION FROM
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS-60 RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY TO RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATES THE PETITIONER HAS MET THE
BURDEN OF PROOF AND CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE OBJECTIVE
POLICY 1.3.4 AND IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE OBJECTION
9.2, WHICH INTENDS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS AN ADEQUATE
OUNT OF LAND PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND
PROJECTED POPULATION.
19:02:20 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SECOND.
19:02:21 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
19:02:23 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
19:02:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
19:02:26 >>BILL CARLSON:
NO.
19:02:28 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
19:02:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
NO.
19:02:35 >>CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT.
DINGFELDER AND CARLSON VOTING NO.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 15 AT
9:30 A.M.
19:02:47 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM 3.
19:02:50 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
THANK YOU, SIR, ITEM NUMBER 3,
REZ-21-22 FOR 804 WEST PARK AVENUE.
PROPOSED REZONING FROM RS-60 TO PD, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
I WILL NOW PASS IT ALONG TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
19:03:09 >>DANNY COLLINS:
DANNY COLLINS.
CAN YOU SHARE MY SCREEN, PLEASE?
DANNY COLLINS WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
THE NEXT CASE THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT AND
RIDGEWOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CLOSEST PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITY IS LOCATED 1,000
FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE CLOSEST PUBLIC TRANSIT IS LOCATED THREE BLOCKS
NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE WEST COLUMBIA DRIVE.
IN LEVEL A EVACUATION ZONE.
AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES.
IT IS JUST ON WEST SIDE OF WEST PARK AVENUE AND
OUTLINED IN THE PURPLE COLOR SURROUNDED BY
PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE PROJECT SITE IS RESIDENTIAL-10 LAND USE
DESIGNATION.
RESIDENTIAL 20 ONE BLOCK TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT
SITE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REVIEW THE APPLICATION
AND SHOWED NO ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND
REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SIMILAR IN FORM,
HEIGHT OF THE -- THIS IMPORTANT OF THE -- THE QUESTION
SUPPORTS MANY OF THE POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING POPULATION.
THE NEW COMPANY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENCOURAGES HOUSING
ON UNOCCUPIED LAND.
AND FINALLY REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LONG-RANGE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ENCOURAGED FOR LAND USE
DESIGNATION.
BASED OFTEN THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY
OF TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CLONE CLOUDS MY PRESENTATION.
AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
19:05:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS.
MOVE ON TO THE CITY STAFF.
19:05:35 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
ZANE HUSAIN, LAND DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION, GOING OVER REZ-21-22.
THE REPRESENTATIVE AND APPLICANT NAME IS STEVE
MICHELINI.
804 WEST PARK AVENUE.
PROPOSED ZONING FROM RS-60 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO
PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.
TWO WAIVERS BOTH RELATED TO TREES.
REQUEST TO PAY TREE TRUST FUND FOR MITIGATION TREES
THAT CANNOT BE PLANTED ON-SITE AND TO REDUCE THE TREES
PRESERVED ON A NONWOODED SITE FROM 50% TO 39%.
LOOKING AT THE OVERALL VIEW OF THE SITE HERE MARKED IN
RED.
AS YOU CAN SEE, NORTH GLENWOOD DRIVE COMES DOWN HERE TO
THE EAST.
TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE WEST PARK AVENUE.
DIAGONAL HERE TO THE NORTH -- TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO
THE SOUTHWEST YOU HAVE NORTH RIDGE AVENUE COMING DOWN
AND TO THE SOUTH, YOU HAVE WEST ROSS AVENUE.
AS YOU SEE HERE ON THE SURVEY, YOU HAVE LOT ONE AND LOT
TWO ON BLOCK E.
AS YOU KNOW, THEY ARE TRYING -- THE APPLICANT WOULD
LIKE TO PUT TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON -- ONE SINGLE
FAMILY HOME ON EACH LOT.
THE PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST
PARK AVENUE AND NORTH GLEN DRIVE, LOT 1, THEY ARE
PROPOSING A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE CONTAINING 2026 ON
FIRST FLOOR AND 2175 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
TO THE SOUTH, LOT TWO, A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE BEING
PROPOSED CONTAINING 1547 SQUARE FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR
AND 1547 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
LOT ONE HERE HAS A WIDTH OF 55 FEET AND DEPTH OF 128
FEET.
AND TOTAL AREA 7172 SQUARE FEET.
AND LOT TWO TO THE SOUTH HAS A WIDTH 55 FEET AND LOT
DEPTH OF 129 FEET WITH A TOTAL AREA OF 7137 SQUARE
FEET.
THE SETBACKS ARE AS FOLLOWS, TO LOT ONE, 41 FEET.
EAST, 25 FEET.
NORTH, 7 FEET.
SOUTH, 5 FEET.
FOR LOT TWO, TO THE SOUTH, YOU WILL HAVE WEST 60 FEET
AND 10 INCHES.
EAST, 25 FEET.
NORTH EIGHT FEET AND SEVEN FEET TO THE SOUTH.
MOVING ALONG HERE, YOU WILL SEE THE PLAT.
YOU WILL SEE LOT 1 AND LOT 2 OUTLINED IN GREEN.
THE SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1922.
THE SUBJECT APPLICATION SEEKS TO SPLIT THE LOTS OF
RECORD TO CREATE TWO BUILDABLE LOTS HERE.
THE OVERALL AREA OF ANALYSIS INCLUDE 282 TOTAL ZONING
LOTS.
138 OF THOSE LOTS OR 49% HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH THE
WIDTH OF 60 FEET OR GREATER.
51% OF THOSE LOTS, 144 HAVE A WIDTH OF 59.99 FEET OR
LESS.
PURSUANT TO THE REVIEW OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN, THE BLOCK HAVE FIVE TOTAL ZONING LOTS.
20% OF THOSE LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH A WIDTH OF
60 FEET OR GREATER.
AND THE OTHER 80% ARE 59.99 OR LESS.
STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED RECONFIGURATION OF THE
PROPOSED LOTS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE OVERALL STUDY AREA BLOCK AND
BLACK FACE.
LOOKING HERE AT THE ELEVATIONS, YOU HAVE THE SOUTH
ELEVATION.
AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE ELEVATION TO THE SOUTH, YOU
HAVE THE NORTH ELEVATION.
ALSO TO THE SOUTH, YOU HAVE SOUTH ELEVATION ON THE
SCREEN ABOVE.
AND ALSO NORTH ELEVATION HERE LOOKING AT THE SIDE OF
THE STRUCTURE.
I WENT OUT TO THE SITE AND TOOK PICTURES AS YOU CAN
SEE.
PICTURES OF THE SITED, VACANT.
AND TO THE EAST OF THE SITE, YOU SEE SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES.
AND TO THE WEST OF THE SITE ALSO, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED
THE APPLICATION AND FINDS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY
OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
PLEASE REFER TO FINDINGS BY TRANSPORTATION IN RELATION
TO THE REQUIRED PARKING WAIVERS ASKED AND ACCESS TO
LOCAL STREET.
IT IS A PLEASURE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
APPLICATION AND MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF THE SITE PLAN
BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AS
IDENTIFIED BELOW.
THANK YOU, AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
19:10:46 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:10:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU.
ZANE, ON NOTE FIVE IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER NATURAL
RESOURCES AND LOOKING AT THE ONE ON SIRE.
IN REGARD TO REDUCE THE PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRESERVED
ON A NONWOODED SITE FROM 50% TO BLANK PERCENT.
XX PERCENT.
DO WE KNOW -- DO WE NOW KNOW WHAT THAT BLANK PERCENT
IS?
19:11:15 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
CORRECT.
MARY IN NATURAL RESOURCES MADE THAT CHANGE TO 39%.
THE PROPOSED WAIVERS FROM 50 TO 39%.
IS THAT CORRECT, MARY?
19:11:25 >> THAT'S CORRECT.
19:11:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU.
19:11:29 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE SECOND FLOOR -- THE
APPLICANT, SORRY.
19:11:36 >> YES, SIR, STEVE MICHELINI HERE ON BEHALF OF SHANE
O'NEILL, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 804 WEST PARK
AVENUE.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RS-60 AND WE ARE ASKING
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, MAINLY BECAUSE THE WIDTH OF THE
PROPERTIES ARE 55 FEET WIDE; HOWEVER, THE DEPTH OF THE
PROPERTY IS 128 AND 129 FEET RESPECTFULLY.
SO THAT HAS TWO LOTS -- ONE IS 7172 SQUARE FEET AND THE
OTHER IS 73 -- 1137 SQUARE FEET, WHICH EXCEEDS THE
6,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED UNDER
RS-60.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH
TWO-CAR GARAGES AND TWO SPACES IN THE DRIVEWAY FOR EACH
OF THE UNITS.
IT IS BEEN DESIGNATED AS AN EFFICIENT USE OF THE LAND
AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT UNITS PER ACRE IS 6.95.
AND THE PROPOSAL UNDER THIS REZONING IS 6.25.
BY THE CITY STAFF, IT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT,
COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE.
IT IS AN INFILL PROJECT.
THERE ARE NO ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED.
AND THE LONG-RANGE PLAN FINDS IT IS CONSISTENT.
AND BOTH THE CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF HAVE FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT.
WITH RESPECT TO PROMOTING THE EFFICIENCY AND
SUSTAINABLE USE OF LAND ON INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS WILL IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS NECESSARY FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WILL OCCUR AT THE PERMITTING
STAGE OF THE PROCESS.
WITH RESPECT TO PROMOTING AND ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT
WHERE WE ARE APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION.
THIS AREA IS APPROPRIATE FOR IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT AND IT
IS COMPATIBLE.
THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE SURROUNDING FAMILY IS
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THIS WILL MAINTAIN THE
SAME PATTERN.
PROMOTE THE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE, SIZE AND FEATURES OF
ELEMENTS AND WE WILL PUT ON THE OVERHEAD A RENDERING OF
THE -- CAN YOU SEE THAT OKAY.
OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SO IT IS -- BASICALLY -- A
TAMPA HEIGHTS, HYDE PARK STYLE HOME THAT IS BEING
PROPOSED.
ONE OF THE LOTS IS SLIGHTLY LARGER.
THOSE ARE THE TWO BASICALLY -- YOU NOTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY SET BACKS BEING PROPOSED
AND THOSE ARE -- TO SAVE TREES AND A AVOID THE
CONFLICTS WITH THOSE TREES.
ALTHOUGH WE ARE AT 39% AND THE 50%.
THEY WORKED ON AS MANY OF THE TREES AS POSSIBLE TO
MAINTAIN THEM.
WITH RESPECT TO THE -- TO THE WAIVERS, THE DESIGN OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS UNIQUE AND THE RESPECT TO
THE FACT THAT IT HAS -- IT HAS AN EXTRAORDINARY DEEP
LOT, AND THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MEET THOSE CODES AS --
AS REQUIRED FOR THAT PROPERTY.
THE WAIVES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WHICH
OTHERS.
19:15:30 >> THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA AND IT WILL
ALSO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE UTILIZATION AND
IMPROVE IT AS NECESSARY IDENTIFIED IN THE -- AS WILL BE
IDENTIFIED IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT THE GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
HAS BEEN MET THROUGH LAND USE OBJECT 2.1, 2.1.2.
OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 9.2, 9.2.1, 9.3, LAND
USE POLICY 9.3.8 AND OBJECTIVE 9.5, 9.5.1, 9.5.3.
1.3.10 AND HOUSING NEEDS 1.3, 1.3.4.
ANALYSIS SHOW NO ADVERSE IMPACTS.
IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE CITY STAFF.
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A COMPATIBILITY PROJECT.
IT IS -- IT IS ONE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FAVORABLY
AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.
19:16:46 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
ANY QUESTIONS?
ANYONE FROM THE SECOND FLOOR?
19:16:56 >>RYAN MANASSE:
CHAIR, RYAN MANASSE.
19:16:58 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:17:00 >>RYAN MANASSE:
I WANT TO CLEAR THE RECORD, THE LAST
SENTENCE READ BY ZANE OF THE CONSISTENCY FINDING --
THERE IS NO WAIVER WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING WAIVER OF
A LOCAL STREET.
THAT IS A CLARIFICATION THAT NEEDS TO BE ON THE STAFF
REPORT.
THAT IS NOT ACCURATE FOR THIS REPORT.
THE TWO WAIVERS HAVE DESCRIBED AS ZANE MENTIONED
27.3.1.
AND THOSE WERE TWO NATURAL RESOURCES WAIVERS.
I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THE RECORD.
19:17:31 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED MR. DINGFELDER.
19:17:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. MICHELINI, SO YOUR CLIENT
ACKNOWLEDGES THE -- THE REQUIREMENT TO PAY INTO THE
TREE TRUST FUND FOR THE MITIGATION AND FOR THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 50% AND 39%.
19:17:47 >> YES, SIR.
WE ARE COMMITTING TO MAKING THE REVISIONS NECESSARY
BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS SHOULD COUNCIL
APPROVE THIS AND PAYING THE NECESSARY FEES FOR NATURAL
RESOURCES.
19:18:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, SIR.
19:18:03 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
ITEM NUMBER 3.
19:18:19 >> AILEEN ROSARIO, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
NOBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
ORLANDO GUDES:ANYONE HERE REGISTERED FOR THIS ITEM?
19:18:27 >>CLERK:
NO ONE REGISTERED.
19:18:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
19:18:32 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MIRANDA HAS MOVED THE TIME.
MR. CITRO HAS SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED?
MOTION MOVED.
MADAM CLERK ROLL CALL PLEASE -- SORRY ABOUT THAT.
MR. CARLSON, READ NUMBER 3 FOR US SINCE WE DIDN'T GET
YOU ON NUMBER 2.
19:18:53 >>BILL CARLSON:
LIKE TO MOVE FILE NO. REZ-21-22 IN THE
GENERAL VICINITY OF 804 WEST PARK AVENUE IN THE CITY
TAMPA, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 1 ARE FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
RS-60 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO PD PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
19:19:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
SECOND.
19:19:16 >>BILL CARLSON:
THE REVISIONS INCLUDING THE REVISION
SHEET AND -- THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT FILED REGARDING
ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITS
CONSISTENCY WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USE.
19:19:37 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. CARLSON MOVED IT.
MR. MIRANDA SECONDED IT CARMEL CARLSON YES.
19:19:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
19:19:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
19:19:45 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
19:19:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
19:19:48 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
19:19:50 >> MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION JULY 15 AT 9:30 A.M.
19:19:56 >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.
19:19:57 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
WE ALREADY DEALT WITH ITEM NUMBER 4.
GO TO ITEM NUMBER 5.
19:20:06 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
THANK YOU, SIR.
ZANE HUSAIN, LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION REZ-21-26.
5001 WEST PRESCOTT STREET REQUESTING A REZONING FROM
RM-16 TO RM-18.
I WILL PASS IT ALONG TO DANNY WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
DANNY?
19:20:28 >>DANNY COLLINS:
THIS IS DANNY COLLINS WITH YOUR
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
OUR NEXT CASE IS IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT
AND MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THE PORT TAMPA CITY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CLOSEST PUBLIC FACILITY IS LOCATED A QUARTER MILE
TO THE SUBJECT SITE.
TRANSIT STOP IS LOCATED TWO MONTHS AT SOUTH WESTSHORE
BOULEVARD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN A LEVEL A EVACUATION AND
WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA.
HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
YOU WILL SEE SHOWN HERE OUTLINED IN THIS PURPLE COLOR
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST PRESCOTT STREET AND
SOUTH FALL STREET.
IT IS PREDOMINANTLY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL USES TO
THE NORTH, WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND SUBJECT UNDER THE
RESIDENTIAL 20 LAND USE DESIGNATION.
COMMERCIAL 35 TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND
RESIDENTIAL-35 DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.
TO THE SOUTH IT IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, REPRESENTED THINK
ABOUT GRAY COLOR.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND
FOUND IN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD.
MULTIFAMILY USES ARE ENCOURAGED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL
20 LAND USE DESIGNATION TO PROVIDE A HIGHER DENSITY IS
REQUIRED.
OVERALL THE RESIDENTIAL 20 LAND USE CATEGORY REQUIRES
HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBILITY WITH
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
REZONING THE SITE WILL ALLOW REVISIONS AND PLANS UNDER
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY FOR TAMPA'S GROWING POPULATION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT INSURES NO
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON HURRICANE -- HURRICANE EVACUATION
TIMES, SHELTER DEMANDS FOR THE RESIDENTS UNDER THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT
IN THE FUTURE.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF
TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR
ANY QUESTIONS.
19:22:51 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
CITY STAFF.
19:22:57 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ZANE HUSAIN,
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
REZ 21-26.
THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVE JON LUM.
PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 5001 WEST PRESCOTT STREET.
REZONING FROM RM-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY TO RM-18,
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY.
THIS BEING A EUCLIDEAN ZONING REQUEST, NO WAIVERS ARE
PERMITTED LOOKING AT THE OVERALL AERIAL VIEW OF THE
SITE.
THE SITE IS DOWN HERE OUTLINED AND BORDERED IN RED.
IT GOES ALONG SIDE SOUTH FALL STREET AND WEST PRESCOTT
STREET.
IF YOU LOOK HERE AT THE OVERHEAD VIEWS THE SURVEYS, YOU
WILL SEE THERE ARE THREE LOTS.
LOTS 6, LOT 7, AND LOT 8.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY 150 FEET IN LENGTH, 100 FEET IN
WIDTH.
THE TOTAL LOT AREA IS 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY --
DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AT THIS MOMENT.
AGAIN, THE SITE IS ALSO ON NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH
STREET AND WEST PRESCOTT.
THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY TO THE
NORTH AND REST IS RM-16 ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS ARE TO THE EAST
PD AND TO THE SOUTH RM-24 ZONING DISTRICT.
OFF TO THE SITE AND TAKE PICTURES AND SEE THE CURRENT
SITE, CURRENT STRUCTURE HERE.
TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE, YOU SEE THE RM-24 ZONING
DISTRICT.
TO THE EAST OF THE SITE -- YOU SEE PICTURES THERE.
TO THE WEST OF THE SITE, YOU SEE THE SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES.
AND TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, YOU SEE STRUCTURES ABOVE
ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS
REVIEW THE APPLICATION AND FOUND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT
WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA CODE OF ORDINANCES.
THANK YOU AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
19:25:14 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS.
19:25:16 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
MR. HUSAIN, I AM JUST CURIOUS LOOKING
AT THE OVERHEAD -- THE AERIAL.
EXCUSE ME.
THAT IS AN AWFUL BIG PIECE OF LAND.
ARE ALL OF THESE PLOTTED TO PRESCOTT AND NOT FALL?
19:25:34 >> CORRECT, THEY ARE ALL TO PRESCOTT.
19:25:37 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
I AM WONDERING BECAUSE I AM SEEING
HOMES THAT ARE PLOTTED TO FALL.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. HUSAIN.
19:25:47 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE?
DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT?
19:25:51 >> YES, I AM ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
STEVE MICHELINI HERE ON BEHALF THE PROPERTY OWNERS 501
WEST PRESCOTT.
AND THESE ARE PROPOSED -- IT'S A RESIDENTIAL 20 LAND
USE CLASSIFICATION, AND ACCORDING TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION REPORT, MOST OF THE AREA IS DEVELOPED IN A
-- IN A HIGHER DENSITY.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE RM-16 -- SORRY, WE ARE REQUESTING
TO GO FROM RM-16 TO RM-18, WHICH CURRENTLY WE CAN BUILD
5.6 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE RM-16 SO WE CAN BUILD SIX UNITS
WHICH WILL RAISE THE POTENTIAL CAPABILITY TO 6.1.
THE PROPERTY IS -- HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT,
COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TYPE OF -- OF --
FOR THIS LOCATION.
WE CAN NOT HAVE ANY WAIVERS, SO EVERYTHING REGARDING
TRANSPORTATION, REGARDING LANDSCAPING, REGARDING
STORMWATER ALL HAVE TO BE MET AND WE ARE COMMITTING TO
PROVIDING THE NECESSARY INFORMATION AS REQUIRED
REGARDING EVACUATION PLANS.
THIS IS -- THESE ARE PROPOSED -- WHAT WILL HAPPEN WILL
BE IF IT IS APPROVED THIS EVENING, IS TO BUILD A SERIES
OF -- OF TOWN HOUSES THAT ARE -- THAT ARE FEE SIMPLE
OWNER.
THESE ARE NOT APARTMENTS, BUT FEE OWNERSHIP.
BUT THE CITY STAFF IS NOTED THAT WE ARE SURROUNDED BY
-- OR AT LEAST ON TWO SIDES BY OTHER HIGHER DENSITY
DEVELOPMENTS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE.
THESE ARE TOWNHOUSES HERE THAT ARE BUILT IN THE SAME
MANNER.
WE HAVE THIS LARGER APARTMENT PROJECT GOING IN HERE.
AND THEN OTHER TOWN HOUSE PROJECTS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT
THE AREA.
WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE
LAND USE REVIEW.
FIRST LET ME GO TO THE LAND USE MAP AND SHOW YOU THAT
THIS ENTIRE AREA IS RESIDENTIAL 20.
THERE IS -- THIS PARCEL HERE, WHICH IS BEING REQUESTED
TO GO FROM RM-16 TO RM-18.
AND THESE ARE MUCH HIGHER DENSITIES HERE, HERE, AND
THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE AREA IS CAPABLE AND ALLOWABLE FOR
TOWNHOUSES OR APARTMENTS, BUT IN THIS CASE WE ARE
PROPOSING FEE SIMPLE -- FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP
STRUCTURES.
AND IF YOU REMEMBER FROM SOME OF THE OTHER DISCUSSIONS
PREVIOUSLY, THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA OBJECTED TO
APARTMENTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PARTICULAR INVESTMENT IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THESE PROPERTY OWNERS -- THESE PROPERTIES WILL BE OWNED
BY -- BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE AN INVESTMENT AND A STAKE
IN THE PROPERTY.
I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS, ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE NECESSARY, WE PAID
FOR INCLUDING ALL OF THE IMPACT FEES THAT ARE ASSESSED
TO THIS PROPERTY WILL ADDRESS ISSUES LIKE STORMWATER,
SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPING AND ALL OF THE OTHER APPLICABLE
CODES AND IMPACT FEES INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION.
THE SITE CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THAT IS MAXIMUM.
SOME INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT WOULD INDICATE MORE
UNITS BEING CONSIDERED, BUT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
UNDER THIS REZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT IS BEING
PROPOSED.
WITH RESPECT TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF
THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE OBJECTIVE 2.1, WHICH REGULATES
THE LEVELS AND BUILDING INTENSITY OF STANDARD LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS FOR THE AREA WHICH IS PROJECTED TO ABSORB
150,000 EMPLOYEES AND INDIVIDUALS BY 2040.
LAND USE 2.1.1 ENCOURAGES HIGH IMPACT DENSITY
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING CHARACTER.
THIS DOES NOT EFFECT ADVERSELY ANY OF THE SURROUNDING
AREA OR THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
LAND USE POLICY 2.1.2.
THE USE OF LIMITED LAND RESOURCES FOR EFFICIENT AND
PURSUE PATTERNS THAT ARE MORE ECONOMICALLY SOUND BY
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED SITES.
IT CLEARLY MEETS THAT.
THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IS REZ-20 AND BELOW THAT BY
TWO DEVELOPMENT UNITS PER ACRE.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE OVERALL RESIDENTIAL 9.2 TO ENSURE
ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF PROJECTED
POPULATION.
THE LAND USE 9.2.1, PROTECT AND PROMOTE AND MAINTAIN
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL
REDEVELOPMENT PLANS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES.
THE OVERALL IS COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
AND SHALL HAVE SUSTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND ENSURE THE
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY.
IN THIS RESPECT, THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL THE
OF THE CODES NECESSARY AND IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE
AS NEEDED.
SO IF ANY THOSE WATER LINES, SEWER LINES, OR INADEQUATE
OR IF THERE ARE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE MISSING, THEY WILL
ALL HAVE TO BE INSTALLED.
LAND USE POLICY 9.3.8, THE INTENT OF THE CITY THAT IT
WILL BE MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE SO ADJACENT AREAS AND
ASSESS THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THE CHARACTER OF THE
SURROUNDING AREA AND REQUIRE MITIGATION OF ALL NEGATIVE
OFFSITE IMPACTS.
WE HAVE TO MEET OR EXCEED ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND
THAT WILL BE DEALT WITH AT PERMITTING.
AS I SAID NO WAIVERS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED AND YOU
CAN ASK -- CANNOT ASK FOR WAIVERS AND YOU STRAIGHT
EUCLIDIAN REZONING.
MULTIFAMILY AREAS INCREASE THE DIVERSITY AND
SUSTAINABILITY IN MULTIFAMILY AREAS.
9.6.1 ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND INTENSITY OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TYPES.
THIS IS NOT A HIGH INTENSITY OR HIGH DEVELOPMENT AREA.
THIS IS REQUESTED FOR SIX SINGLE FAMILY SEMI DETACHED
UNITS WITH -- THAT WILL BE -- THAT WILL BE OWNED FEE
SIMPLE.
PROMOTE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN CONSISTENT
WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA STRATEGY, INCREASE THE AVAILABLE
OF HOUSING AND DENSITIES, PROMOTE WALKING AND TRANSIT
AND RESIDENTIAL SERVICES AND AMENITIES.
LAND USE POLICY 9.6.3, DESIGNATE ALL MULTIFAMILY AREAS
PREDOMINANTLY OCCUPIED BY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND
GREATER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS DESIRED TO INCREASE
THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND PROMOTE THE DENSITIES AND
INTENSITIES OF THE CITY'S FORMED STRATEGY.
LAND USE POLICY 9.6.4, BALANCE THE OBJECTIVES OF NEW
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR
TAMPA'S RESIDENTS AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE
ENSURING THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY WITH
OPPORTUNITY OF INFILL BY AREAS OF LOW AND MEDIUM
DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
CREATE TRANSITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY BETWEEN
SINGLE FAMILY ZONES AND MORE INTENSIVE MULTIFAMILY
ZONES.
AS I POINTED OUT TO YOU A MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
THAT IS TO THE EAST AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTH OF THE
PROPERTY.
AND SIX UNITS ON -- ON A SINGLE FAMILY OWNERSHIP
CLASSIFICATION DOES EXACTLY THAT.
LAND USE POLICY 9.7 -- 9.7.1 PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR ATTACHED HOUSING AND SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITIES AND
SINGLE FAMILY AREAS.
AND THIS OBVIOUSLY DOES THAT WELL.
LAND USE POLICY 9.7.2 MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT FROM HEIGHT, BULK AND NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE EXISTING CODE REGARDING
THAT.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RESIDENTIAL 20 CLASSIFICATION,
WE ARE BELOW THAT.
AND IT IS CERTAINLY -- THE DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ALREADY
HIGHER THAN THAT.
ENSURE THAT THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IS AVAILABLE
FOR THE NEEDS OF TAMPA HOUSEHOLDS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE
OF ALL NEIGHBORHOODS.
OBJECTIVE 1.3.
HSG 1.3.1 DES I CAN NIGHTS SUFFICIENT LANDS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TAMPA SHARE REGIONAL HOUSE
HOLD GROWTH.
HURRICANE EVACUATION SHELTERS, DIRECT FUTURE POPULATION
CONCENTRATIONS AWAY FROM THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD TO
ACHIEVE A NO NET INCREASE IN OVERALL RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY AND MEETS THAT RESTRICTION.
CM POLICY 1.1.1, AHA IS THE AREA BELOW THE ELEVATION
CATEGORY OF.
WE HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE NEW FEMA REGULATIONS
RECORDING THAT AND THE COMMITMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
SIX UNITS PROPOSED WILL BE FULLY INFORMED AND EDUCATED
REGARDING EVACUATION PLANS.
50% OR MORE OF THE PARCEL IS LOCATED IN THE COASTAL
HIGH HAZARD.
THE ENTIRE PARCEL IS CONSIDERED COASTAL HIGH HAZARD.
AGAIN, WE HAVE TO MEET ANY OF THE FLOOD ZONE
REQUIREMENTS AS LAID OUT BY THE CITY OF TAMPA CODE AND
FEMA.
THE CMU POLICY 1.1.4, PURPOSE OF ELEVATING THE PROPOSED
-- PROPOSAL FOR SITE PLANS.
THE FOOTPRINT AND THE ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE CONSIDERED
TO BE WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
THE STAFF ANALYSIS HAS FOUND THAT THIS -- THIS PROPOSAL
IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT IS DESIGNATION ALLOWS FOR
CONSIDERATION OF LOWER AND LOW, MEDIUM, SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED, CONDOMINIUMS, TOWN HOMES AND MULTIFAMILY.
RESIDENTIAL 20 ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF FALL,
NORTHERN PORTION OF WEST PRESCOTT AND SOUTH FALL
STREET.
SOUTH SHERRILL STREET PARCEL RECOGNIZED UNDER RULINGS
35 WHICH IS HIGHER AND SOUTH PARCEL UNDER 35
DESIGNATION OR TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT -- RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL 20
FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION THAT EXISTS AND THE
PROPOSED ZONING WILL -- I AM GOING TO ABBREVIATE
EXCERPT FROM THIS.
PROPOSED ZONING WOULD ALSO ALLOW CONSIDER UP TO SIX
DWELLING UNITS TO THE MAXIMUM SITE OVERALL DENSITY OF
18 UNITS PER ACRE.
THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE UNDERLYING LAND USE
DESIGNATION AND NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER AND THE
SURROUNDING PATTERN.
MULTIFAMILY IN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 LAND USE DESIGNATION
WITH THE GREATER DESIRE AS LAND USE POLICY 9.6.3.
BASED UPON ALL OF THIS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND
IT CONSISTENT AND JUST IN SUMMARY I WOULD LIKE TO POINT
OUT UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING YOU CAN BUILD 5.6 UNITS.
AND WE ARE REQUESTING RM-18 SO WE WOULD BUILD SIX UNITS
AND WILL GO TO 6.1 UNITS.
AND THE REAL INCREASE HERE IS FROM 5.6 TO .4 UNIT.
WE HAVE LITTLE OVER 5.5 UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED BY THE
CURRENT ZONING.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SIX UNITS INSTEAD OF THE
FIVE.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT
HAVE.
19:38:12 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
19:38:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
MR. MICHELINI, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT,
I DIDN'T QUITE GET THAT.
19:38:19 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
DON'T DO THAT.
19:38:22 >> WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT, UNDER OUR CURRENT
ZONING IS --
19:38:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
NO, I GOT IT.
I GOT IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
19:38:35 >>LUIS VIERA:
MR. CHAIR.
19:38:39 >> DID YOU HEAR -- EVERYTHING OKAY, SIR.
19:38:42 >>LUIS VIERA:
YES AND NO, MY BAD WITH TECHNOLOGY
CONTINUES.
I HAVE BEEN HERE ALMOST AN HOUR.
WE ARE TRYING TO GET MY WEB CAMERA.
19:39:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THERE AT THE END OF PRESCOTT BY THE
ERICAN REGION.
SERVE LOOKING FOR RED FISH.
THERE IS GOOD RED FISH OUT THERE.
BECAUSE I SURE DIDN'T CATCH ANY.
STEVE, YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT
FIVE OR SIX MULTIFAMILY UNITS WAS COMPLETELY
CONSISTENT, BUT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE WEST, AND
TO THE NORTH, ARE SINGLE FAMILY -- SINGLE FAMILY HOMES,
RIGHT?
19:40:03 >> RIGHT HERE ARE --
19:40:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
NO, NO.
19:40:06 >> LET ME JUST FINISH.
19:40:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I KNOW THAT IS RIGHT THERE AND SAYS
PD.
IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT.
19:40:11 >> TO THE LEFT?
19:40:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
LOOKS LIKE THREE SINGLE FAMILY AND
IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS ONE SINGLE FAMILY.
19:40:19 >> RIGHT HERE ARE THE APARTMENTS.
19:40:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I KNOW.
I TOTALLY RECOGNIZE THAT.
I GO OUT THERE VERY OFTEN.
19:40:26 >> NOT JUST ME SAYING IT, BUT ALSO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND THE CITY STAFF HAVE SAID IT IS
CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE.
19:40:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYBODY TAKES A LOOK AT THAT MAP.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE I AM GOING ON THIS.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY
UNITS, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.
I AM GOING TO ASK STAFF THIS QUESTION.
IS -- ON THE RM-18, SOUTH FLORIDA A HEIGHT DIFFERENCE,
RYAN, BETWEEN -- ZANE, BETWEEN THE RM-16 AND RM-18.
19:41:07 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
LET ME LOOK AT THE CODE REAL QUICK.
I WILL LET YOU KNOW.
19:41:22 >> ON TWO PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT IDENTIFIES THE
HEIGHT 35 FEET FOR RM-18.
19:41:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE
FAMILY HEIGHT AND OR THE RM-16.
19:41:33 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
SORRY ABOUT THAT, SIR.
BOTH ARE 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.
19:41:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THROUGH BOTH OF YOU ON THAT.
AND THEN MY LAST POINT IS IN REGARD TO -- AND LET ME GO
DOWN ON THE STAFF REPORT.
I THINK IT IS ON THE STAFF REPORT -- NO, IT IS ON THE
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT.
WE HAVE SEEN THIS PROVISION QUITE OFTEN.
WITH REGARDS TO THE COASTAL HIGH HAS AROUND AREA THAT
THIS IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA,
THIS AREA HAS A LOT OF BAD FLOODING.
OUR OBJECTIVE WHICH WE HAVE SEEN QUITE A BIT THIS YEAR,
OBJECTIVE CM -- OBJECTIVE 1.1 SAYS, DIRECT FUTURE
CONCENTRATIONS AWAY FROM THE HIGH COASTAL HAZARD AREA
TO ACHIEVE A NO NET INCREASE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
WITHIN THE CHAA.
STAFF'S OPINION AND YOU CONCUR WITH MR. MICHELINI UNDER
THE RM-16 GET 5.6 UNITS AND UNDER THE RM-18 HE CAN GET
6 UNITS.
SO HE IS GETTING AN ADDITIONAL ONE UNIT.
ARE YOU CONCURRING WITH THAT, ZANE OR RYAN OR WHOEVER
WANTS TO ANSWER?
19:42:59 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
DANNY?
19:43:02 >>DANNY COLLINS:
THIS SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN PLANNED.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS DEALT WITH ON THE PLAN
ENDMENT STAGE OR ALREADY HAS BEEN PLANNED IN WITH THE
UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE.
THAT IS HOW WE EXCEPTED IT IN THE PAST.
NO NET INCREASE.
19:43:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MY FIRST QUESTION, THIS -- THIS IS
SORT OF BACKWARDS AND LET ME REVERSE IT.
MY FIRST QUESTION DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. MICHELINI HE
HAS THE ABILITY TO BUILD 5.6 AND WHICH IS FIVE UNITS
AND THIS REZONING ALLOWS HIM TO BUILD SIX UNITS, THAT'S
CORRECT?
19:43:43 >>DANNY COLLINS:
I WILL DEFER THAT TO THE CITY AS FAR
AS HOW MANY UNITS CAN BE CONSIDERED WITHIN --
19:43:50 >>ZANE HUSAIN:
SORRY ABOUT THAT, DANNY.
THAT'S CORRECT, FIVE.
19:43:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
FIVE UNITS TO THE SIX UNITS.
GRANTED NOT A BIG DEAL, AND HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT IS
SOMEWHAT CONTRARY TO A NO NET INCREASE BECAUSE AN
INCREASE OF ONE UNIT.
THAT'S ALL I GOT, THANKS.
19:44:10 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT?
ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR REPRESENTING THIS ITEM?
ANYONE ON SECOND FLOOR WITH THIS ITEM?
19:44:23 >>AILEEN ROSARIO:
AILEEN ROSARIO.
E HAVE TWO -- WE HAVE TWO CITIZENS WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM.
19:44:55 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
19:45:03 >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JEFF LESSIE, 104 WEST
LANCASTER STREET, WHICH IS ONE BLOCK FROM THE PROPERTY
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ON PRESCOTT.
JUST TO GIVE YOU BACKGROUND OF THE AREA THAT WE LIVE
IN.
IT IS WEDGED BETWEEN TWO APARTMENT -- TWO LARGE
APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
THE SOUTH ONE IS NOW GOING IN AND NOT -- PEOPLE ARE NOT
LIVING THERE YET, BUT THEY HAVE RAISED THE LAND AND
WALLED IT IN.
SO AROUND NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, WE HAD -- THE END OF
THE HURRICANE SEASON SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STORM SURGE
CAME IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO WALLED-IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES
AND TOOK OUT 23 OF THE HOMES IN THIS AREA.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT IS -- THAT HAD TO
BE MOVED OUT AND I THINK THERE ARE STILL 15 HOMES THAT
ARE EMPTY BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS COULD NOT MOVE BACK IN
AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DAMAGE.
SO THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT THE WATER IN THIS AREA.
OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS -- IS -- IS INCREASING THE
NUMBER OF HOMES THAT CAN GO ON THIS PROPERTY.
IT IS A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
MULTIFAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA.
BUT WE ARE -- MY WIFE AND I ARE BOTH OF THE OPINION
THAT CONTINUING TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING
IN THIS AREA IS JUST GOING TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS.
WE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 14 YEARS.
AND THIS -- SINCE THIS NEWEST APARTMENT COMPLEX WENT
IN, IT HAS REALLY CHANGED THE -- THE DYNAMIC OF THE
AREA.
SO IT DOES FLOOD A LOT MORE READILY.
AND WE JUST THINK THIS IS CONTRIBUTING MORE TO THAT BY
ADDING MORE -- IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE MUCH, ONE UNIT.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE MUCH, BUT IT IS OUR OPINION THAT
WE ARE TRYING TO -- TO SLOW DOWN OR HALT INCREASING THE
-- THE BUILDING IN THIS AREA.
LET ME LOOK AT MY NOTES TO SEE IF I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
OH, I DID HAVE ALSO A CONCERN WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE,
WE HAD TALKED WITH THE -- WITH THE LANDOWNER JON LUM
AND UNDER THE IMPRESSION TRYING TO BUILD EIGHT UNITS ON
THERE THAT THEY HAD THE -- THE LAND TO BUILD SEVEN AND
A HALF, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE -- THE CODE
CHANGED SO WE CAN BUILD EIGHT.
IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED TONIGHT THAT IT IS SIX.
I SURE HOPE -- IF THIS DOES GET APPROVED, I DON'T SEE
EIGHT GOING DOWN IN THERE DOWN THE ROAD AND THAT WAS
ANOTHER CONCERN THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO PUSH FOR EIGHT
UNITS ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME TALK.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
19:47:57 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. CITRO, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:48:01 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YOU SAID YOU LIVE ON LANCASTER, WHO
WAS EFFECTED BY THAT STORM SURGE.
19:48:05 >> 23 HOMES.
19:48:09 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
WAS YOUR HOME AFFECTED BY IT?
19:48:12 >> MY HOME IS A TOWN HOME AND BUILT OF FIRST FLOOR.
THE WHOLE FIRST FLOOR IS GARAGE.
THE WATER DID COME UP TO THE GARAGE THROUGH THE UNIT.
THERE ARE HOLES IN THE FRONT AND BACK OF THE
OPPORTUNITY ALLOW FOR THAT.
SO IT DID COME INTO OUR GARAGE.
THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET ON BOTH SIDES, THEY HAD
THREE FEET OF WATER IN THE HOUSE.
SO THEY HAD TO MOVE OUT.
AND SEVERAL BLOCKS AROUND THERE, ALMOST EVERY OF THE
HOMES AND DUPLEXES DID HAVE TO VACATE.
19:48:41 >> THIS STORM SURGE FROM A RAIN OR DO WE HAVE A
HURRICANE?
19:48:44 >> RIGHT AT THE END OF HURRICANE SEASON.
IT WAS A LOT OF RAIN AND HIGH TIDE AND MOSTLY -- THE
STORM SURGE PUSHING IN FROM -- BECAUSE ON THE -- ON THE
WEST SIDE IS THE -- IS THE BAY.
OUT THERE NEAR THE AMERICAN LEGION.
I MEAN IT IS ALL WATER.
SO THAT WATER CAME IN, FILLED UP ALL THE DRAINAGE
DITCHES AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND CONTINUED TO RISE.
THE FIRST TIME WE EVER HAD WATER IN OUR GARAGE.
NOT GOTTEN ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT AND THAT WAS A FIRST.
19:49:17 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE NOW?
19:49:19 >> WE ARE NOT BECAUSE OUR LIVING SPACE IS 11 FEET
HIGHER.
I AM OKAY WITH WATER IN THE GARAGE BUT WHEN IT GETS IN
MY LIVING SPACE IS WHERE I WILL HAVE A PROBLEM.
19:49:28 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
19:49:33 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:49:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. MICHELINI --
19:49:39 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HE SAID MORE FOLKS WANT TO SPEAK.
19:49:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY, I WILL WAIT.
THANK YOU, SIR.
19:50:11 >> HELLO, MY NAME IS MIRANDA LESSIE.
I LIVE 5014 WEST LANCASTER STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA,
33616.
AS YOU JUST HEARD FROM MY HUSBAND, JEFF.
I WILL CONTINUE KIND OF WHAT HE WAS GOING OVER, AND YOU
HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT FLOODING AND THE AREA WE LIVE
IN.
I DID BRING, LIKE, A LITTLE MAP.
THIS HAS GOT WHERE WE LIVE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ACTUAL PROPERTY.
WE LIVE HERE AND THE PROPERTY IS HERE.
ARE YOU GUYS ABLE TO SEE THAT?
19:50:48 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
NOT YET.
19:50:50 >> I HAVE GOTTEN IN THE WRONG SPOT.
GUDES ALL RIGHT, WE CAN SEE IT.
19:50:53 >> SORRY ABOUT THAT.
AND THIS CAN COME UP..
THAT'S GOOD.
OUR HOUSE IS HERE AND THE PROPERTY WE ARE DISCUSSING IS
HERE.
AND THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS 5001 WEST
PRESCOTT.
THIS IS A SHOT OF IT NOW.
I THINK YOU GUYS SAW IT FROM THE -- STAFF HAD A PICTURE
OF THIS.
WHAT YOU DIDN'T SEE IS WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE AFTER THE
FLOOD NOVEMBER 11, 2020.
AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL THE WALLS HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND IT
LOOKS LIKE THE OWNER TRIED TO REPAIR THIS, AND THIS IS
PROBABLY WHY HE IS TRYING TO SELL, BECAUSE HE WAS
PROBABLY IN OVER HIS HEAD WITH REPAIRS, MY ASSUMPTION.
AND THIS IS IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE THE NIGHT OF THE
FLOOD THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
THE WATER HERE WAS OVER 30 FEET, RIGHT.
I HOPE YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE THE CAR DRIVING IN THE
WATER.
AGAIN, HERE IS THE FIRE HYDRANT THAT I KEPT MY EYE ON
ALL NIGHT TRYING TO SEE HOW -- HOW HIGH IT WAS GOING TO
GET.
THAT FIRE HYDRANT IS COVERED WITH WATER AND THAT IS
OVER TWO FEET OF WATER.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE WALKING IN WATER.
I AM SURE SOMEBODY HAD AN EMERGENCY.
THEY WERE THERE TO HELP.
THEY DIDN'T RETURN MY CALLS TO THEM WHEN THEY WERE --
WHEN THEY WERE THERE.
I WAS ASKING IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
AND THEY WERE THERE.
SO ALL THE HOUSES IN THIS AREA HAVE -- THE WALLS HAD TO
BE REMOVED.
THIS GENTLEMAN HERE HAD TO MOVE OUT.
AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS AREA ARE FAIRLY LOW
INCOME.
SO 23 PEOPLE HAD TO MOVE OUT, FIND A NEW PLACE TO
LIVE, TWO WEEKS BEFORE THANKSGIVING AND A MONTH BEFORE
CHRISTMAS.
SO -- AND THIS GENTLEMAN HERE -- HE WAS IN TEARS
BECAUSE COULD NOT FIND A PLACE THAT HE COULD AFFORD,
AND THAT WOULD TAKE HIS DOG.
SO HE HAD TO GIVE UP HIS DOG, WHICH WAS HIS BABY.
19:53:15 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
30 SECONDS.
19:53:17 >> OKAY, SORRY.
AND SO YOU SEE ALL OF THE -- ALL OF THE FLOODING IN THE
AREA.
AND THERE ARE STILL 15 -- 15 RESIDENCES THAT ARE NOT
PRESENT TO THIS DAY.
AND I REALLY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE OVERBUILDING IN THIS
AREA AND YOU CAN SEE THE WALL OF THE NEW APARTMENTS
THAT ARE THERE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS
PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
AND IT IS WALLING IN THE LINE.
YOU CAN SEE WALLING IN THE WATER.
YOU CAN SEE THE WATER LEVEL HERE FROM THE FLOOD.
SO, AGAIN, ALL THESE HOMES IN THIS AREA WERE FLOODED.
AND I STILL AM DUMFOUNDED HOW THIS HAPPENED.
19:54:09 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
19:54:10 >> YOU ARE WELCOME.
19:54:13 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE ON SECOND FLOOR?
I HAVE QUESTION FOR STAFF, THOUGH.
19:54:26 >>AILEEN ROSARIO:
AILEEN ROSARIO, NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK
ON THIS ITEM.
19:54:34 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYBODY REGISTERED FOR THIS ITEM?
19:54:35 >>CLERK:
YES, WE DO.
19:54:37 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HOW MANY.
19:54:41 >>CLERK:
ONE.
19:54:46 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE WILL HEAR THEM AND THEN ASK
QUESTIONS.
19:54:51 >>CLERK:
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[SWEARING IN]
19:55:00 >> YES, I DO, SO HELP ME GOD.
MAY I ADDRESS -- HELLO?
19:55:07 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE ARE READY.
19:55:15 >> HI MY NAME IS JEAN STROHMEYER.
INTERBAY AND SOUTH OF GANDY.
ON THIS ITEM TALKING OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PLAN AND
OF THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE CURRENT LAND USE.
IT CONCERNS ME IF IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT LAND
USE THAT IS OKAY, BUT WHEN WE WANT SOMETHING COMPATIBLE
WITH CURRENT LAND USE, THEY SAY, NO, NOT COMPATIBLE
WITH PHI SURE LAND USE AND WE HAVE BEEN GOING ON THIS
FOR 20 MONTHS NOW ALMOST GETTING CLOSE TO TWO YEARS.
SO WHICH ONE ARE WE USE SOMETHING IN FUTURE OR CURRENT?
I WOULD JUST LIKE THAT CLARIFIED.
AND THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT, I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID
BEFORE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO START TARGETING PORT
TAMPA.
AND FROM THE BOAT TODAY, I WAS ACTUALLY ABLE TO GET A
BOAT VIEW OF -- HERE IS PORT TAMPA.
AND YOU PROBABLY CAN'T SEE IT -- THAT IS NOW.
THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE -- THIS IS WHAT IT IS GOING
TO LOOK LIKE.
YOU ALL JUST KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.
THERE YOU GO.
SEE THAT.
THE CHANGE.
WE HAD WOODS BEFORE AND NOW WE WILL HAVE CARDBOARD --
THIS GENTLEMAN SAID IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT
LAND USE.
NOTHING THAT THEY CAN BUILD IN THIS DAY THAT WILL BE
COMPATIBLE WITH -- WITH PORT TAMPA.
PORT TAMPA IS VERY UNIQUE AND JUST NOTHING THAT THEY
CAN SAY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND USE THERE.
WE HAVE -- LET'S SEE, THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD ELEVATION
AT -- LIKE THE PEOPLE SPOKE BEFORE ME THEY ARE
ELEVATING THE PROPERTY AND IT CAUSED 24 HOMES TO BE
FLOODED AND THEY ARE STILL NOT BACK IN THEIR HOMES,
MOST OF THEM.
WE HAVE -- LET'S SEE -- YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IS, THEY
ARE THE FIRST ONES -- GIVE AN INCH, WILL TAKE A MILE.
GIVEN AN INCH ON -- ON RATTLESNAKE POINT AND LOOK WHAT
HAPPENED.
IT IS DECIMATED.
I APPRECIATE THEM BRINGING IN AND THIS MATTER -- TOWN
HOMES THAT ARE SIMPLE, AND NICE OF YOU TO BRING SIX
INSTEAD OF FIVE.
IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE AND RAISE IT UP AND I DON'T KNOW
HOW MANY OF THESE RESIDENCES ARE GOING TO FLOOD.
WE HAVE -- YOU SAY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WILL IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT HAS BEEN OLD AND ESTABLISHED FOR MANY, MANY
GENERATIONS.
MR. RYAN HAD SAID THAT THE PERIMETER THAT THEY LOOK AT
FOR THE CONSISTENCY IS, LIKE, 1320.
AND -- BUT IF THEY ARE LOOKING AT A 1320 PERIMETER.
1320, WHY DO WE ONLY GET 250 NOTIFICATION.
WE ARE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
19:58:20 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
FIVE SECONDS, MISS STROHMEYER.
19:58:23 >> CAN I HAVE A COUPLE OF SECONDS BECAUSE I HEARD NEW
STUFF THAT I DIDN'T HEAR BEFORE.
A BIG PROBLEM.
IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE CODE.
WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE INCREASE IN DENSITY.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE NO INTENSE --
INTENSITY SOUTH OF GANDY AND THE PENINSULA.
IT IS JUST DANGEROUS.
WE CAN'T EVACUATE, YOU KNOW AND I HAVE SAID IT TIME AND
TIME AGAIN, WHEN WE HAVE THAT TIME, THAT WILL COME, THE
BLOOD OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THEIR CARS IN WHATEVER
-- IT WILL BE ON EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HAVE A GREAT DAY.
19:58:57 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. SHELBY, I SEE YOU UP IN THE
PODIUM.
19:59:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL, I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION TO MISS
STROHMEYER, TO CITY COUNCIL, AND IN THAT E-MAIL SHE
REFERENCED MULTIPLE HEARING.
AND ONE OF THEM IS THIS CASE, AND TO ENSURE THAT THE
PETITIONER DID HAVE IT, I WALKED COPY OF THAT E-MAIL TO
THE SECOND FLOOR AND GIVEN TO MR. MICHELINI AND I WILL
BE PUTTING A COPY IN THE RECORD AND A GENERAL REQUEST
TO THE PUBLIC THAT THESE CONSTITUTE EX-PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS AN MUST BE DISCLOSED AND VERY DIFFICULT
IF YOU PUT MULTIPLE CASES IN ONE SAME E-MAIL IT IS VERY
DIFFICULT TO MAKE SURE IT GETS TO THE PLACE IT HAS TO
BE AND SKILL -- ASK THE PUBLIC GENERALLY WHEN YOU
COMMUNICATE TO CITY COUNCIL BY E-MAIL, THAT YOU -- IF
YOU CAN, PUT THE ADDRESS ON THERE.
IF YOU CAN, PLEASE PUT THE CASE FILE NUMBER ON THERE.
BUT CERTAINLY MAKE EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATION
RELATIVE TO A HEARING A SEPARATE E-MAIL AND WOULD MAKE
THINGS A LOT CLEANER FOR THE RECORD AND ENSURE
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
SO I AM GOING TO TAKE THIS DOWN AND PUT IT INTO THE RECORD.
AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO MR. MICHELINI.
20:00:10 >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY.
I APPRECIATE IT.
I WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS IN THE PUBLIC KNOW, MY CAMERA IS
JUST NOT WORKING, SO I CAN'T VOTE.
I MEAN, I'M HERE.
SO WHAT I AM GOING TO BE DOING IS, I WILL BE HERE WATCHING
EVERY SINGLE HEARING IN CASE THERE'S A TIE VOTE, JUST SO
THAT -- I MEAN, IF MY CAMERA COMES ON, I HOPE I KNOW IT'S
ON.
BUT IT'S KIND OF SCREWY.
SO I'M GOING TO BE HERE.
BUT I WILL BE IN ACTIVELY FORMALLY PARTICIPATING BUT JUST IN
CASE THERE'S A TIE VOTE OR DOESN'T GET FOUR VOTES AND I HAVE
TO VOTE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
SO JUST FYI.
20:00:51 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
20:00:54 >>LUIS VIERA:
THANK YOU.
20:00:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST FOLLOW UP.
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN VIERA STATING THAT ON THE RECORD,
AND AS WELL, IT ALSO LET'S THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT HE IS
WATCHING AND HE IS PREPARED, PERHAPS TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AT
THE SECOND READING SO HE'S TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY.
SO I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
THANK YOU.
20:01:14 >>LUIS VIERA:
THANK YOU.
20:01:16 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:01:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU.
QUESTION TO MS. WELLS.
CATE, THIS IS A EUCLIDEAN ZONING.
CORRECT?
NOT A PD?
20:01:27 >>CATE WELLS:
CORRECT.
THEY ARE REQUESTING A REZONING TO RM-18.
20:01:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY.
RM-16 TO RM-18.
BECAUSE MR. MICHELINI MADE A STATEMENT EARLIER IN REGARD TO
THAT THEY WOULD ASSURE THAT ALL RESIDENTS IN THIS NEW
PROJECT IF IT'S BUILT WOULD BE MADE AWARE OF EVACUATION
PLANS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT THAT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER OUR CODE IN A EUCLIDEAN, IS
IT?
20:02:02 >>CATE WELLS:
CORRECT.
WITH THE EUCLIDEAN REZONING THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS THAT ARE
INCLUDED, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A SITE PLAN.
THERE AREN'T CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE SITE PLAN
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ENFORCEABLE THROUGH THE ORDINANCE
FOR THE REZONING.
20:02:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
20:02:17 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
LET ME KNOW IF I AM GOING ASTRAY, MRS.
WELLS, MARTY.
THIS IS FOR RYAN OR MR. HUSAIN.
I HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY THIS EVENING IN REFERENCE TO THE
FLOODING IN THAT AREA, AND IN REFERENCE TO YOU HAD FOLKS
THAT ARE DISPLACED, THAT ARE NOT IN THOSE HOMES OR IN THAT
AREA, 24, 50 HOMES.
HAVE WE LOOKED AT THE SAFETY CONDITIONS OF THAT AREA WHERE
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REZONING?
BECAUSE THAT'S A -- WHEN I LOOK AT PHOTOS OF THESE BUILDINGS
AND I SEE A WALL AND I SEE WHERE RAIN HAS COME UP TO THAT
WALL.
SO I HAVE GOT SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES THERE.
SO HAVE WE GONE OUT AND ASSESSED THAT AREA THAT IT MIGHT NOT
BE A STRIP OF LAND ANYMORE FOR RESIDENTS?
20:03:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF I CAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND WHETHER MRS.
WELLS OR ZAIN IS GOING TO ANSWER THAT.
IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, GRANTED.
BUT WHETHER IT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION DURING THIS HEARING
FOR THE PURPOSES OF YOUR DETERMINATION, I AM GOING TO DEFER
TO MRS. WELLS ON THAT.
20:03:32 >>CATE WELLS:
I THINK MR. MICHELINI WOULD WANT TO RESPOND
TO THAT LINE OF TESTIMONY IN REBUTTAL.
I KNOW THAT -- I BELIEVE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS INDICATED THAT
THIS HOME IS ELEVATED AND THE WATER INTRUSION, STORMWATER
INTRUSION, IN THE GARAGE, SO ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS TO
COMPLY WITH THE UPDATED FEMA MAPS AND HOMES ARE ELEVATED TO
ADDRESS THAT.
IF THERE ARE OTHER HOMES THAT WERE BUILT AT A LOWER
ELEVATION, IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE, NOT NECESSARILY RELEVANT,
IN MY OPINION, TO THIS REZONING.
BUT I THINK MR. MICHELINI WOULD WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT IN
REBUTTAL.
20:04:22 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I GO BACK TO MR.
MICHELINI?
YOU ARE UP.
20:04:35 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
YOU ARE LOOKING AT OFF-SITE CONDITIONS
WHICH WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.
AND YOU ARE ALSO LOOKING AT STRUCTURES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR
TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW FEMA CODES.
SO IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE-STORY HOME THAT'S BUILT AT GRADE,
AND IT DOESN'T MEET THOSE ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS, YOU
OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME FLOODING.
BUT WHAT WE ARE BEFORE YOU SAYING TO YOU, WE HAVE TO MEET
THE CODE, WE HAVE TO MEET FEMA REGULATIONS, EVEN THE
PREVIOUS INDIVIDUALS THAT TESTIFIED SAID THEY HAD AN
ELEVATED TOWNHOUSE, AND THAT THERE'S APPARENTLY THE CODE AND
THE ELEVATION WORKED THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, BECAUSE THE
WATER CAME THROUGH ON THE LOWER LEVEL, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED
TO OBSTRUCT THE FLOW OF THAT WATER, AND THEIR LIVING AREA
WAS NOT IMPACTED WHATSOEVER.
AND I AM GUESSING BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY SHOWED
THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT AT-GRADE STRUCTURES THAT WILL
CONTINUES TO BE AFFECTED WHETHER THEY ARE IN THIS AREA OR
ANY OTHER AREA OF THE CITY.
WHEN YOU COME BACK IN FOR PERMITTING, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE
FLOOD ZONE ELEVATIONS, AND YOU CAN'T OBSTRUCT THE FLOW OF
WATER.
SO THE LIVING AREAS ARE PROTECTED AND THE LOWER LEVELS, LIKE
THE GARAGES, THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T HAVE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS
IN THE LOWER LEVEL.
THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT ELEVATION REQUIREMENT FOR SAFETY.
SO WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY, THESE NEW STRUCTURES WILL BE MORE
SAFE THAN ANYTHING THAT EXISTS THAT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE NEW CODES.
WE ARE REQUESTING A EUCLIDEAN REZONING FROM RM-16 TO 18, SO
WE CANNOT PUT THOSE KIND OF RESTRICTIONS OR WAIVERS IN HERE.
AND IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 5 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT,
THEY SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT THE APPLICANT ENSURE THAT THERE
WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON HURRICANES EVACUATION TIMES,
SHELTER DEMANDS FOR THE RESIDENTS PROPOSING THIS
DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE REASON I ADDRESSED THAT.
AND I MENTIONED IT, WAS TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
STATEMENT ON, AS I SAID, ON PAGE 5.
IT'S IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER
THIS PROPOSAL, AGAIN I WILL REFER YOU BACK TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION REPORT OF WHERE WE ARE REQUESTING SIX RESIDENTIAL
UNITS.
I WILL SHOW YOU THE MAP AGAIN REGARDING THIS.
YOU HAVE TO ROUND DOWN WHEN IT'S RM-16, IT'S 5.6 UNITS.
YOU CAN'T GET FIVE AND A HALF OR 5.6 UNITS.
THE ONLY WAY YOU GET SIX UNITS IS TO GO INTO RM-18 WHICH IS
6.1, NOT 7.
YOU CAN'T ROUND IT UP.
SO YOU GET 6 UNITS.
THERE'S NO NET INCREASE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POINTED
OUT.
THEY CONSIDER IT TO BE A NO NET INCREASE ALLOWED THERE
CURRENTLY.
THE PRE- AND THE POST CONDITION, EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL BE
IMPROVED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES IN THERE.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THESE NEW REGULATIONS.
AND THE CURRENT STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT WAS FLOODED OR NOT
FLOODED OR WHATEVER THE JUSTIFICATION WAS FOR THE SELLER, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS, BUT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS TO
MEET THOSE CODES.
THE STORMWATER ISSUES HAVE TO BE MET.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOLD YOU THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE
AND THE PLANNING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT
WITH ALL OF THAT.
AND THE CITY STAFF HAS TOLD YOU THAT THEY REVIEWED IT.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO PUT THE REVIEW SHEET BACK UP SO YOU CAN
SEE THAT THEY FOUND CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT EVERY REVIEW.
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, PLANNING COMMISSION, NATURAL
RESOURCES, SOLID WASTE, TRANSPORTATION, STORMWATER,
WASTEWATER, WATER, TAMPA FIRE, ALL FOUND IT TO BE
CONSISTENT.
NOW, WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH PERMITTING.
IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED.
AND WE HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE CODES.
AND I KNOW THIS IS MAYBE A LITTLE REDUNDANT, BUT AS I SHOWED
YOU, ALL OF THE BROWN AREA IS RESIDENTIAL 20.
THIS IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL 10.
WE ARE NOT OVERBUILDING THE AREA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT REFERS BACK, THAT THE
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS FAR IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE ARE
REQUESTING WITH RM-18.
I THINK THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT SAID IT WAS 19 POINT -- I
DON'T SEE IT RIGHT NOW, BUT I RECALL THAT IT SAID EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WAS OVER 19 UNITS PER ACRE.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S LESS THAN WHAT'S
ALLOWED BY THE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
WE ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS COMPATIBLE, AND AS I
SAID, CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE FOUND THIS
PROPOSAL TO BE CONSISTENT.
THEY FOUND IT TO BE COMPATIBLE.
THERE'S NO NET INCREASE AND THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPACT AS
ASSIGNED BY YOUR PROFESSIONAL --
20:10:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THAT'S FIVE MINUTES.
20:10:09 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
AND I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY TESTIMONY
REGARDING THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL AND
COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD REFUTE ANYTHING THAT THE CITY
STAFF PUT ON THE RECORD OR THAT I PUT ON THE RECORD.
THANK YOU.
20:10:18 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZE, SIR.
20:10:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU.
AND THIS MIGHT REQUIRE MR. MICHELINI TO COME BACK FOR A
SECOND REBUTTAL AGAIN AND I APOLOGIZE BUT I AM BASING MY
QUESTION ON SOMETHING HE SAID SEVERAL TIMES JUST NOW.
IS MR. MANASSE STILL WITH US THIS EVENING?
20:10:37 >>RYAN MANASSE:
I AM, SIR.
20:10:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY, RYAN, GOING BACK TO OUR OBJECTIVE,
COMPREHENSIVE OBJECTIVE CM 1.1 AND SAYS DIRECT AWAY FROM THE
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, CHHA, TO ACHIEVE A NO-NET INCREASE
IN OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THE CHHA.
THIS PARTICULAR REZONING, BASED UPON TESTIMONY I HAVE HEARD
TONIGHT, TAKES THE OPPORTUNITY FROM THE CURRENT FIVE UNITS
TO SIX UNITS.
ISN'T THAT A NET INCREASE IN THE DENSITY ALLOWED FOR THIS
PARCEL BASED UPON THE REZONING?
20:11:20 >>RYAN MANASSE:
THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER.
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR QUESTION, I BELIEVE IT'S MORE BETTER
ANSWERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE YOU ARE CITING
POLICY FROM THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
20:11:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT THEN I
ASKED THAT QUESTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE, AND
HE PUNTED IT OVER TO YOU GUYS AND SAID YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE
THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
OKAY.
I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING IS, ISN'T 6 ONE MORE UNIT THAN 5?
20:11:48 >>RYAN MANASSE:
TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, YES, SIR.
20:11:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO THAT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE A NET GAIN.
LET ME FINISH.
LET ME FINISH, CATE.
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO NEED TO TALK WHEN I GET DONE.
I THINK THIS IS SO CLOSE, IT'S .4 UNITS OFF, THAT IT DOESN'T
DISTURB ME GREATLY, OKAY.
BASED ON ALL THE TESTIMONY, I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT
I DON'T LIKE THE PRECEDENT OF US GOING ON THE RECORD AND NOT
WORRYING ABOUT WHAT NO NET INCREASE REALLY MEANS.
OKAY?
SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE HEARTBURN BECAUSE WE ARE GOING
FROM FIVE UNITS TO SIX UNITS, I DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG DEAL
ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
I JUST THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT SORT OF
PRECEDENT WE LAY WHEN WE DON'T FOCUS ON SOME OF THESE
ISSUES.
OKAY.
THAT'S ALL.
20:12:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:12:46 >>CATE WELLS:
THANK YOU.
THE LANGUAGE WITH REGARD TO NO NET INCREASE IS IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND I BELIEVE THAT PLANNERS WITH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE STATED TO COUNCIL THAT THEY LOOK AT
THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
ANYTHING ABOVE WHAT IS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION WOULD THEN BE A NO NET INCREASE
IF YOU WENT ABOVE IT. IN THIS CASE IT'S A RESIDENTIAL 20
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED BY THAT, AND THEN DETERMINE IF THERE
IS A NET INCREASE IN DENSITY.
AND I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, AND MR. COLLINS DIDN'T REALLY GET INTO THAT, BUT
IN THE STAFF REPORT IT IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING DENSITY, THE
PROPOSED DENSITY WITH THIS REZONING, AND THEN CONFIRMED THAT
EVEN WITH THE CHANGE IN THE REZONING, THE DENSITY IS STILL
BELOW THAT ALLOWED BY THE RESIDENTIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION.
20:13:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S MARTIN SHELBY.
I SEE MR. COLLINS ONLINE.
AND IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO SPEAK FOR THE RECORD.
20:14:02 >>DANNY COLLINS:
JUST TO CLARIFY, AND UNDER THAT
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION, FOR MAXIMUM SIX DWELLING UNITS
UNDER THAT DESIGNATION.
SO THIS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A NET INCREASE.
NOW, IF THERE WERE PLAN AMENDMENTS -- DENSITY, AND THAT WAS
TO BE CONSIDERED, WAS PLANNING COMMISSION COULD HAVE A NET
INCREASE WITH THE UNDERLYING LAND USE.
[~AUDIO CUTS OUT~] AND THAT'S UNDER THAT CATEGORY.
THANK YOU.
20:14:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYTHING ELSE?
20:14:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
NO, THANK YOU.
I'M GOOD.
20:14:53 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. SHELBY, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:14:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE MR. MICHELINI
THE LAST WORD BEFORE YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
20:15:03 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THIS IS A
COMPATIBLE REQUEST, AND IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA FOR
CONSIDERATION TO GO TO RM-16 TO RM-18, AND WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED WITH COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON BOTH THE STAFF SIDE AND IN THE
PRESENTATION TO WARRANT APPROVAL.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.
20:15:31 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
20:15:32 >> SECOND.
20:15:33 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO MOVED TO CLOSE, SECOND BY
MR. CITRO.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ANY OPPOSED?
MR. DINGFELDER, I BELIEVE.
20:15:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I'LL PASS, THANK YOU.
I WILL DO THE NEXT ONE.
20:15:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
THE ONLY ONE LEFT.
ITEM NUMBER 5, FILE REZ 21-26.
ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION,
AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF
5001 WEST PRESCOTT STREET IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RM-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY TO
RM-18 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
20:16:18 >> SECOND.
20:16:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE BURDEN OF
PROOF TO PROVIDE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE
REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CITY
CODE WITH EUCLIDEAN ZONING.
THE FACTS ARE, THE REPORT REPORTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE GOALS,
OBJECTIVES AND POLICY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS NOTED IN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AS CONSISTENT WITH LAND
USE OBJECTIVE 9.2 WHICH IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS
AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF LAND PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
FOR THE PROJECTED POPULATION.
MULTIFAMILY IS ENCOURAGED IN THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE
CATEGORY PROVIDING A HIGHER DENSITY WHERE GREATER
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS DESIRED, LAND USE POLICY 9.6.3.
THE APPLICANT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND POLICY 2.1.2 AND
HOUSING POLICY 1.3.4 WHICH ENCOURAGES NEW HOUSING ON VACANT
LAND AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND.
AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOWN PROMOTES AND ENCOURAGES
DEVELOPMENT THAT IS APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION, CHARACTER,
COMPATIBILITY.
THE PROPOSED USE PROMOTES THE EFFECTIVE SUBSTANTIAL USE OF
LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
20:17:38 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MIRANDA MOVED IT.
MR. CITRO SECONDS IT.
ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
20:17:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
NO.
20:17:51 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
20:17:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
20:17:54 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
20:17:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
HESITANTLY, YES.
20:18:01 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
20:18:02 >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH GUDES VOTING NO, VIERA
BEING ABSENT.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 15th AT
9:30 A.M.
20:18:10 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL.
20:18:13 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER 6.
20:18:16 >>RYAN MANASSE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
ITEM NUMBER 6 IS FILE REZ 21-334.
THIS IS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 106 WEST HAMILTON
AVENUE.
IT IS REQUESTED TO REZONE FROM S SH-RS, SH-CG TO SH-PD
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY.
I WILL DEFER TO THE PLAN WILLING COMMISSION FOR THEIR
REPORT.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RETURN TO ME AFTER.
20:18:39 >> THIS IS DANNY COLLINS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
THE NEXT CASE IS IN THE CENTRAL IF PLANNING DISTRICT, MORE
SPECIFICALLY SEMINOLE HEIGHTS URBAN VILLAGE.
THE CLOSEST PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITY IS AMERICAN LEGION AN
PARK IS WITHIN A HALF MILE TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE
ON NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE.
THE CLOSEST BUS STOP IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF THE
SUBJECT SITE ON NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE.
NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE IS RECOGNIZED TRANSIT EMPHASIS
CORRIDOR, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE SITE IS WITHIN A LEVEL C EVACUATION ZONE.
THERE'S AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE
SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
YOU WILL SEE THE SUBJECT SITE IN A PURPLE COLOR,
PREDOMINANTLY NONRESIDENTIAL USE ALONG NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE,
WEST ALONG HAMILTON AVENUE.
THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES.
HERE IS THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS PRESENTLY UNDER RESIDENTIAL 10 FUTURE
LAND USE DESIGNATION.
THERE IS CC-35 DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND
RESIDENTIAL -- NORTH, WEST AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
BASED ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED, ON APRIL 22ND, ON APRIL
22ND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOUR STRUCTURES FOR A
TOTAL OF 9,592 SQUARE FEET.
BEING THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN A COMMUNITY, THE
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 20% NODE BONUS BASED ON ENHANCED
LAND, IN FRONT OF A CHURCH.
PARKING AREA -- PER PEDESTRIAN.
CITY OF TAMPA STAFF EVALUATED THE REQUEST FOR THE NODE ZONE
AND DETERMINED THAT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE CODE FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THEREFORE SINCE THE REQUEST IS F.A.R. THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY OF THE FUTURE
LAND USE DESIGNATION.
AS DESCRIBED IN LAND USE POLICY 8.14.1, DEVELOPMENT SHALL
NOT EXCEED THE DENSITY AND -- ON LAND USE PLANNED
CATEGORIES, WHILE APPLICANT PLANS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE
PROPOSED F.A.R. BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING, THE SITE
PLAN DENSITY THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL 10 AND IS
INCONSISTENT WITH LAND USE POLICY 1.14.1.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
20:21:16 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS?
ANY QUESTIONS?
THE CLERK NEEDS A BREAK.
A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS, PLEASE.
WE WILL PICK IT UP.
(CITY COUNCIL RECESS)
[ ROLL CALL IN PROGRESS ]
20:29:22 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
HERE.
20:29:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
HERE.
20:29:25 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HERE.
20:29:26 >>THE CLERK:
WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM PRESENT.
20:29:29 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
WE PICK UP WITH ITEM NUMBER 6 WITH THE CITY PORTION.
MR. MANASSE.
20:29:34 >>RYAN MANASSE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
AGAIN ITEM NUMBER 6 IS FILE REZ 21-33, AND THE APPLICANT IS
PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 106 -- SORRY, LET ME
SHARE MY SCREEN -- WEST HAMILTON AVENUE FROM SEMINOLE
HEIGHTS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY SH-RS, SEMINOLE HEIGHTS
COMMERCIAL GENERAL SH-CG AND SEMINOLE HEIGHTS PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT SH-PD TO SH-PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR
THAT PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SIX WAIVERS, AND WHAT I WANT TO
DO IS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT YOU HAVE FIVE WAIVERS LISTED AND
I AM GOING TO LIST THE SIX ONE HERE VERBALLY AND THEN I WILL
EXPLAIN IT FURTHER IN MY PRESENTATION.
THE ADDITION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
READING IN ADDITION TO THOSE FIVE WAIVERS IS SECTION
27-283.7 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM 29 TO 27
SPACES.
AND I WILL GET THAT OUT IN A SECOND.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ONE LOT WEST OF WEST HAMILTON AVENUE
AND NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE INTERSECTION AND CONTAINS 226,897
SQUARE FEET OR .25 ACRES, DETACHED SINGLE RESIDENCE TO THE
NORTH AND WEST IN SH-RS SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT AND STORAGE
TO THE WEST AND SOUTH WHICH IS FILE REZ 17-75 ZONING
DISTRICT.
THE SITE DOES CONTAIN AN EXISTING PLACE OF RELIGIOUS
ASSEMBLY, AND PART OF THAT ON THE SITE PLAN I AM SHOWN ON
SCREEN IS GOING TO BE RETAINED AND THAT'S THAT NORTHERN
SECTION SHOWN HERE ON MY CURSOR.
THE NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE RETAINING OR RELOCATING
THESE TWO 864 SQUARE FEET CLASSROOMS, AND THEN THE NEW
PROPOSED CHURCH OR PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY BUILDING
HERE.
AND THAT'S TO THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER.
SURFACE PARKING IS LOCATED TO THE EAST.
AND AGAIN, TO REITERATE, THE REDUCTION IN PARKING IS DUE TO
A NATURAL RESOURCES COMMENT THAT STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH
THE APPLICANTS TO TRY TO MITIGATE TO SAVE THESE TREES, AND
IN ORDER TO DO THAT WE NEED TO LOSE A COUPLE OF PARKING
SPACES.
SO GOING BACK OVER, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT WE TALKED ABOUT THE NODE
BONUS, AND TO ELABORATE ON THAT, THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY
EXCEEDING THAT F.A.R., THAT IS .35 WHICH IS ALLOWED IN R-10
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND AS DANNY DID STATE THE CITY
HAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT BONUS NOTICE IS
ACCEPTABLE. IN THIS CASE IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE EXISTING
BUILDING AND THE LANDSCAPING PROPOSED FOR THE BONUS NODE
INCREASED CITY STAFF WASN'T GOOD WITH.
FURTHER, TALKS WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY WERE ABLE TO REDUCE
THE SOUTHEAST BUILDING TO COME UNDER THE F.A.R. THAT IS
THEIR MAXIMUM, WHICH IS .35.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE SETBACKS WOULD RELATIVELY
REMAIN THE SAME FOR THE SETBACK TO THE EAST ZERO, WEST 65,
NORTH 10 FEET, SOUTH 15 FEET, AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT IS PROPOSED AT 35 FEET.
THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDUCTION AND INTENSITY WOULD BE
REQUIRED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING, AND STAFF DID
FIND THIS SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW
INCONSISTENT BASED ON EXCEEDING THE F.A.R.
BUT IT HAS BEEN AGREED WERE THE APPLICANT, WHICH I'M
ASSUMING WILL ATTEST TO THIS, BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
READING REDUCE THAT F.A.R. AND THAT WAY STAFF WOULD FIND THE
REQUEST CONSISTENT.
AGAIN THAT ADDITIONAL WAIVER IS DUE TO MITIGATING AND TRYING
TO SAVE THIS TREE OVER HERE TO THE SOUTH.
THE ELEVATIONS PROVIDED ON SCREEN SHOW THIS IS ALSO THE SITE
DATA INFORMATION, AND OVER TO THE RIGHT THAT'S BASICALLY
WHERE I AM TALKING ABOUT, THEY HAVE TO DECREASE THEIR
F.A.R., THEIR INTENSITY, THEIR TOTAL SQUARE FEET FOR THE NEW
DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT.
THE TOP IS THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS, NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND
WEST AND THE BOTTOM IS THE EXISTING CHURCH THAT'S GOING TO
BE REMAINING.
OR PARTS OF IT.
DANNY DID SHOW YOU A LOCATION MAP, AND THERE WERE NO
HISTORIC LANDMARKS WITHIN A THOUSAND FOOT BUFFER AND THAT'S
GREEN DASHED LINE.
AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS JUST WEST OF FLORIDA AND THIS LARGE
WHITE BLOCK HERE, THE SH-PD, THIS IS L SHAPED LOT, THAT IS
AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE, AND THEN THE CHURCH ITSELF IS OR
PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY IS THE RED DASHED LINE.
TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT
SH-RS ALSO TO THE EAST AND THEN PART GOING TO THE SOUTH AND
THEN THAT PD KIND OF GOES SOUTH.
YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTH SH-CI SO YOU HAVE THAT COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE USES ALONG FLORIDA AVENUE.
PICTURES OF THE SITE.
SO THE EXISTING CHURCH.
TO THE LEFT HERE IS THAT PD TO THE EAST.
AND THESE ARE JUST PICTURES TO THE RIGHT SHOW A COUPLE OF
THOSE RELOCATED 864 SQUARE FEET UNITS ON THE LOCATION OF.
AND THEN TO THE NORTH, AND THE AERIAL GIVES A BETTER PICTURE
BUT THIS IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE
NORTH, AND THEN TO THE WEST, AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE USES TO THE RIGHT OF THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT.
AND THEN THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS AIR CONDITIONED
STORAGE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, CITY STAFF DID FIND IT INCONSISTENT, BUT IF THE
MODIFICATIONS ARE AGREED UPON, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS
AGREED TO DO BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READ BEING, STAFF
WOULD FIND THIS CONSISTENT, AND I BELIEVE THAT WOULD TAKE
CARE OF THE INCONSISTENCY BASIS FROM DANNY COLLINS, THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF EXCEEDING THEIR F.A.R. AS WELL.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE.
20:35:24 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
ANY QUESTIONS?
APPLICANT?
20:35:29 >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS CHEIKH SYLLA, I AM AN ARCHITECT AND URBAN
PLANNER.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME AND EFFICIENCY, I AM GOING TO TRY TO
FORGO REPEATING WHAT STAFF HAS SAID, BECAUSE WE CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE INDICATED.
I THINK THE ONLY POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE IS THE FACT THAT
THIS PROPERTY HAS A SPLIT ZONING, WHAT'S CALLED OFTEN SPLIT
ZONING, AND IT'S NOT JUST TWO ZONING DESIGNATIONS.
IT REALLY HAS THREE ZONING DESIGNATIONS.
AND, THEREFORE, THE PD WOULD BASICALLY PROVIDE A BASIS FOR
UNIFYING THE ZONING.
BUT STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB IN DESCRIBING THE PROJECT.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY COMMENT OR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
20:36:28 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
ANY QUESTIONS?
ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
20:36:43 >> AILEEN ROSARIO, DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH.
THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM.
20:36:53 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
20:36:54 >> MY NAME IS LORI SMART, 7211 NORTH DUNCAN AND I AM
DIRECTLY BEHIND THE STORAGE UNIT AREA.
MY CONCERN IS WHERE ARE THESE RELOCATED UNITS GOING TO MOVE
TO?
AND THIS PARKING AREA THAT YOU SHOW ALL OF THESE PARKING
SPOTS NOW LOOKS TO BE DIRECTLY BEHIND MY PROPERTY AND MY
NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY NEXT TO ME.
SO THE CONCERN THERE IS THAT PROPERTY HAVING ALL OF THE
PARKING SPOTS AT NIGHTTIME WOULD BE GATED, UNGATED ACCESS TO
ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO COME, AND WHAT TYPE OF LIGHTING IS
GOING TO BE THERE, AND WHERE ARE THESE UNITS GOING TO GO?
IT'S BEEN SEEN WHAT'S PUT OUT WHEN THE STORAGE UNIT, AIR
CONDITIONED UNIT, IS NOT VERY HIGH, SO YOU DO SEE OVER THE
FENCING IN THAT AREA.
YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL HERE ON THIS DOCUMENT WHERE OUR
PROPERTY IS.
BUT BASED ON THE PICTURES THAT WERE SHOWN, I'M DIRECTLY
BEHIND 7211, DUNCAN IS BEHIND THE AREA, SO THE CITY
STATEMENT THAT WAS SPOKEN IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE
RELOCATED.
IT DOESN'T SAY WHERE.
AND THEN THE PROPERTY IN THE FRONT IS AN OLDER BUILDING.
THEY ARE JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE.
NO RESTORATION WITH THE NEW BUILDING BEHIND.
YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T REALLY LOOK LIKE A VERY GOOD PROPERTY
TO BE HONEST.
SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.
ANY QUESTIONS, I'M WELCOME TO ANSWER.
20:39:19 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
WE'LL ASK DID APPLICANT TO ANSWER.
20:39:38 >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
20:39:40 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYBODY ELSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR?
ANYBODY ELSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR?
20:40:07 >>ROSE PETRUCHA:
DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH.
THERE IS NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER.
20:40:11 >>THE CLERK:
THERE'S NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM
20:40:17 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL RIGHT.
LET ME ASK CITY STAFF.
RYAN, DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTIONS THE LADY ASKED?
20:40:38 >>RYAN MANASSE:
I DID, SIR.
THANK YOU.
I SHOULD BE SHARING MY SCREEN.
DO YOU GUYS SEE THE SITE PLAN?
20:40:43 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE SEE IT.
20:40:47 >>RYAN MANASSE:
AND I BELIEVE IF THE AGENT WANTS TO JUMP
ON, TOO, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO TAKE HIS PRESENTATION FROM
HIM.
BUT JUST TO SHOW THERE IS A NEW PORTE-COCHERE BEING AT THE
NEW CHURCH.
THESE RELOCATED CLASSROOMS, TO ANSWER THE NEIGHBOR'S
QUESTION, THIS WOULD BE THE LOCATION OF THOSE CLASSROOMS.
THE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE TO MEET THE SETBACKS ARE LISTED IN
THE STAFF REPORT AS PER THE SITE PLAN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH WHICH WOULD BE THE
BUFFER REQUIREMENT IS STILL AT SH-PD, IT'S THE NEIGHBORS TO
THE WEST, THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT A BUFFER REDUCTION FROM
10 FEET TO 2.8 ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.
AS FOR GATING, I DON'T SEE ANY STIPULATION FOR A GATE ON THE
SITE PLAN.
AND I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS, CHAIR?
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING FURTHER.
20:41:36 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. SYLLA?
20:41:43 >> THE SITE PLAN SHOWS, AS STAFF HAS INDICATED, THE
RELOCATED PORTABLES ARE INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN.
THE FENCING IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE WORKING ON BUT
PRETTY MUCH IT WILL BE THERE WILL BE A FENCE IN THE FRONT OF
THE PROPERTY.
TO SECURE BASICALLY THE PARKING LOT.
THE EXISTING CHURCH IS IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, SO PRETTY
MUCH IT SERVES AS A BARRIER, SECURITY, IN TERMS OF ACCESS.
BUT THERE WILL BE A FENCE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE DESIGN LATER ON, THERE ARE ISSUES
THAT WE'LL BE WORKING THROUGH.
BUT CERTAINLY IF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL ISSUES OR
CONCERNS, WE CERTAINLY WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS
THEM.
AS FAR AS LIGHTING, YES, THERE WILL BE LIGHTING ON THE
PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY, FOR NIGHTTIME SECURITY.
BUT THE OTHER ISSUE ALSO THAT THE NEIGHBOR RAISED RELATED TO
THE PARKING AREA, CURRENTLY IT'S USED AS PARKING.
IT'S JUST THAT IT'S NOT PAVED.
BUT RIGHT NOW THE CHURCH IS USING THAT, THE OPEN SPACE FOR
PARKING.
BUT IT'S GOING TO BE PAVED NOW, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE
FORMALIZED EVENTUALLY AS A FUNCTIONING PARKING LOT.
SO I THINK THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBOR RAISED.
AND CERTAINLY WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEE WHAT
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS THEY HAVE SO WE CAN ADDRESS THEM,
BECAUSE THE CHURCH WANTS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, OBVIOUSLY.
20:43:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
20:43:46 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
20:43:51 >>RYAN MANASSE:
CHAIR, IF I MAY.
I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
I WANT TO BE SURE AS LIE AT THE SITE PLAN, I DON'T SEE A
FENCE PROPOSED, AND AS YOU KNOW ON PDS, ALL FENCES NEED TO
BE SHOWN, LABELED, THE TYPE OF MATERIAL AS BEING SEMINOLE
HEIGHTS WOULD HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
AND MY ONLY CONCERN -- AND I UNDERSTAND THE AGENT HAS TO TRY
TO SATISFY ANY CONCERN WITH THE PARKING LOT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WOULDN'T INHIBIT ANY KIND OF
TECHNICAL STANDARDS THAT TRANSPORTATION MAY COME INTO WITH
BEING ON-SITE.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM REQUEST IT BEING ADDED BETWEEN FIRST
AND SOAKED READING SUBJECT TO THE MEETING THE SEMINOLE
HEIGHTS CODE AS WELL AS JONATHAN'S TECHNICAL REVIEW.
AND HE'S ON SO MAYBE HE CAN ANSWER THAT, TOO.
AGAIN, SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDED
BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
20:44:42 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
JONATHAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:44:58 >>JONATHAN SCOTT:
CITY OF TAMPA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A GATE ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY?
IS THAT WHAT -- IF THEY DID DO THAT, WE WOULD WANT THEM TO
PUTS NOTES WHETHER IT'S OPEN OR CLOSED.
IF IT'S KEPT OPEN DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE EVERYONE COME IN AND OPEN THE GATE.
BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING WE CAN DO THAT.
20:45:29 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. CITRO, YOU ARE RECOGNIZE, SIR.
20:45:37 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
[OFF MICROPHONE] YOU CAN TELL HIM WHAT IS
REQUIRED SO HE CAN MAKE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READING.
20:45:51 >>RYAN MANASSE:
I MISSED THE FIRST HALF.
I WASN'T CATCHING AWFUL OF IT.
20:45:57 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
I'M SORRY.
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY.
WILL YOU PLEASE STATED THE SIZE OF THE FENCE, OR THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT FENCE SO THAT THE PETITIONER KNOWS THE
EXACT REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING SO HE
CAN MAKE CHANGES?
20:46:14 >> YES, SIR.
JUST TO CLARIFY, YES, THE STAFF REPORT DOES DEPICT THE
REQUIRED CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING IN
ADDITION TO THOSE WAIVERS BEING ADDED.
BUT AS THE SITE PLAN SHOWS, IT DOES SHOW AN EXISTING 6-FOOT
HIGH MASONRY WALL TO THE WEST.
20:46:30 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
AND ALSO IS THAT INCLUDED HOW TALL THAT OF
FOOT WALL HAS TO BE?
20:46:38 >> THERE'S ACTUALLY A 6-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE TO THE SOUTH.
JUST AGAIN FOR CLARIFICATION THE SOUTH IS ABUTTED BY THAT
SH-PD DISTRICT.
LET ME SHOW YOU THE AERIAL.
THAT MIGHT SHOW IT A LITTLE BETTER.
I'LL SHARE MY SCREEN ONE MORE TIME.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE -- AND LET ME SEE IF I CAN ZOOM IN A
LITTLE BIT THERE FOR YOU.
THE SUBJECT SITE IN RED, AND THEN THIS IS HAD PD FOR THIS
AIR CONDITIONED STORAGE AND PARKING LOT IS THIS YELLOW RIGHT
HERE.
SO IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IS THE SH-PD PARKING LOT FOR
THIS ESTABLISHMENT.
20:47:15 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MANASSE.
I DIDN'T WANT ANY CONFUSION WITH THE PETITIONER BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
20:47:24 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
OTHER QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
MOVE TO CLOSE?
MOVE TO CLOSE BY MR. MANISCALCO, SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ANY OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
WE GO BACK.
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU CAN HAVE --
20:47:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I'M A MAN OF MY WORD.
20:47:45 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER 6.
20:47:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WITH REGARD TO FILE REZ 21-33, MOVE THE
ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE
GENERAL VICINITY OF 106 WEST HAMILTON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF
TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1
FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION SH-RS SEMINOLE HEIGHTS,
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, SH-CG, SEMINOLE HEIGHTS,
COMMERCIAL GENERAL, AND SH-PD, SEMINOLE HEIGHTS PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, TO SH-PD, SEMINOLE HEIGHTS, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
SPECIFICALLY, I WILL FEIGNED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET ITS
BURDEN OF PROOF BY PROVIDING COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AS CONDITION AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CITY CODE,
WITH THE -- WERE THERE WAIVERS REQUESTED ON THIS ONE?
20:48:50 >> YES.
20:48:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
AND INCLUDING THOSE WAIVERS.
I FIND THAT THE REQUESTED WAIVERS DO NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT
THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE.
AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME CHANGES BEING MADE BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING.
PURSUANT TO STAFF REPORT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
20:49:10 >> YES.
20:49:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU.
20:49:13 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER MOVED IT.
MR. MANISCALCO SECONDED IT.
20:49:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. MANASSE, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR
QUESTION?
20:49:21 >>RYAN MANASSE:
WAS COUNCIL INCLUDING THE FENCE TO THE
NORTH?
SO I CAN MAKE SURE THAT ADD THAT AN OCCASION.
20:49:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES, SIR.
20:49:27 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, SECOND.
ROLL CALL.
20:49:33 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
20:49:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
20:49:36 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
20:49:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
20:49:38 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
20:49:42 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
20:49:44 >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 15th AT
9:30 A.M.
20:49:50 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
JUST FOR THE RECORD THE LADY ON THE SECOND
FLOOR REFERENCE TO THIS ITEM, LET HER KNOW THAT THERE WILL
BE SOME CHANGES.
ITEM NUMBER 7.
20:50:04 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
CASE REZ 21-36.
IT'S FOR 2311 NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE, PROPOSING A REZONING
FROM RS-60 TO RS-50.
I'LL PASS ALONG TO DANNY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
20:50:23 >>DANNY COLLINS:
THIS IS DANNY WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
SHARE MY SCREEN, PLEASE.
THIS IS DANNY COLLINS WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
CASE IS IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT.
THE CLOSEST PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITY IS PHILLIPS PARK
WHICH IS LOCATED .3 MILES TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
TWO TRANSIT STOPS ARE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE
FROM THE SUBJECT SITE, HART ROUTE 15 LOCATED TO THE NORTH
AND WEST COLUMBUS DRIVE, NORTH RIDGEWOOD AVENUE, AND THE
ROUTE IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE AT NORTH BOULEVARD.
SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN A LEVEL A EVACUATION ZONE, AND A
PORTION OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH
HAZARD AREA.
HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE, SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES, SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED HERE.
IT'S IN THE PURPLE COLOR ON ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST
FRANCIS AVENUE.
YOU WILL SEE THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS
PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER.
HERE IS THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
SUBJECT SITE IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL 10 FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION.
IT'S SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL ON ALL SIDES.
A PROPOSED REZONING SUPPORTS MANY OF THE POLICIES IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS RELATES TO HOUSING IN THE CITY'S
POPULATION.
AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENCOURAGES NEW HOUSING ON VACANT
UNDERUTILIZED LANDS TO BE MAKE SURE THAT HOUSING IS PRESENT
TO MEET TAMPA'S POPULATIONS.
THE REQUEST IS COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG WITH THIS WITH RIDGEWOOD DRIVE AND
ENCOURAGED UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL 10 FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION.
THE PROPERTY IS IN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, AND ENSURE
THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON HURRICANE
EVACUATION TIMES [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT, ALSO TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS THAT MAY AFFECT
RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
20:53:04 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
CITY STAFF.
20:53:07 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AGAIN.
CAN I SHARE MY SCREEN?
GREAT.
GOING TO CASE REZ 21-36, THE APPLICANT IS COURTNEY POE.
ALSO THE REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS AGAIN 2311 NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
IT'S A PROPOSED REZONING FROM RS-60 RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY TO 50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY.
AGAIN THIS BEING A EUCLIDEAN, NO WAIVERS ARE PERMITTED.
GOING TO THE AERIAL MAP YOU WILL SEE AN OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE
PROPERTY OUTLINED HERE IN RED.
THE PROPERTY IS 100 FEET IN WIDTH AND 150 FEET IN LENGTH, AN
AREA OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
YOU WILL SEE ALSO THE LOT HERE.
LOTS 13 AND 14 ARE ON BLOCK M.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED WITH A DETACHED
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE HOME.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED HERE ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST
FRANCIS AVENUE AND NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
IT'S SURROUNDED BY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE
NORTH, SOUTH, WEST, AND EAST, ALL IN THE RS-60 ZONING
DISTRICT.
FOR THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE, 282 HOMES WERE LOOKED
AT.
138 OR 49% OF THOSE HOMES WERE DEVELOPED WITH A 60 FEET OR
GREATER.
144 OF THOSE HOMES OR 51% HAD A WIDTH OF 59.99 FEET OR LESS.
THE SUBJECT BLOCK CONTAINS 9 TOTAL ZONING LOTS.
OF THOSE 9, 100% OF THOSE LOTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO A
WIDTH OF 60 FEET OR GREATER.
STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REQUEST FOR THE REZONING
INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE
AREA AS PER THAT BLOCK.
LOOKING HERE AT THE SITE, TO THE SOUTH, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY, TO THE SOUTHEAST, HOUSE HAS RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY, AND TO THE NORTH, WEST OF THE SITE YOU ALSO
HAVE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY.
AS I SAID BEFORE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF
HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND FINDS THE REQUEST
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
BY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE
IMMEDIATE AREA AS SHOWN BEFORE.
THANK YOU.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
20:56:02 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
ANY QUESTIONS?
ALL RIGHT.
APPLICANT.
20:56:08 >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS COURTNEY POE.
I AM THE APPLICANT AND THE FUTURE OWNER OF 2311 NORTH
RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
WE ARE ASKING THAT THE REZONE BE COMPLETED FROM RS 630 TO
RS-50 IN ORDER FOR US TO SPLIT THE LOT SO WE CAN BUILD A
DREAM HOME ON HALF OF THE LOT.
AS WE TALKED ABOUT AND THANK YOU, ZAIN, FOR SHARING THAT
INFORMATION.
THIS IS OVER 15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SO WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN
RIDGEWOOD PARK AND THIS IS ONE OF THE LARGEST LOTS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO FIND IN THE HOPES
THAT WE CAN SPLIT THIS LOT AND BUILD OUR HOME ON ONE SIDE
HELP MITIGATE THE COSTS.
THIS IS 150 FEET DEEP WHICH IS STANDARD LOT SIZE WOULD BE 60
BY 100, IF IT WERE RM 60.
SO IF WE SPLIT THE LOT WE WOULD BE AT 7500 SQUARE FEET WOO
WHERE WE WOULD ONLY NEED 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO CONFORM TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW
AND WE LIVE DOWN THE STREET.
SO THIS HOME IS KIND OF BEEN AN EYESORE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S CURRENTLY A NONCONFORMING TRIPLEX THAT IS SITTING
VACANT AND WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP SQUATTERS OUT OF IT.
BUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SO THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME REZONING
A PROPERTY.
AND WE SAW IT WAS LISTED AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN WE GOT THE E-MAIL, AND KIND OF SHOCKING TO
US BECAUSE WE ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS WE
LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HERE, AND THE
MAJORITY OF THESE LOTS TO WHERE WE CURRENTLY LIVE ARE
ALREADY NONCONFORMING, SO THEY MAY BE ZONED AS RS-60 BUT
THEY ARE BELOW 160 MINIMUM FRONTAGE.
SO I HOPE YOU GUYS WOULD AGAIN THAT THIS LOT IS SO BIG AND
NOT BEING FULLY UTILIZED AND KIND OF AN EYESORE, AND I THINK
BY IMPROVING IT AND SPLITTING IT AN PUTTING ONE HOUSE ON
EACH LOT, IT WOULD IMPROVE THE OVERALL AESTHETICS OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND I MAKE EVERYTHING LOOK MUCH MORE NEIGHBOR.
UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM ARE HERE TONIGHT
THAT CAN BACK US UP.
BUT WE JUST REALLY WANT TO MAINTAIN COMPATIBILITY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S A NONCONFORMING TRIPLEX CURRENTLY
THERE AND I THINK IS UNDERUTILIZED, BECAUSE IT'S NOT
COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT OWNER.
SO I GUESS THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I'M KIND OF LEARNING.
THANK YOU.
20:58:35 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
QUESTIONS NORTH APPLICANT.
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:58:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MRS. POE.
YOU SENT OUT NOTICE LETTERS PURSUANT TO THE CODE, CORRECT?
20:58:49 >> CORRECT.
YES.
I HEARD SOME PEOPLE DO NOT DO THAT CORRECTLY, BUT WE HAVE.
20:58:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY.
APPROXIMATELY, WHAT, 50 OR MORE?
20:59:00 >> I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT I BELIEVE IT
WAS SOMETIME BETWEEN 50 AND 60.
20:59:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
DID YOU HEAR BACK FROM ANYBODY?
DID YOU PUT YOUR PHONE NUMBER ON THERE?
20:59:12 >> WE GOT CALLS, MOSTLY CURIOUS NEIGHBORS, BUT I DID GO
AROUND AND KNOCKED OWN A LOT OF DOORS TO MAKE SURE THIS IS
SOMETHING PEOPLE WOULD AGREE WITH.
I WAS TOLD SOMEONE WE SHOULD DO, AND SO OKAY, WE ARE AIMING
TO PUT SPLIT THIS LOT IN TWO SO WE CAN BUILD ON ONE SIDE.
AND WE GOT A LOT OF GOOD FEEDBACK AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT
OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A REALLY HOT AREA.
PEOPLE ARE FRIENDLY AND IT'S WALKABLE.
20:59:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WOULD YOU PUT THE MAP UP AGAIN AND POINT
TO THE SUBJECT LOT?
I AM HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE.
20:59:42 >> I KNOW, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE.
THIS ONE RIGHT HERE WITH THE STRAINS THROUGH IT.
SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S QUITE LARGE.
AND THEN THIS ONE.
20:59:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
AND IS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE
SOUTH IN THE YELLOW?
21:00:01 >> YES.
21:00:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IS THAT --
21:00:03 >> THAT'S CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT.
21:00:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IS THAT A 50-FOOT LOT?
21:00:07 >> THAT IS --
21:00:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
21:00:10 >> OH, I'M NOT SURE.
I THINK THERE'S A KEY ON HERE.
21:00:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
HARD TO TELL ON THE COLORS.
21:00:15 >> YEAH, I THINK THAT ONE MAY BE AN RS-60.
I THINK THE ONE BEHIND IS 50 HERE FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE A 50-FOOT LOT WITH A NEWER CONSTRUCTION HOME.
ANOTHER HERE.
AND THEN THE --
21:00:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THE LIGHT BLUE.
21:00:35 >> CORRECT. IT'S HARD TO SEE.
21:00:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO WHEN YOU WALKED AROUND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, DID ANYBODY OBJECT?
21:00:43 >> NO.
I MEAN THE NEIGHBORS KIND OF LOVE US SO I HOPE NOT.
WE GOT A LOT OF CALLS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE JUST VERY CURIOUS.
I GUESS IT WAS FORMERLY A HALFWAY HOUSE AND A NONCONFORMING
TRIPLEX SO PEOPLE ARE VERY CURIOUS WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH IT
BECAUSE IT'S AN EYESORE I GUESS IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
21:01:03 >> SO YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE ON IT.
21:01:05 >> WE HOPE TO TAKE THE CORNER LOT.
AND IF YOU SEE FIT.
IT'S PRETTY EXPENSIVE SO UNFORTUNATELY CAN'T BUILD JUST ONE
MASSIVE HOUSE ON IT.
21:01:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
21:01:17 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE?
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR REFERENCE TO THIS ITEM?
21:01:32 >>AILEEN ROSARIO:
DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH.
THERE IS NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM.
21:01:37 >>THE CLERK:
ANYBODY REGISTERED?
21:01:39 >> THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
21:01:42 >> MR. MANISCALCO MOVED AND -- SECONDS.
ALL IN FAVOR?
OPPOSED?
MOTION CARRIED.
WE GO BACK TO MR. MANISCALCO.
21:01:52 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I HAVE AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY
IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 2311 NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE IN THE
CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS-60
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF TO
PROVIDE COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
CITY CODE.
I FEIGNED THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE OBJECTIVES 2.1
AND POLICY 2.12 AND HOUSING POLICY 1.34.
WHICH ENCOURAGES THE IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT ON UNDERUTILIZED
SITES.
IT IS MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A NONCONFORMING TRIPLEX WITH A
HISTORY OF ISSUES, SO THIS WOULD IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE OBJECTIVES 9.2.
THERE IS CLEARLY AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF LAND PLANNED FOR
RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF THIS LOT, THAT
WAS MENTIONED.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE IT.
21:03:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
21:03:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I WILL SECOND THE MOTION IF IT HASN'T
BEEN SECONDED ALREADY.
AND SPECIFICALLY, I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
NORMALLY I'M NOT THRILLED WITH LOT SPLITS ESPECIALLY WHEN
STAFF HAS SHOWN THAT IT'S TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AT LEAST
STATISTICALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T SEEM -- THAT'S A VERY ACTIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY DO COME OUT ON OCCASION WHEN THEY
DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, BUT CLEARLY THEY ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT,
THEY ARE NOTICED, WE DON'T HAVE ANY LETTERS IN THE FILE OF
OBJECTION, SO THAT DOES INFLUENCE ME.
AND I AGREE WITH MR. MANISCALCO, I THINK THAT PERHAPS ONE OF
THE REASONS THAT THEY ARE NOT OBJECTING IS THE FACT THAT THE
SINGLE STRUCTURE THAT STRADDLES THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS
LESS THAN DESIRABLE.
SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, I SUPPORT THE MOTION.
21:04:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO MOVED THE MOTION.
MR. DINGFELDER SECONDED.
ROLL SCHEDULE, PLEASE.
21:04:11 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
21:04:14 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
21:04:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
21:04:17 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
21:04:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
21:04:19 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
21:04:20 >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 15th AT
9:30 A.M.
21:04:26 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL RIGHT.
21:04:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
LOOKS LIKE YOU FOUND A NEW CALLING.
21:04:33 >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
VERY EXCITED.
21:04:35 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER 8.
21:04:38 >> THANK YOU.
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
21:04:39 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
CASE REZ 21-37.
THIS FOR 412 WEST PARK AVENUE, PROPOSED REZONING FROM RM-16
TO RM-18.
I WILL NOW PASS ALONG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DANNY.
21:04:57 >>DANNY COLLINS:
THIS IS DANNY COLLINS WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
NEXT CASE IS IN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY WITH THE TAMPA HEIGHTS URBAN VILLAGE.
THE CLOSEST PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITY IS ROBERT PARK
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE EAST OF THE SUBJECT
SITE.
CLOSEST PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP IS LOCATED 1. MILES TO THE WEST
OF THE SUBJECT SITE ON NORTH BOULEVARD.
SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN A LEVEL C EVACUATION ZONE.
HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE
SURROUNDING BROUGHT.
THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN PURPLE COLOR, WEST PARK AVENUE,
AND THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS PREDOMINANTLY
RESIDENTIAL.
HERE IS THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE SUBJECT SITE
UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL 35 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
AS YOU MOVE WEST, WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD, PARCELS ARE
RECOGNIZED UNDER THAT RESIDENTIAL 10, AND A COUPLE BLOCKS TO
THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE ARE PARCELS RECOGNIZED UNDER
THE RMU 100 DESIGNATION.
THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSIDERATION OF THREE RESIDENTIAL
UNITS ON THE SUBJECT SITE, AN OVERALL DENSITY OF -- DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE.
THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE UNDERLYING LAND USE DESIGNATION,
AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THIS PORTION OF THE TAMPA HEIGHTS
URBAN VILLAGE.
THE ZONING DISTRICT ARE -- NOT PRESENT IN THE SURROUNDING
AREA, WITH -- ZONING DISTRICT.
PROVIDE A HIGHER DENSITY FOR GREATER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
IS IN SPARED, LAND USE POLICY 9.6.3.
THIS REZONING WILL PROVIDE MORE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING CHOICES
FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATIONS.
ALSO, CREATE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE AREA OF THE
CITY IN WHICH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEEKS TO PROVIDE A MIX
OF HOUSING TYPES AND DIRECT THE GREATEST SHARE OF GROWTH
WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPACT CITY TOMORROW STRATEGY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FIND THE STAFF CONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY OF TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
21:07:10 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
21:07:11 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
CAN I PLEASE HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN?
APPLICANT IS JPS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.
JOHN N. LAROCCA FROM LAROCCA CONSULTING GROUP.
ADDRESS IS 412 WEST PARK AVENUE.
THERE IS A REZONING FROM RM-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, 16,
TO RM-18, RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, 18.
THIS BEING A EUCLIDEAN, THERE ARE NO WAIVERS PERMITTED.
IF WE LOOK AT AN AERIAL MAP YOU WILL SEE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED.
IT FACES WEST PARK AVENUE.
TO THE NORTH.
TO THE WEST YOU WILL HAVE NORTH BOULEVARD RUNNING NORTH AND
SOUTH.
TO THE EAST YOU WILL HAVE NORTH MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE.
AND THEN TO THE SOUTH, YOU WILL HAVE WEST ROSS AVENUE.
AND DOWN HERE IS ARMATURE WORKS.
THE SITE IS 60 FEET IN WIDTH AND 132 FEET IN DEPTH, FOR AN
AREA OF 7,920 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
STRUCTURE.
THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS TO THE
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST IN THIS RM-16 ZONING DISTRICT.
YOU SEE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.
GOING ON-SITE, TOOK A PICTURE OF THE SITE ITSELF.
TO THE WEST OF THE SITE YOU HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL.
TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, YOU HAVE THAT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL.
ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THEN TO THE EAST OF THE SITE, AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE
RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
APPLICATION AND FOUND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY
OF TAMPA CODE OF ORDINANCES.
THANK YOU.
AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
21:09:25 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
21:09:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND, ZAIN, AS I LOOKED AT THE AERIAL -- CAN
YOU PUT THE AERIAL BACK ON?
21:09:45 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
I PLEASE HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN AGAIN?
21:09:55 >>THE CLERK:
YOU CAN HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN.
21:10:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT A LITTLE
TIGHTER?
21:10:11 >> CAN WE ZOOM IN HERE?
I DON'T BELIEVE I CAN ZOOM IN.
21:10:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE.
BUT YOU HAVE BEEN OUT THERE OBVIOUSLY TAKING PICTURES.
I HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD GENERICALLY
ABOUT THE LARGE MULTIFAMILY BEING BUILT INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE-FAMILY, TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY UP AND DOWN THE
STREET.
AND MOST OF THEM THAT I CAN RECALL DID NOT COME TO COUNCIL.
THEY MUST HAVE COME THROUGH A DIFFERENT ROUTE.
BUT HERE WE ARE WITH THIS ONE, UNDER THE EXISTING RM-16,
ALLOWED A DUPLEX TWO, UNITS ON A 60-FOOT LOT BUT THEY ARE
ACTUALLY ASKING FOR THREE UNITS ACCORDING TO THE STAFF
REPORT FOR THIS 60-FOOT LOT BUT IT APPEARS TO ME, IN LOOKING
UP AND DOWN THAT STREET, I CAN'T SWEAR TO IT, AND I DON'T
WANT TO TESTIFY, MR. SHELBY, THAT'S WHY I AM ASKING YOU,
ZAIN, IT APPEARS TO ME THERE'S A LOT OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED ON THAT BLOCK ON BOTH SIDES, NORTH AND SOUTH.
SO WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD TWO UNITS.
WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN ARE WE SAYING THAT THREE UNITS IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND ALL OF OUR GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES?
21:11:35 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
LOOKING AT IT HERE, I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING BUT THE CONSISTENCY MATRIX ALLOWS THEM TO DO UP
TO THREE UNITS THERE.
21:11:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT YOU ARE TRAINED AND EDUCATED AS A PLANNER, AND WHAT I AM
TALKING ABOUT IS GOOD PLANNING, AND FROM A PLANNING
PERSPECTIVE, AND LOOKING AT THOSE POLICIES, WE HAVE A LOT OF
POLICIES THAT SPEAK TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY.
AND LIKE I SAY, I AM GETTING OBJECTIONS IN THAT AREA FROM
PEOPLE ON ROSS, FRANCES, AND PARK THAT SAY THAT THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD IS GETTING OVERRUN WITH BIG -- I DON'T KNOW,
THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY LARGE MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE BY THE
TIME YOU GO THREE FLOORS, 35 FEET, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW YOU
GET THREE UNITS ON THERE AT 60 FEET WIDE.
BUT ANYWAY I AM JUST WONDERING IF THOSE ARE CONSIDERATIONS
THAT STAFF HAS DISCUSSED.
21:12:42 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
IT WAS.
ALSO ANALYZED AND LOOKED AT, BUT THE CONSISTENCY MATRIX IN
THE CODE, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT MANY UNITS.
21:12:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT, BUT ALLOWED
TO DO IT UNDER TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUT THERE'S IN A
WHERE IN THE CODE THAT SAYS WHEN IT COMES TO REZONING THAT
WE ARE REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE MAX.
CORRECT?
21:13:05 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
THAT'S CORRECT.
21:13:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
21:13:09 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD
POINT.
I AM NOT IDENTIFYING.
[~DISTORTION~] I KNOW PARK AVENUE VERY, VERY WELL.
21:13:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MONOPOLY OR WHAT?
21:13:28 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL THE WAY.
THE HOUSES NOW ALL THE WAY UP TO THE FRONT, WAY IN THE BACK.
SO I KNOW IT VERY WELL.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH THAT, AND THE
CONSISTENCY SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED ALONG THAT BLOCK.
SO YOU WOULD BE CORRECT WHAT YOU ARE STATING, AND THE STAFF
NEEDS TO REALIZE, JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT
SEEMS THAT IT'S CHANGING SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THAT AREA ON PARK STREET.
SO I THINK MR. DINGFELDER DOES HAVE A POINT.
WE ARE DOING FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC PLAN BUT WE ARE SAYING
CONSISTENCY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
21:14:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
TWO THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, DO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELICIT STATEMENTS
OR FACTS FROM EVERYONE WHO TESTIFIES, WHETHER THEY ARE STAFF
OR THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND ALSO JUST A
REMAINDER, THAT ULTIMATELY THE PETITIONER HAS NOT ADDRESSED
COUNCIL YET.
SO YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WITH THE PETITIONER,
AND ALSO THAT ULTIMATELY YOUR DECISION HAS TO BE BASED ON
COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
SO WHATEVER IT TAKES FOR THAT TO BE IN THE RECORD IS WHAT
YOU MUST RELY ON.
21:14:46 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MR. SHELBY.
21:14:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THANK YOU.
21:14:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?
THE APPLICANT.
21:14:53 >> ARE WE READY?
THIS IS JOHN LAROCCA.
AGENT FOR THE OWNER APPLICANT JPF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.
MY ADDRESS IS 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, DOWNTOWN TAMPA AND
I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION STAFF HAVE MADE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, AND I AM
ASSUMING ALL OF US HAVE THE REPORTS, AND I AM NOT GOING TO
READ EVERY POLICY, EVERY OBJECTIVE, BUT TELL YOU A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE SITE AND WHY THE APPLICANT IS INTERESTED IN
REZONING TO RM-18 FROM RM-16.
THERE IS ONE CORRECTION ON PAGE 1 OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION STAFF REPORT, AND I THINK COMMENTS
WERE CORRECT THIS EVENING THAT THERE IS A DUPLEX ON THE
PROPERTY OR TWO UNIT STRUCTURE.
THE ADDRESS IS IN THE SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST ON PAGE 1
ACTUALLY 412 WEST PARK AVENUE, AND THERE IS A 2-UNIT
STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY NOW.
THE AREA, WE STUDIED THE AREA.
THE APPLICANT WHO HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS NOW, AND HAS MAINTAINED IT AS AND PURCHASED IT AS A
TWO-UNIT STRUCTURE.
IS RECOGNIZING THE CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING NOT ONLY
THROUGH ALLOWANCES IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT THE GENERAL
CHARACTER OF THE EXPANDING URBAN CORE.
THIS SITE IS ONE BLOCK NORTH OF THE HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT, AND
SPECIFICALLY ARMATURE WORKS, AT A VERY HIGH LAND USE
INTENSITY.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AGAIN I CAN SHOW YOU ALL THE MAPS,
THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, AND BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION STAFF ATTESTED TO THAT, THAT THE
AREA IS A CORE OF R-35 RESIDENTIAL 35, THAT DOES ALLOW
CONSIDERATION OF HIGHER INTENSITY.
IT IS THE INTENT, ALTHOUGH THIS IS A EUCLIDEAN REQUEST, IT
IS THE INTENT OF THE OWNER TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH ONE
ADDITIONAL UNIT TOWARD THE REAR OF THE LOT, 130 FEET DEEP.
AND TO ADD A SECOND UNIT AT THE REAR OF THE SITE WITH
FIRST-LEVEL PARKING.
PARKING WILL BE ACCOMMODATED.
THERE ARE NO WAIVERS THAT ARE BEING SOUGHT OR WILL BE
SOUGHT.
OTHERWISE, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULDN'T FIT.
IF IT DIDN'T FIT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT SOMETHING ELSE OR WE
WOULDN'T BE PURSUING THIS.
THERE'S BEEN SOME PRELIMINARY WORK DONE THAT WOULD SUGGEST
THAT THE SITE CAN BE DEVELOPED, THAT WILL BE IMPROVED TO BE
CONSISTENT MORE THAN WHAT IT IS NOW AS BASICALLY A BOXY
TWO-UNIT STRUCTURE WITH NOT MUCH CHARACTER TO IT.
THE EXAMPLE WE MADE AS AN UPGRADE TO THE PROPERTY THAT WILL
GIVE IT SOME TENDENCY TO CREATE SOME ARCHITECTURAL
SIGNIFICANCE, ALBEIT THIS IS A EUCLIDEAN DISTRICT AND WE
CAN'T COMMIT TO THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT IS THE INTENT.
AND I WILL STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
THE AREA IS CHANGING.
THE AREA HAS BEEN CLARIFIED, FULL, IF YOU GO BACK INTO THE
HISTORY AND READ THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT ABOUT THE
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED FOR THE
RESIDENTIAL 35 IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ JUST ONE PARAGRAPH AT THE
CONCLUSION RATHER THAN READING ALL THE POLICIES OF WHY I
BELIEVE IT'S CONSISTENT.
AND I REFER TO THE DOCUMENT.
I AGREE WITH ALL THE LAND USE POLICIES, AND NOT TO READ THEM
TO BE REPETITIVE, I DO WANT TO READ ON PAGE 5 OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT IN BOLD PRINT RIGHT BEFORE THE
RECOMMENDATION OF CONSISTENCY, IS THAT MULTIFAMILY IS
ENCOURAGED IN THE RESIDENTIAL 35 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION
TO PROVIDE A HIGHER DENSITY WHERE GREATER RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IS SCARED, SPECIFICALLY RANDY'S POLICY 9.6.3.
THIS REZONING WILL PROVIDE MORE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING CHOICES
FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH WHILE ALSO
CREATING ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN OUR AREA OF
THE CITY IN WHICH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEEKS TO PROVIDE A
MIX OF HOUSING TAPES, AND DIRECT THE GREATEST SHARE OF
GROWTH.
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPACT CITY FORM STRATEGY AS WAS
MENTIONED BY DANNY COLLINS EARLIER.
AND OF COURSE WRITTEN INTO THAT PARAGRAPH ARE THE VARIOUS
POLICIES.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUMMARIZE BY SAYING THAT, YES, THERE ARE
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES ON THAT BLOCK OF VARYING AGES
AND VARYING CONDITIONS, BUT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TODAY
IS WANTING TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, AND TO
MAKE THAT IMPROVEMENT FELT IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
RESIDENTIAL 35 CLASSIFICATION, AND IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY
COMPATIBLE, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 16.5 UNITS PER ACRE,
SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE RM-16 THAT EXISTS NOW, BUT WOULD
ALLOW THE THIRD UNIT TO IMPROVE THAT SITE, TO LOOK TOWARD
THE FUTURE WITH HOW THAT AREA WILL BE DEVELOPED CONSISTENT
WITH THE LONG-RANGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED THROUGH THE
HISTORY OF THAT PROCESS.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF THIS APPROVAL.
IT IS FOUND INCONSISTENT [SIC] BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF, AND THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION STAFF, AND BY ALL
DEPARTMENTS.
AGAIN, PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE CHOSEN TO CALL BUT WE NOTIFIED
ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
I HAVE HAD TWO CALLS, AND THE CALLS WERE SIMPLY INQUIRIES
ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY IS PROPOSED IN THE RM-18, AND I ANSWERED
THE QUESTION, THERE WAS NO COMMENT MADE, SO WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF THIS REZONING FROM RM-16 TO RM-18,
CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL 35 COMP PLAN DESIGNATION.
AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANY ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
21:20:48 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL?
21:20:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
MR. LAROCCA, GOOD EVENING.
UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING OF THE RM-16 YOUR CLIENT WOULD
BUILD TWO ATTACHED SIDE BY SIDE TOWNHOMES.
BUT I GUESS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ADD IS THAT THIRD UNIT IN
THE BACKYARD.
21:21:19 >> CORRECT.
SECOND FLOOR UNIT.
21:21:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IT'S NOT THAT WE ARE FORCING HIM TO DO A
SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT.
UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING, HE CAN BUILD ASIDE BY SIDE TOWN
HOME, AND THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITIES, TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING
DUPLEX, WHICH I AM SURE PERHAPS MANY PEOPLE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT
LOOKS LIKE.
YOU ARE SAYING IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO TEAR IT DOWN.
AND I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.
BUT IT NOT LIKE THERE'S NO OTHER CHOICE.
HE OR SHE COULD BUILD TWO UNIT SIDE BY SIDE DUPLEXES, IS
THAT CORRECT?
21:22:11 >> THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THE INTENT, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THE INTENT TO BE
CLEAR ABOUT IT AT THIS POINT IS NOT TO TEAR IT DOWN BUT TO
ADD A THIRD UNIT TO THE REAR, AND IMPROVE THE FACADE THAT
FACES THE STREET.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE STANDARD.
21:22:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
GOT IT.
21:22:33 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE?
ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OR ANYONE SIGNED IN?
21:22:41 >>AILEEN ROSARIO:
DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH.
THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THANK YOU.
21:22:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
21:22:47 >> WE DID HAVE JEAN ZERO MAYOR BUT SHE'S NOT LOGGED ON.
21:22:54 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION TO CLOSE?
MR. MANISCALCO MOVES, MR. MIRANDA SECONDS.
ALL IN FAVOR?
OPPOSED?
MR. CARLSON, WOULD YOU READ THIS ITEM?
21:23:05 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FILE REZ 21-37, ORDINANCE BEING
PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE
REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 412 WEST PARK
AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
RM-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY TO RM-18 RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
21:23:30 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SECOND.
21:23:33 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
[OFF MICROPHONE]
21:23:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
QUESTION ON THE MOTION.
SO MY POINT EARLIER, PERHAPS NOW FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH
TIME, I CAME ACROSS SOME LANGUAGE THAT I THINK IS RELEVANT,
SO I WILL PARAPHRASE IT.
THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, WHILE THE PROPOSED REZONING MAY BE
ALLOWED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF CONCLUDED
THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AS STATED UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE
CATEGORY, IN THIS CASE, IN MY OPINION, I WOULD FIND THAT THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY AND PERMITTED UNDER THE PROPOSED REZONING IS
NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT
CHARACTERIZED BY THIS PROPOSAL.
AND I THINK THAT'S MY POINT, IF I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, I THINK
BUILDING A NEW DUPLEX OR IN THIS CASE LEAVING THE EXISTING
DUPLEX IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THIRD UNIT, ON A 60-FOOT LOT, I THINK IS NOT
CONSISTENT.
IT MIGHT BE CONSISTENT IN SOME, YOU KNOW, FUTURE CONTEXT,
AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THE COMP PLAN IS ABOUT.
COMP PLAN LASS AT 20 YEARS, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY
MEAN THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR 2021 THAT THAT'S WHERE
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS AT.
AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE CRAMMING IN THAT KIND OF
DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
AND AS I STATED, NOT ON ANY CASE IN PARTICULAR, BUT I HAVE
BEEN HEARING FROM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT HAPPY
AT ALL WITH THE CHANGING OF THE CHARACTER OF THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I RESPECT HIM GREATLY, CANNOT RESPECTFULLY SUPPORT THIS
MOTION.
21:25:35 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
[OFF MICROPHONE]
21:25:41 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
(ROLL CALL)
21:25:47 >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT.
DINGFELDER AND GUDES VOTING NO.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 15th AT
9:30 A.M.
21:26:02 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER 9.
21:26:05 >> THANK YOU, SIR.
ITEM NUMBER 9, REZ 21-39, THIS IS FOR 201, 205 AND 207 SOUTH
ARMENIA AVENUE AND 2506 CLEVELAND STREET PROPOSING REZONING
FROM PD TO PD.
I WILL PASS ALONG TO PLANNING COMMISSION, DANNY.
21:26:27 >> DANNY COLLINS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WANT TO MENTION A FEW CHANGES TO
OUR REPORT FOR THE RECORD.
CONSISTENCY FINDING IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT AND THE SUMMARY
TABLE IS INCORRECT.
CONSISTENCY FINDINGS SHOULD BE INCONSISTENT.
ALSO, THE REMOVAL OF THE GRAND OAK TREE DESCRIBED IN THE
LAST PARAGRAPH DO NOT PRESENT ANY COMP PLAN RELATED ISSUES.
SO THOSE WERE OMITTED FROM THE REPORT, IN THE REVISED
REPORT, AND THAT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD.
THIS CASE IS IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE PALMA CEIA NEIGHBORHOOD, CLOSEST
PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITY IS VILLA BROTHERS PARK LOCATED A
HALF MILE TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE CLOSEST PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP IS LOCATED 540 FEET TO THE
SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE ON SOUTH ARMENIA AVENUE.
THE SITE IS WITHIN A LEVEL C EVACUATION ZONE.
HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE
SURROUNDING PROPERTY, ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH
ARMENIA AVENUE AND WEST CLEVELAND STREET, OUTLINED IN THIS
PURPLE COLOR.
YOU WILL SEE A PREDOMINANTLY NONRESIDENTIAL USES, SOUTH
ARMENIA AVENUE, AND ALSO ALONG WEST CLEVELAND STREET.
HERE IS THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP, ADOPTED FUTURE LAND
USE MAP.
MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDER THE UMU-60
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND 1.4 ACRES RECOGNIZED UNDER
THE RESIDENTIAL.
UMU-60 FOUND ALONG ARMENIA AVENUE, NORTH OF WEST PLATT
STREET, AND THEN [~AUDIO DISTORTION~] WEST ALONG CLEVELAND
AVENUE, AND THEN ALSO RESIDENTIAL 35 INAUDIBLE.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND FOUND
THE PROPOSAL -- [~DISTORTION~]
THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATE OF THE SITE MAXIMUM DWELLING
UNITS, APPROXIMATELY A THIRD UNIT LOCATED WITHIN THE
RESIDENTIAL -- [INDISCERNIBLE]
ANY DEVELOPMENT, ALSO NOT THE DENSITIES AND TESTIFYING FROM
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES.
I DO WANT TO MENTION, THERE IS A PENDING PLAN AMENDMENT,
INTENSITY, THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN ONE OR MORE FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORIES IN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT.
THIS WOULD APPLY TO THIS REZONING.
HOWEVER IT'S CURRENTLY PENDING.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATION IT IS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
21:29:40 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS?
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
21:29:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
JUST PROCEDURALLY, I AM LOOKING ON SIRE,
AND I DON'T SEE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ATTACHED TO
THE -- USUALLY IT'S ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT.
BUT I DON'T SEE IT.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS PART OF THE RECORD.
DANNY, IF YOU COULD RETRACE THE REASON YOU ARE FINDING IT
INCONSISTENT IS BECAUSE OF THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP, AND
SPECIFICALLY WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS?
21:30:13 >>DANNY COLLINS:
CURRENTLY, THERE IS FUTURE LAND USE
CATEGORY EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL
20 PORTION OF THE SITE, THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR TWO
DWELLING UNITS.
THERE'S A THIRD UNIT ABOUT THREE FOURTHS OF A THIRD UNIT, SO
THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY IN A RESIDENTIAL 20.
21:30:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THAT'S THAT LITTLE JOG TO THE WEST
THERE?
21:30:46 >>DANNY COLLINS:
CORRECT.
21:30:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
AND SO YOU DON'T LOOK AT THE TOTAL
NUMBERS?
YOU ARE JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED ON THAT LITTLE
SEGMENT?
IS THAT HOW YOU --
21:31:04 >>DANNY COLLINS:
WE HAVE A BREAKDOWN, AND THIS IS UNDER THE
SECTION OF THE REPORT THAT KIND OF DESCRIBES IT.
WE BREAK DOWN EACH CATEGORY WITHIN THE SITE AND WHAT CAN BE
CONSIDERED WITHIN THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SITE.
THERE IS NO PROHIBITION CURRENTLY THAT WOULD ALLOW TO BLEND
RESIDENTIAL 20 SO WE HAVE TO GO BY WHAT'S ALLOWED IN EACH
CATEGORY WITHIN THE SITE.
21:31:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU.
21:31:36 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
I BELIEVE MR. SHELBY HAD A QUESTION.
RECOGNIZED, SIR.
21:31:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. COLLINS, COULD YOU PLEASE FOR
COUNCIL'S SAKE CLARIFY PROCEDURALLY, YOU SAID THAT THERE
WERE RELATED PLAN AMENDMENT OR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
ENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS?
21:31:52 >> A TEXT AMENDMENT.
STILL FLOATING OUT THERE.
21:31:55 >>DANNY COLLINS:
NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REZONING.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A PENDING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMP PLAN.
IT WILL BE TRANSMITTED ON JUNE 24th.
AND THEN ADOPTION HEARING IN SEPTEMBER.
THEN IF THERE'S NO PROBLEM GO INTO EFFECT A MONTH AFTER THE
ADOPTION.
IT'S CURRENTLY PENDING.
[~DISTORTION~] IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.
21:32:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AND WHAT EFFECT, IF I MAY ASK, HAS
RELEVANCE TO THIS PARTICULAR REZONING?
WHY DO YOU RAISE THAT NOW?
21:32:33 >>DANNY COLLINS:
I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THERE IS AN
UPCOMING AMENDMENT, BLENDING WITHIN THE CENTRAL TAMPA
PLANNING DISTRICT ACROSS FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
21:32:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU.
21:32:55 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS?
21:33:01 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
GOING TO CASE 21-39.
WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, THE REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME IS
DAVID MECHANIK.
PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 201, 205 AND 207 SOUTH ARMENIA AVENUE
AND 2506 CLEVELAND STREET.
THERE IS A PROPOSED REZONING FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED TO PD, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED.
LET ME NOTE HERE ON THE RECORD THREE WAIVERS HERE ARE FROM A
PAST PD.
THIS DOES NOT BELONG TO THIS PD.
THIS BELONGS TO THE 0571.
THE NEW WAIVERS REQUESTED, WE HAVE FOUR HERE FROM NATURAL
RESOURCES AND I KNOW MARY IS GOING TO WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT.
AND THEN ONE FROM PARKING WAIVER, AND THEN ONE GROUND FLOOR
ENTRANCE.
ON THE OVERHEAD SITE PLAN YOU SEE THE ENTRANCES FACING THE
STREET.
HERE ALSO YOU WILL SEE THE PARKING AND THE STRUCTURES.
THE REQUEST HERE FOR THE PD IS TO REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 20
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS.
SUBJECT SITE IS RIGHT NOW .78 ACRES OR 33,951 SQUARE FEET,
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST CLEVELAND STREET AND
SOUTH ARMENIA AVENUE.
THE PROJECT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR, 3-STORY
TOWNHOUSES, RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.
THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE 45 FEET TALL WITH
SETBACKS TO THE SOUTH OF FIVE FEET, WEST OF FIVE FEET, EAST
OF TEN FEET AND NORTH OF TEN FEET.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PROPOSED ON WEST CLEVELAND
STREET.
ONE OF THE WAIVERS IS A TOTAL OF 45 PARKING SPACES INCLUDING
FIVE SPACES ARE REQUIRED, AND ONLY 40 SPACES ARE BEING
PROVIDED FOR ACCOMMODATION OF GARAGES AND SURFACE PARKING
HERE.
AS WE SEE THE SITE HERE OVERHEAD VIEW, IT'S OUTLINED IN THE
RED.
YOU WILL SEE WEST KENNEDY ABOVE.
YOU WILL SEE SOUTH ARMENIA TO THE EAST.
YOU WILL SEE SOUTH TAMPANIA TO THE WEST.
AND ALSO YOU WILL SEE PARK CITY WAY DOWN THERE TO THE SOUTH.
THE SITE IN CURRENT STANDING.
TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, IT'S THE BUILDING, HOSPITAL
COMMERCIAL.
SOUTH OF THE SITE, RESIDENTIAL.
AND YOU SEE THE INTERSECTION TO THE EAST OF THE SITE WITH
SOUTH ARMENIA AND WEST CLEVELAND STREET.
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
PETITION AND FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE
APPLICABLE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
WAIVERS AN APPLICATION FOR THE SITE PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED
BY THE APPLICANT BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND READING.
I BELIEVE CATE WELLS FROM LEGAL AND ALSO NATURAL RESOURCES
HAVE COMMENTS.
THANK YOU.
AND I AM AVAILABLE ALSO.
21:36:32 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
21:36:34 >>CATE WELLS:
THANK YOU, ZAIN.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND FOR PURPOSES OF TONIGHT'S HEARING CITY COUNCIL IS THE
FINAL INTERPRETER OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU PROPOSES A TOTAL DENSITY OF 20
DWELLING UNITS TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY A UNIFIED SITE PLAN
CONTROL ZONING LOT.
AND THE STAFF NOTED THE REQUEST IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN
THE MAXIMUM DENSITY PERMITTED, R-20 AND UMU-60 LAND USE
CATEGORY, AND LESS THAN THE DENSITY APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT
BACK IN 2005.
SUPPORT FOR THE CONCEPT OF BLENDING OF DENSITY CAN BE FOUND
IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IN 2013, SECTION 27-12 WAS ADDED TO THE CODE TO ADDRESS
SITUATIONS WHERE A ZONING LOT CONTAINS TWO OR MORE ZONING
DESIGNATIONS WITH DIFFERENT DENSITY REGULATIONS AND
EXPRESSLY ALLOWS THE TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY TO BE
DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY.
WHEN I SPOKE WITH MR. COLLINS EARLIER TODAY, HE DESCRIBED
THE ISSUE REGARDING DENSITY IN THE R-20 PORTION OF THE
PARCEL AS A TECHNICAL ISSUES YOU AND CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS
A PROVISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICY 5.1.6, WHICH
ALLOWS THE BLENDING OF DENSITY IN URBAN VILLAGES.
AS MENTIONED THIS EVENING, THERE IS A TEXT AMENDMENT IN
PROCESS THAT SIMILARLY ADDRESSES THE ABILITY TO BLEND
DENSITY IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT.
SO WHILE I RECOLLECT NICE THIS WAS NOT LOCATED IN THE URBAN
VILLAGE AND THE TEXT AMENDMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETELY
PROCESSED. ULTIMATELY, CITY COUNCIL GETS TO MAKE THE FINAL
DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
21:38:27 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MRS. WELLS.
CAN SOMEONE ELSE TO SPEAK?
21:38:33 >> I BELIEVE MARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES WANTED TO SPEAK.
MARY?
21:38:40 >> MARY:
GOOD EVENING.
MARY DANIELEWICZ BRYSON WITH CITY OF TAMPA NATURAL RESOURCES
HERE TO SPEAK WITH THE GRAND TREE ON THE SITE.
THE GRAND TREE IN 2018 WAS EVALUATED BY DAVE RILEY AND
DETERMINED TO BE CONDITION A WHICH WAS A GOOD CONDITION.
OUR ARBORIST JACKIE HEARTILY REVIEWED THE TREE AND IT'S NOW
RATED C-8.
IT HAS DECLINED.
THE PETITIONER HAS HIRED JOE SAMNIK TO EVALUATE THE TREE AND
HE HAS ALSO CONCLUDED THE TREE IS PROBABLY ABOUT A C-8 AND
IS IN A STATE OF DECLINE.
IT'S TRENCHING, HAS POOR ROOT FLARE.
THERE IS COMMON INDICATIONS OF DECAY WITHIN THE TREE.
AND HE FOUND THAT BASED ON THE DECLINE OF THE TREE, AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING AROUND THIS TREE WILL HASTEN THE
DECLINE WHICH I DO AGREE WITH.
SO THERE IS A WAIVER ON THE SITE PLAN IN REGARDS TO REMOVING
A NONHAZARDOUS GRAND TREE.
TREES THAT ARE RATED C-89 OR WORSE ARE ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED
WITH JUST NOTICE.
AND THIS TREE IS RATED C-8.
SO THE WAIVER ON THE SITE PLAN IS TO REMOVE A NONHAZARDOUS
GRAND TREE.
IT'S VERY CLOSE TO BEING AT THE LEVEL WHERE THEY COULD
REMOVE IT WITHOUT A WAIVER AND JUST WITH NOTICE.
21:40:39 >> MARY, THANK YOU.
BASED ON ALL OF THAT, I CAN SEE WHERE WE WOULD ALLOW FOR THE
REMOVAL OF THE GRAND.
TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE, IS IT A LIVE OAK OR LAUREL OAK?
AND NUMBER TWO, IS THERE CONTRIBUTION TO THE TREE TRUST FUND
RESULTING FROM THE REMOVAL?
21:40:57 >> MARY BRYSON:
YES.
IT IS A STAND LIVE OAK, ALTHOUGH A CC WHICH IS USUALLY
HEARTIER THAN A LAUREL OAK.
IT HAS ASPHALT ALL UP TO THE TRUNK, AND HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN
CARE OF, AND IN A SEVERE STATE OF DECLINE.
YES, THERE IS A NOTE ON THE SITE PLAN IN REGARDS TO THE TREE
TRUST.
21:41:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
21:41:32 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
LET'S MOVE ON.
21:41:46 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
ARE YOU ALL READY FOR ME?
21:41:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN?
21:41:52 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
YES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS.
GOOD EVENING.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
21:41:59 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MECHANIK, WE HAVE TO GET YOU SWORN IN,
SIR.
21:42:04 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
OH, YES.
SORRY.
21:42:05 >>THE CLERK:
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOU WILL TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE
TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
21:42:12 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
I DO.
21:42:13 >>THE CLERK:
THANK YOU.
21:42:15 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M HERE, DAVID MECHANIK, ON
BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ONYX.
WITH ME -- I DON'T THINK HE WAS SWORN IN.
I ALSO HAVE WITH ME GREGORY ROTH, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH
BOHLER ENGINEERING.
AND JOE SAMNIK, CERTIFIED ARBORIST.
WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF 20 TOWNHOMES.
BEFORE I ASK GREG TO PRESENT THE SITE PLAN AND WALK YOU
AROUND, I MIGHT SUGGEST IN THE STAFF REPORT AS THEY
MENTIONED THE LIST OF WAIVERS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED,
THE PD ON THIS SITE WERE NOT WAIVERS WE ARE REQUESTING.
AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
THEY WERE LISTED IN THE REPORT, BUT THEY ARE NOT ONES THAT
THEY ARE ASKING.
I THINK MARY DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF CLARIFYING HER REPORT,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT REGARDING THE CONSISTENCY, DETERMINATION OR I SHOULD SAY
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
I THINK CATE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF DESCRIBING THE LEGAL
STATUS, AND I THINK I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT THAT
IT IS WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THAT OUR REQUEST
IS CONSISTENT.
AND I WOULD JUST POINT OUT, WE ARE ASKING FOR 20 UNITS, 20
TOWN HOME UNITS.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS SITE WOULD ALLOW A TOTAL OF
33 UNITS.
SO WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CRAM EVERY UNIT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO
ONTO THIS PROPERTY.
AND THE PROPOSAL WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
IN THE AREA.
AND AS I JUST MENTIONED IS WELL WITHIN THE DENSITY
LIMITATIONS OF THE SITE AS A WHOLE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE AGREED TO
THE SITE PLAN THAT WE ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WE
WILL MAKE -- BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING IF COUNCIL
APPROVES THIS APPLICATION ON FIRST READING THIS EVENING.
AT THIS POINT I WOULD ASK GREG ROTH TO TAKE YOU ALL ON A
TOUR OF THE SITE AND SHOW YOU WHAT THE PROJECT WILL BE.
THANK YOU.
21:45:46 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THESE GENTLEMEN SPEAK, LET'S GO
AHEAD AND SWEAR THEM ALL AT ONE TIME, MR. MECHANIK.
I SEE ROB YATES, JOE SAMNIK, AND JAKE EGAN.
ALL RIGHT, MR. ROTH, YOU MAY CONTINUE, SIR.
21:46:09 >> GREG ROTH WITH BOHLER ENGINEERING.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST CONTROL OF THE SCREEN.
THEN LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CAN SEE MY SCREEN.
HOW ABOUT NOW?
THERE WE GO.
ALL RIGHT.
SO AS MENTIONED, WE ARE LOOKING TO REDEVELOP THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF ARMENIA AVENUE AND CLEVELAND STREET, AND TODAY IS
A VACANT LOT.
WE ARE PROPOSING 20 TOWNHOMES, AND AS YOU CAN SEE WE ARE
PROPOSING ACCESS ON CLEVELAND STREET.
WE HAVE COMBINATION OF TWO-CAR GARAGE AND ONE-CAR GARAGE
UNITS THAT ARE ACCESSED BY INTERNALLY, WE HAVE FOUR GUEST
PARKING SPACES ON THE WEST SIDE, AND WE DO HAVE ONE ACCESS
POINT WHICH CLOSING DOWN A DRIVEWAY THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON
ARMENIA TODAY.
THERE IS A TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION
NOW.
AND I'LL RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF RENDERINGS.
SO THIS IS A LOOK AT THE SITE, ACROSS ARMENIA HERE.
NEXT, AT THE INTERSECTION, STREET VIEW, LAG ACROSS THE
STREET.
21:48:41 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
WE ARE NOT SEEING ANYTHING.
21:48:42 >> CAN YOU SEE IT NOW?
21:48:56 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
JUST THE SITE PLAN.
21:48:57 >> HOW ABOUT NOW?
21:49:09 >> ALL YOU ARE SEEING IS THE SITE PLAN?
21:49:34 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES, SIR.
21:49:37 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
NOTHING IS ON NOW.
21:49:38 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
OFF THE SCREEN NOW.
21:49:43 >> HOW ABOUT NOW?
21:49:55 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE STILL CAN'T SEE IT.
21:49:57 >> WELL, WE DID TOUCH ON A FEW WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED.
ONE OF THOSE BEING PARKING REDUCTION WAIVER.
WE DID ORIGINALLY HAVE FIVE GUEST PARKING SPACES.
WE REDUCED THAT TO FOUR IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASE THE GREEN
SPACE ON THE SITE.
WE ALSO, BASED ON -- THERE'S SOME CONVERSATION ON THE
EXISTING GRAND OAK TREE, AND IT BEING IN DECLINING HEALTH
EVEN IF WE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE TREE, BASED ON
ITS LOCATION ON THE PARCEL IN RELATION TO ANY PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN
THAT, AS YOU REMOVE THE ASPHALT PAVEMENT THAT'S ADJACENT TO
THE TRUNK OF THE TREE CURRENTLY AS WELL AS ANY IN-FILL
DEVELOPMENT AND REGRADING OF THE SITE, IT WOULD BE FURTHER
DECLINE THE TREE.
IN REGARDS TO THE WAIVER TO PAY INTO THE TREE TRUST FUND, IT
IS OUR INTENT TO PLANT AS MANY TREES ON-SITE AS POSSIBLE.
THE INTENT OF THIS WAIVER IS JUST TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO
ACCOMMODATE EVERY TREE THAT NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED.
TO DESIGN THE SITE WITH PROPOSED LANDSCAPE.
WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER.
21:51:24 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
THANK YOU, GREG.
AT THIS POINT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS THE WAIVERS.
THE FIRST WAIVER IS THE CODE REQUIRES THAT THE UNIT STAYS A
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SO REQUESTING THAT SIX UNITS OUT OF THE
20 WOULD NOT FACE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND IF YOU CAN SEE THE
SITE PLAN, OR RECALL WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, BECAUSE OF THE
CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE
EVERY UNIT FACE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I MEAN, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THAT IS AT
A VERY SHALLOW AND LONG PARCEL THAT RAN ALONG -- AND MOST
PARCELS, RECTANGULAR SQUARE DID NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
AND I WOULD POINT OUT, AGAIN, WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR -- OUT
OF A POSSIBLE 30 TREES SO IT'S NOT AS IF WE ARE TRYING TO
CRAM MORE UNITS ON THIS SITE TO MAXIMIZE DENSITY.
BUT WE DO NEED THE WAIVER FOR THE SIX UNITS.
GREG MENTIONED WE HAVE A PARKING REDUCTION, WHICH IS SMALL,
ONLY 11 -- REDUCTION, AS WELL AS THE REDUCTION OF GREEN
SPACE.
IT'S VERY SMALL.
AND AS YOU HEARD ME SAY BEFORE, ON MANY ZONING APPLICATIONS,
YOUR PARKING AND GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ARE VERY SUBURBAN
IN NATURE, AND WE ARE DEALING WITH URBAN IN-FILL, AND IT'S
VERY HARD TO FIND LAND TO MEET ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THESE WAIVERS ARE FREQUENTLY NECESSARY IN A PROJECT
OF THIS TYPE.
MY CLIENT JACOB EGAN IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THE PARKING WAIVER
REGARDING THE EXPERIENCE HE'S HAD IN OTHER PROJECTS
REGARDING A SMALL REDUCTION THAT WE ARE MAKING.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT BRIEFLY?
21:53:54 >> GOOD EVENING.
JUST REALLY QUICKLY.
WE HAVE A PROJECT ABOUT ONE AND A HALF MILES NORTHEAST OF
THIS SITE.
WE HAD TEN SPACE REDUCTION THAT CAME OUT TO ABOUT 13%.
WE ARE BUILT OUT AND HAVE HAD NO ISSUES WITH GUEST PARKING
AT THAT COMMUNITY.
AND THAT'S OUR LOCAL EXPERIENCE.
AND MOST RECENT INTERNS OF A SIMILAR PRODUCT NEARBY.
21:54:22 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I THINK MARY'S DISCUSSION OF THE REMOVAL OF THE NONHAZARDOUS
GRAND TREE WAS MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED TO
REMOVE THIS TREE.
I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE, AS GREG POINTED OUT, THE TREE IS
LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF A FOOTPRINT OF A BUILDING AND JUST
COULD NOT BE SAVED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.
BUT AS STATED BY MARY, THE TREE IS IN VERY POOR CONDITION AT
THIS POINT.
AND AS GREG ALSO MENTIONED, WE WILL BE FULLY MITIGATING
IMPACT TO TREES BY PLANTING ON-SITE TO THE EXTENT THAT IS
POSSIBLE, BUT WE DO SEEK THE WAIVER IN THE EVENT THAT WE
CANNOT FIT ALL THE TREES, THE REPLACEMENT TREES ON-SITE, WE
WOULD PAY INTO THE CITY'S TREE BANK.
AND FINALLY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, WE ARE NO LONGER
ASKING FOR THE WAIVER -- [~DISTORTION~] AND TREES PRESERVED
ON THIS SITE, THE PERMIT THAT THAT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT
[~DISTORTION~] OF THE PROPERTY.
AT THAT POINT, AT THIS POINT WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
APPROVAL.
WE BELIEVE THIS PROJECT WILL BE A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE
AREA, AND AN ASSET.
THANK YOU.
21:56:05 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
21:56:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GOOD EVENING, MR. MECHANIK.
I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED, DAVID, BY THE NOTES AROUND THE
PERIPHERY, SPECIFICALLY ON ARMENIA AND CLEVELAND.
SO YOU HAVE GOT 14 UNITS, FIVE UNITS FACING CLEVELAND, AND
ANOTHER NINE ON THE ARMENIA SIDE.
AND VERY SPECIFICALLY, WHAT I AM HOPING YOUR NOTES MAKE
REFERENCE TO IS THE FACT THAT ALL OF THOSE EXTERIOR UNITS
WOULD HAVE GATES, PEDESTRIAN GATES, LEADING TO THE OUTSIDE,
LEADING TO THE SIDEWALK.
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS PROJECT, I THINK, IS WITHIN A BLOCK
OR TWO OF PUBLIX, AND WITHIN TWO OR THREE BLOCKS OF HOWARD
AVENUE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING IN OUR DESIGN TO
ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN USE.
SO THE REASON I AM CONFUSED, BECAUSE IT SAYS OPTIONAL 6-FOOT
HEY MASONRY WALL WITH GATES.
AND THEN IT SAYS PROP, 6-FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL WITH GATES,
AND I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
21:57:27 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
I AM GOING TO ASK MR. ROTH TO COMMENT ON
THAT.
BUT I WOULD WANT TO JUST POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THE EXTERNAL
UNITS, THE 14 UNITS THAT ARE FACING ARMENIA AND CLEVELAND,
HAVE SIDEWALKS AND WILL HAVE DIRECT CONNECTIONS.
PUBLIC SIDEWALKS.
BUT MR. ROTH, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?
21:57:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THAT'S REALLY MY MOST IMPORTANT CONCERN.
21:57:57 >> CONNECTIVITY DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE GATES ARE A SURE THING.
THE ONLY -- THAT'S OPTIONAL IS THE MATERIALITY AND THAT'S
WHY A 6-FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL WITH THE GATES, THAT'S WHY
PROPOSITIONAL TEXT IS PUT 234 THERE, BUT -- FROM THE UNITS
TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
21:58:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MAYBE THAT LANGUAGE CAN BE TIGHT END UP
A LITTLE BIT, SO THE GATES ARE GOING TO BE THERE.
IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHAT YOUR MATERIAL IS ON THE WALLS.
21:58:31 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
YES.
WE WILL DO THAT.
ABSOLUTELY.
21:58:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
21:58:34 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYBODY ELSE?
MR. CITRUS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
21:58:39 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
[OFF MICROPHONE] EXCUSE ME.
FOUR PARKING SPACES THAT HAVE THE LETTER C.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT STOOD FOR CHARGING STATIONS?
21:58:50 >> THEY STAND FOR COMPACT.
21:58:53 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO START A TREND.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO START A TREND ON THAT.
NOTHING TO THIS PETITION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE AND
MORE AND MORE DEVELOPMENT HAVE CHARGING STATIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
21:59:11 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE?
ANYONE ELSE?
ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM ON THE SECOND FLOOR?
21:59:27 >>AILEEN ROSARIO:
DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH.
THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THANK YOU.
21:59:30 >>THE CLERK:
THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS
ITEM.
21:59:35 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
21:59:36 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SECOND.
21:59:38 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. CITRO AND MR. MANISCALCO SECONDS IT.
ALL IN FAVOR?
OPPOSED?
MOTION CARRIED.
MR. CITRO, THANK YOU, SIR.
21:59:47 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
FILE NUMBER REZ 21-39.
AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY IN THE
GENERAL VICINITY OF 201, 205, 207 SOUTH ARMENIA AVENUE AND
2506 WEST CLEVELAND STREET IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE, INCLUDING WAIVERS AND REVISIONS BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READING.
AND I WILL GIVE YOU MY REASONING WHY NOW.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND, DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 21-136,
PROPOSED SITE PLAN CONTROL DISTRICT, PROPOSED USE PROMOTES
THE EFFICIENT AND SUBSTANTIAL USE OF THE LAND AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE WAIVERS AS REQUESTED WILL NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE OR INJURY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHOSE
PROPERTY WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE WAIVERS.
22:00:52 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SECOND.
22:00:54 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION BY MR. CITRO.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ROLL CALL.
22:00:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
22:00:59 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
22:01:00 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
22:01:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
22:01:05 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
22:01:06 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
22:01:07 >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 15th AT
9:30 A.M.
22:01:18 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
22:01:19 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER 10.
22:01:36 >> FILE SU-2-21-02, FOR 3615 WEST GANDY BOULEVARD.
IT IS FOR A DRIVE-IN WINDOW.
CAN I PLEASE HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN, PLEASE?
DANNY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE CONTROL FIRST?
22:02:04 >>DANNY COLLINS:
THIS IS DANNY COLLINS WITH YOUR PLANNING
COMMISSION -- FIRST SHARE MY SCREEN.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
OUR NEXT CASE IS IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT AND
MORE SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE -- [~DISTORTION~]
WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
WEST GANDY BOULEVARD, TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR, SPECIFIC
POLICY DIRECTION, ALLOWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
LOCATED ON WEST GANDY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH DALE MABRY
BOULEVARD.
SITE IS WITHIN A LEVEL B EVACUATION ZONE.
HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, JUST WEST
OF THE INTERSECTION OF WEST GANDY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH PINES
AVENUE, OUTLINED IN THIS PURPLE COLOR.
YOU WILL SEE THE GANDY BOULEVARD IS PREDOMINANTLY
NONRESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER.
HERE IS THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED UNDER
THE UMU-60 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
AND PORTION OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY ANOTHER
RESIDENTIAL 35 DESIGNATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID AN ASSESSMENT OF THE AREA, AND
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.
THIS REQUEST FOR POLICIES IN PLAN FOR IMPROVING
PEDESTRIAN -- AND THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK.
RUNS ALONG THE SOUTHERN ENTRANCE TO THE GROCERY STORE
WESTERLY.
THIS PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION WILL IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIVITY AND ALSO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN -- ACCESSIBILITY
WITHIN THE SITE.
PROPOSED DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY, NOT ADJACENT TO PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
APPROPRIATELY SCREENED, WHICH MEETS THE INTENSIVE LAND USE
POLICY --
BASED ON THESE CONVERSATIONS THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS
THE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
22:04:21 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
CITY STAFF.
22:04:23 >>ZAIN HUSAIN:
CAN I HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN AGAIN?
WONDERFUL.
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION GOING OVER CASE SU-2-21-02.
THE APPLICANT IS SHAGBARK PROPERTIES LLC.
REPRESENTATIVE NAME IS MATTHEW CAMPO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 3615 WEST GANDY BOULEVARD.
PROPOSING GOING FROM CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO SU-2 WITH A
DRIVE-IN WINDOW. THERE ARE NO PROPOSED WAIVERS.
LAG OVER AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL, YOU WILL SEE
THE CURRENT PARCEL AS RIGHT NOW A PUBLIX.
THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE AREA CONTAINS 7.03 ACRES CURRENTLY
OCCUPIED BY PUBLIX.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH HIMES
AND WEST GANDY BOULEVARD.
THE DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE 61,409 SQUARE FEET BUILDING AND
A DRIVE-IN WINDOW LANE, DRIVE-IN WINDOW LANE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE FULL ACCESS ON BOTH GANDY
AND ALSO ON HIMES.
THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY CG.
RM 60.
RM-24.
AND CI ZONING.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST REQUIRES 246 PARKING SPACES, AND A
TOTAL OF 220 ARE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME.
AS YOU SEE THE OVERHEAD VIEW.
THE PUBLIX, YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT OF THE PUBLIX.
TO THE SOUTH YOU HAVE THE PARKING LOT, ALSO STARBUCK'S DOWN
THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE STREET.
TO THE EAST, YOU HAVE HIMES GOING NORTH AND SOUTH.
AND TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE A TARGET RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE
PUBLIX.
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
PETITION AND FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE
APPLICABLE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SHOULD IT THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
WAIVERS AND APPLICATION, FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE
PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READING.
I ALSO KNOW THAT WE HAVE JONATHAN SCAT ON FROM
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING IF HE WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING.
22:07:07 >>JONATHAN SCOTT:
I WANTED TO MENTION, JONATHAN SCOTT,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
WE HAVE COMMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER TO CONSIDER HAVING
VEHICLES COME AROUND TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, COME OUT
TO THE FRONT, IN LINE WITH OTHER LOCATIONS THEY HAVE LIKE
RIVER CREST AND RIVERVIEW, JUST FOR EXTRA SAFETY, AND
VEHICLE TRAFFIC AROUND THERE.
I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THEIR REQUEST.
BUT A LOT OF THE PHARMACIES NOW ARE USING THE DRIVE-INS FOR
MORE THINGS THAN JUST -- THEY DO TESTING AND VACCINES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THIS.
BUT I THINK PETITIONER IS GOING TO PRESENT MORE ON THIS
JUSTIFICATION.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
22:08:04 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, JONATHAN.
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
APPLICANT, HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN, PLEASE?
22:08:11 >>THE CLERK:
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(OATH ADMINISTERED BY CLERK).
22:08:16 >> I DO.
22:08:23 >>THE CLERK:
THANK YOU.
22:08:26 >> MY NAME IS MICHAEL LEEDS WITH SHAGBARK PROPERTIES, ON
BEHALF OF PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF
THIS PROJECT.
PUBLIX OPERATES A GROCERY STORE, AND THEIR PLANS ARE TO HAVE
BRAND NEW, VERY, VERY NICE NEW STORE AT THE NEW PUBLIX
LIQUORS NEXT TO IT.
AND MATTHEW IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR REQUEST, AND TALK
ABOUT ON THIS PARTICULAR RELATED TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH.
22:09:01 >> WILL YOU SHARE THE SCREEN, PLEASE?
IT'S REALLY THE PRIMARY -- THE WINDOW IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF THE SPECIAL USE.
BUT PUBLIX, IN WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR THIS SITE, THIS
SITE IS TRULY A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE WHOLE PROJECT.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE ROW DOING PORTIONS OF THE PARKING LOT,
AND ALL NEW LANDSCAPING.
SO THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER.
THE THING WE WANT TO FOCUS ON, THEY REALLY HAVE A SPECIAL
USE IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH.
THERE ARE THREE PRIMARY THINGS WITHIN THE CITY CODE AS
RELATES TO -- AS IT RELATES TO DRIVE-THROUGH.
IT'S THE SPACING TO THE RESIDENTIAL, 122 FEET, TO THE
CLOSEST POINT OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH.
50 FEET.
WE HAVE ABOUT 259 FEET OF STACKING WHICH IS ABOUT 12 PARKING
SPACES.
SO A LOT OF CRITERIA IN THE SPECIAL USE WITH ADEQUATE
STACKING.
THEN ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS IS THE LOCAL ARTERIALS ON
HIMES.
AND THEN THESE ARE THE THREE CRITERIAS THAT I WANT YOU TO
SEE WITHIN THE SITE PLAN, IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
WE HAVE THIS ZOOMED-IN VIEW.
JUST FACING THAT 259 FEET OF QUEUE, WHICH EQUATES TO ABOUT
12 CARS.
WE DID DO A DETAILED STUDY OF FIVE DIFFERENT PUBLIX
LOCATIONS TO ANALYZE THE DRIVE THROUGH, ANALYZE THE NUMBER
OF TRIPS AND WHAT TYPE OF STACKING.
THE AVERAGE STACKING IS ABOUT 75 FEET.
SO THE SITE PROVIDES QUITE A BIT MORE STACKING THAN WHAT IS
REQUIRED OR WHAT IS TYPICAL.
THE OTHER THING WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JONATHAN SCOTT
DESCRIBED THE LOCATION, WHICH AND THIS LOCATION AS AN
EXAMPLE WHERE VEHICLES COULD COME FROM THE REAR.
ONE THING FOR THE COURSE OF THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE PUBLIX
DOES NOT PROMOTE OR ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THE
LOADING AREAS.
AND THIS PROJECT IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF MEANS
THEY WILL GO TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
THIS GRAPHIC DEPICTS THE RED ARROWS WHICH IS THE PATH THAT
PUBLIX WANTS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT VEHICLES TO TRAVEL
TO GET TO THE LOADING AREA.
THEY ALSO HAVE IN THEIR PARKING LOT -- ALL OF WHICH ARE
DIRECTING VEHICLES TO THE NORTH, AROUND TO THE REAR, AND
THEN BACK TO THE LOADING AREA -- BACK TO THE PHARMACY
DRIVE-THROUGH AND NOT THE LOADING AREA.
SO THEY GO TO GREAT LENGTH TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.
THAT IS ONE.
REASONS WHY THE STAFF DID MAKE THE SUGGESTION ON THE PROJECT
THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING.
THE DISCUSSION WAS WE WOULD NOT GO FROM THE REAR TO THE
FRONT JUST BECAUSE OF SAFETY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS CONDITION.
THESE PICTURES SHOW THE SIGN, TYPICAL SIGNS IN THE PARKING
LOT.
THE OTHER ONE SHOWS THE PHARMACY DRIVE-THROUGH, AND THEY
EVEN HAVE A LIT PHARMACY DRIVE-THROUGH SIGN IN THE REAR.
SO THIS IS THE MEASURE THEY'LL GET.
SO WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU SOME OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE PUBLIX
SHOPPING CENTERS HAVE SIMILAR CONFIGURATIONS FOR THE
DRIVE-THROUGH LIKE WE HAVE FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE PUBLIX, YOU SEE THE
PHARMACY, DRIVE-THROUGH, A SITUATION WHERE IF YOU GO THROUGH
THE DRIVE-THROUGH YOU ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LANE, A
MANEUVER, CROSSING PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE DONE BEFORE.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ARRANGEMENT THAT WE ARE DEPICTING
WITH OUR PROPOSED PROJECT.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, VEHICULAR CROSSING AND THEN TOUGH
PHARMACY COMING OUT OF THE MAIN DRIVE.
SO THIS IS A GOOD PATTERN.
WE HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHICH WE THINK GOES A STEP ABOVE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE NEW PUBLIX ON THE WEST OF GANDY
RECENTLY APPROVED.
AND THIS LOCATION ALSO HAD THE SAME GENERAL LOOPING TYPE
CONFIGURATION WHERE A PATRON WOULD COME IN OFF OF THE DRIVE,
LAP AROUND, NEVER GO BEHIND THE STORE.
IN ALL THESE CASES, WE WOULD HAVE THE PROPER TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES IN PLACE, CROSSWALKS, SIGN, PARKING AS NECESSARY TO
PROTECT PEDESTRIANS, AS WELL AS VEHICLE APPROPRIATE ROUTE.
NOW I AM GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO MATT TO BE SPEAK ABOUT HIS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND SPEAK ABOUT THE RESULT AND HOW THEY
SUPPORT.
22:14:31 >> MR. CHAIRMAN?
22:14:35 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ONE SECOND.
22:14:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER.
MR. CAMPO, JUST CURIOUS, MR. CHAIRMAN, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY
WAITING DOWNSTAIRS OR ON THE LINE?
22:14:44 >>THE CLERK:
NO ONE IS REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
22:14:47 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
AILEEN, ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR?
22:14:53 >>AILEEN ROSARIO:
THERE IS NO ONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND
HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING.
22:14:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. CAMPO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU
MIGHT WANT TO RESERVE FOR REBUTTAL.
22:15:04 >> YES, WE ARE GOOD FOR REBUTTAL.
22:15:06 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
22:15:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I GUESS IF THERE WOULD BE ANY QUESTIONS
AT THIS POINT.
22:15:18 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS PRESENTATION?
22:15:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MY ONLY QUESTION, MR. CAMPO, MY CHILDREN
USED TO FEED THE DUCKS THERE AT THAT LITTLE POND, AND I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DUCKS WILL BE PRESERVED.
22:15:36 >> YES, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE FEEDING THE DUCKS.
22:15:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WELL, NOW IT'S GRANDCHILDREN, BUT
ANYWAY.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
22:15:45 >> I WILL PASS THAT ON TO THE GENERATIONS.
22:15:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
22:15:50 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
22:15:51 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO MOVED TO CLOSE.
SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ANY OPPOSED?
ALL RIGHT.
MR. MIRANDA, COULD YOU READ IT?
22:16:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES, SIR.
ITEM NUMBER 10. FILE SU-2-21-02.
ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SU-2 APPROVING A
DRIVE-IN WINDOW IN CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT IN
THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 3615 WEST GANDY BOULEVARD IN THE
CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 1 THEREOF PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
I MOVE THIS IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE THAT THE COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE POLICY IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT, AND IS NOT ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY,
AND IS APPROPRIATE BUFFERED BY SURROUNDING RESIDENCES AND
WOULD CAUSE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THESE RESIDENCES, MEANING
AND INTENDING LAND USE POLICY 4.3.4.
IT MEATS THE GENERAL STANDARDS OF 27-129 AND THAT'S
REGARDING THE USE OF LOCATED IN COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING,
DOES NOT REQUEST ANY WAIVERS IN THE GENERAL STANDARD SECTION
27-129.
THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA 27-132, SPECIAL USE, IS ALLOWED FOR
CONSIDERATION IN GENERAL DISTRICTS WITH SPECIAL USE, OR HAVE
DIRECT MATERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET, SPECIAL USE WILL HAVE
ADJACENT ADEQUATE SPACE FOR VEHICLES, AND THE DRIVERS'
WINDOW ARE AT LEAST 50 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO
THE NORTH.
WAIVERS ARE NONE.
22:17:45 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MR. MIRANDA.
MR. DINGFELDER SECONDED IT.
ROLL CALL.
22:17:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
22:17:54 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
22:17:56 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
22:17:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES GOOD.
22:17:59 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
22:18:01 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
22:18:02 >>THE CLERK:
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON
JULY 15th AT 9:30 A.M.
22:18:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
NEW BUSINESS.
MR. VIERA.
22:18:09 >>LUIS VIERA:
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU KNOW, CAN YOU GIVE ME TWO SECOND?
I HAVE TWO MOTIONS.
MAY I GO AFTER THE NEXT PERSON?
22:18:22 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO.
22:18:23 >>LUIS VIERA:
THANK YOU, SIR.
22:18:25 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
NO, SIR.
22:18:29 >>BILL CARLSON:
NO, SIR.
22:18:30 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
NOTHING.
22:18:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
NO, SIR.
22:18:34 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WHILE MR. VIERA IS FINDING HIS PAPER, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, I PUT OUT A
MEMORANDUM FOR MONDAY, JUNE 14 AT 9:00 A.M. HERE AT OLD CITY
HALL.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS MOTION AND HAVE SOMEONE MAKE THE
MOTION SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH A SPECIAL MEETING.
22:18:57 >>LUIS VIERA:
VIERA MOVES.
22:18:59 >> SECOND.
22:19:00 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. VIERA MOVED IT.
MR. MIRANDA SECONDS IT.
CONDITION WE GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
22:19:06 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
22:19:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
22:19:10 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
22:19:11 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
22:19:12 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
22:19:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
22:19:15 >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
22:19:17 >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
22:19:18 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. VIERA, ARE YOU READY, SIR?
22:19:22 >>LUIS VIERA:
YES, I AM.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP THERE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
JUST REALLY FAST, TOO, IF I MAY.
CONSIDERING THE GOVERNOR'S RECENT TRANSGENDER SPORTS BAN, I
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE OUR GOOD FRIEND ADDRESS
US FOR METRO INCLUSIVE HEALTH TO PROVIDE A PRESENTATION TO
CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 24th WORKSHOP FOR FIVE MINUTES
UNDER MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY.
22:19:54 >> SECOND.
22:19:55 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION BY MR. VIERA.
SECOND BY MR. CITRO.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ANY OPPOSED?
MOTION CARRIED.
22:20:02 >>LUIS VIERA:
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU KNOW WHAT, STRIKE THAT.
I MOTION TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARD
TO EAGLE SCOUT NICHOLAS MICHELINI AT OUR JULY 15th CITY
COUNCIL MEETING.
UNFORTUNATELY, SIR, IF I MAY SAY SO, THAT WOULD BE PRESIDENT
TRUMP, NOT BIDEN, BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
MOTION BY MR. VIERA.
SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO.
MR. SHELBY, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
22:20:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WE HAVE JULY 15th?
22:20:36 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES, SIR.
22:20:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM WITH COUNCIL, THE
PRESENTATION OF A COMMENDATION, AND IT'S ALSO A FIVE-MINUTE
PRESENTATION IN HONOR OF DISABILITY AWARENESS DAY, THIS
WOULD BE THE THIRD ITEM.
22:20:50 >>LUIS VIERA:
WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS?
HOW ABOUT THIS?
I'LL TABLE THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO JAM IT UP.
WE WILL GO BACK AND LOOK AT OTHER DATES.
SO LET ME WITHDRAW THAT IF I MAY.
22:21:00 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
MOVE TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
22:21:03 >>LUIS VIERA:
THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU.
22:21:04 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOVE TO RECEIVE AND FILE BY MR.
MANISCALCO.
SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR?
WE ARE 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.