Continued…part 2 of 2
And I think I’m correct.
I think you need to be sure what you're approving and demand site plans from now on.
So you'll know what effect it will have on this very special environmental property.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Was there anyone else that spoke on this subject matter earlier?
>>Shawn Harrison: there was another person, but he left I think.
I move to close the public hearing.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Harrison to close the public hearing.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Let me just say since, I guess, my vote will determine whether it's 3-3 or 4-2 I guess.
And I wasn't too good in math.
But that's an easy one.
There are things that do take from the Hillsborough river, in my opinion.
Cypress bridge 2, cone ranch could possibly and, in fact that already has.
Morris Bridge sink and, of course the Morris Bridge well field itself.
I say this because when we had the proprietary rights to Morris Bridge wells and during the dry season when we pumped -- normally we would pump 12 million, but we pumped 30 million gallons, guess what happened to the river?
It had a 10% decrease in flow.
So I know a little bit about water, not much, but I know just a little bit.
Let's talk about water and development, whether it's this government or another government that would have the right to develop this land, I would not be in control of issuing the checkoff for development if this property was not in the City of Tampa.
It would be in another government's hands, if they issued a building contract by agreement I would have to furnish the water no matter what.
It has Planning Commission approval.
Let me speak a little bit more about water.
I really believe that the work of this council and myself and the administration, we will solve the water situation and problems for this area for many years to come as far-reaching as 40 or 50 years to come because we've been very aggressively pursuing the transformation of the use of reclaimed water to the extent of the flow and the productivity that we have.
We have approximately 45 million gallons of water today being produced by the citizens of this great city.
With a little help from the federal government and from the state and from s.w.f.w.m.d. And from everyone, we will be able to use those 45 million gallons of water to save a large amount, maybe even equal to that amount of potable water.
That will be primarily in the south of Kennedy corridor, phase one of star, phase two of star in the southernmost part of the City, including MacDill air force base and putting 10 million gallons in the base of the dam to meet the obligation that we should have to all those ecosystems and the environment that we have not been able to contractually do because of the drought.
Also to use the continuance of sulphur springs and use that water, we'll put another 10 million into the southern part.
South of sulphur springs.
That leaves 15 million.
That 15 million we will use to all the areas in the north sector of the City.
And yes, the City has grown.
We have not asked, that I know of, I know that myself, no council member has ever asked anybody to come into the City.
And we've tried to work to solve these problems.
If we can continue to do this and put this pipe line north all the way to 54, we will save an additional 15 million, all golf courses, all schools, and everything else that is a large user for irrigation purposes will have reclaimed.
Hopefully -- and somebody mentioned mayor.
No one is running for mayor.
In order to run for mayor, you have to go qualify.
And no one is qualified for that office.
So there are no candidates for mayor, not from this council or from anywhere else that I know of.
I'm sure there will be.
But today there are not.
And I think that by working to solve this problem that the drought has created, we will have that opportunity to meet our demands for many years to come.
253 acres of which 104 are protected wetlands, if I remember the conversation, and 149 are buildable; am I correct?
Somewhere in that neighborhood?
Yeah, I think that's what I remember.
And I believe that they've done their presentation.
I did have the opportunity to listen to both sides, and I’m ready it take a vote.
I don't know who made the motion last time.
>>Shawn Harrison: I made the motion and I’ll move again an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan future land use element land use map for the following general area in the general vicinity east of interstate 75 and south of County line road from neighborhood mixed use 4 paren 3, close paren in unincorporated Hillsborough County to suburban mixed use 3, an environmentally sensitive area, providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Buckhorn -- excuse me, motion by Mr. Harrison, second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the state spoke eloquently about why we shouldn't support this proposed change, and I urge you not to support it.
>>Charlie Miranda: let me say this, I’m going to support the motion under one condition, and I don't know if that can be written.
I want and I’m a strong believer of reclaimed and I don't have that legal authority to put it into a plan.
So it's your call.
I will support it with reclaimed.
I will not support it without reclaimed.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Mr. Chairman, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. Tew is part of the grand hampton discussion agreed that they would be willing to lay the lines with the assumption that eventually we would get there with the reclaimed water.
Is that an accurate interpretation, Mr. Tew?
>> I believe what I stated -- to the grand hampton approval and iterated on the diaz annexation, as long as the City has a bona fide commitment to get reclaimed up there, we certainly will install the lines to use the reclaim.
We need it, we want it.
But I don't think we should have to go build it until the City can demonstrate to some good faith that they're going to be able to get it there at some point.
But, yes, we won't -- want reclaimed.
We would love to have it grand hampton, diaz and everywhere else.
>>Charlie Miranda: if I put the line and there's no line on the other side, the petitioner has what they want, I’ve got a line going to nowhere.
And then the expense is going to be mine to tear up the streets, to tear up all the infrastructure to lay another line that could have been laid for very little.
I'm telling you right now, this city is very committed.
We have a special team that meets every Wednesday from between 3 to 5 hours every week.
And it just called a resource committee.
And all it does is water and sewer.
And all it wants to do is solve the problem for the next 50 years to come.
Yes, sir, Mr. Buckhorn.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Tew and my colleagues are aware of the fact that we are moving on changing the subdivision regs to require that anyway.
So I think that is indicative of our commitment to do it and Mr. Tew has indicated that he is willing to do it.
So I think your concerns ought to be alleviated and they are well spoken and well placed.
>>Charlie Miranda: if we do this, do we have, Ms. Zelman, coming up, and I remember asking for this and I know there's been many difficulties in getting subdivision plat s because of the commitments that we have to make to get it there, and I certainly don't want to make a commitment that I can't keep.
Is there any way that we can tie this in for future to have reclaimed?
>> this particular map amendment, we really can't put conditions on map amendments.
>>Charlie Miranda: but we can during the development.
>>Andrea Zelman: during the development process.
Today, again, all we're doing is putting a land use plan category on the property.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
>>Mary Alvarez: thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Based on the second time around, I understand it a little bit better with the explanation that we've been hearing, and based on what I’ve heard, I’m going to support it.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion on the floor made by Mr. Harrison.
Seconded by Mr. Buckhorn.
Favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: nay.
>>Charlie Miranda: the motion passes five to one.
Thank you very much for attending.
>>Andrea Zelman: can I ask council to make a motion that we transmit to dca the City's response to the orc report.
>>Charlie Miranda: we have a motion and a second.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Thank you all very much for attending.
All right.
We go now to item 2.
We're going to open two hearings at the same time which run concurrent.
That's item 2 and item 8 on page 2.
I need a motion for that.
Motion by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
2 and 8 are now open.
>>Andrea Zelman: Legal Department, again, very briefly, item 2 is the 21st amendment to the Tampa Palms development order.
As council knows, this is the development order that was originally adopted in 1980 in Hillsborough County annexed into the City in 1985.
It's obviously been amended 20 times previously.
This particular notice of proposed change was filed in February by waterford construction and development.
It pertains only to area 2 of Tampa Palms, parcel 7-a which is at the southwest corner of bruce b. Downs and amberly drive.
It's approximately 3.5 acres.
It's currently approved on map h to the development order for 105 multifamily units at 35 units per acre; however, subsequently, the City amended it to allow for single-family use and 17 single-family homes were platted on the property, two of which have been built.
What this notice of proposed change is asked for is to allow for a trade-off mechanism that would let the developer trade off the multifamily uses or the single-family, whichever they would choose, to have up to 37,500 gross square feet of professional and medical office entitlements.
This nopc has been reviewed by city staff, by dca and by the Tampa Bay regional planning council.
None of which object to it.
If you have any further questions ... Thank you.
>>gloria moreda: Land Development.
As it relates to the rezoning petition, they're proposing to amend the rezoning to a planned development district.
That provides two alternative plans for this tract.
It's a 3.5-acre tract.
They are indicating in their alternative one that the development will be for professional office, approximately 20,000 square feet of general office and just over 16,000 square feet of medical office.
The site plan shows the arrangement of 16 buildings ranging from 2 to 4 thousand square feet.
And 174 parking spaces.
The site plan has been revised to indicate compliance with new Tampa overlay district requirements as well as a commitment that the development will comply with the architectural and design standards of the Tampa Palms homeowner association.
Alternative 2 is really the existing plat on the property.
It's for a single-family development, 17 units, and they are typically 50-foot wide lots.
City staff now with the revision to the site plan has no objections to this petition.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
>>michele ogilvie: michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
The transportation element of the comprehensive plan directs the City to continue implementing F.D.O.T. Standards for incorporating bicycle and pedestrian features in the design of local roads.
As council is aware, Tampa Palms area has many bicycle and pedestrian uses, facilities, excuse me.
The inclusion of the office can further pedestrian activity in this area and can also help with some of the transportation issues that have been -- at the forefront for sometime in the 581 corridor.
Based on this finding, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not object to the rezoning request.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Petitioner.
>> Mr. Chairman and council, good evening, for the record, michael d. Horner, 14502 north Dale Mabry highway.
I represent waterford construction and development.
It's a pleasure being here this evening.
With me also tonight is our client, Mr. John westfall, who is president of waterford construction and development.
Also we have Ms. Libby rodriguez, traffic consultant for any traffic issues you May have.
We also have two homeowners.
Those two homeowners that own the two single-family residents that will be converting into approval -- professional offices.
Mr. Chairman, do you intend to take both motions at one time once he hear the proceeding?
>>Charlie Miranda: we're going to take both -- we opened both of them at the same time so we'll be voting on both of them as a unit.
>> Ms. Zelman gave a fine presentation on the dri.
Let me thank Ms. Zelman and johnson of staff.
We went through a lot of difficulty to format this development order.
I swear, Tuesday afternoon about 4:00 I was literally prepared to throw the computer monitor out the window and land it on Dale Mabry highway.
But it is formatted in a proper fashion.
We feel comfortable with it.
We have reviewed it.
We certainly think it says the things it needs to say.
We have gone through t.b.r.p.c.
We have incorporated all the provisions that we feel are safeguards in terms of the overlay district specifically for this Tampa Palms parcel.
We are taking the 3.5 acres out of that multifamily designation and asking for a business professional office park designation.
I don't believe we have any objections of record to the dri.
I attended that t.b.r.p.c. Meeting personally.
We also sat with City of Tampa staff on transportation issues, landscape issues, revised our plan if not once at least two times in order to be consistent.
So we feel from a dri standpoint that we have done everything possible to receive that amendment approval.
In terms of the pd, council, this is, in my opinion a win-win situation for all parties.
When Mr. Westfall approached me and asked me to look at this parcel some time ago, I took the time to go to the clerk's office and pull out those files.
Let me tell you, what a rude awakening that was in the walgreen's petition.
File after file after file about those objections.
And I went back to john and said, if we're going to do anything, it has to be professional offices detached, high quality, incorporate the single-family houses and let everybody benefit from this review and approval.
That's all my client does.
He does not do any retail.
He does not do big boxes.
He doesn't do loading, unloading terminals.
He does detached, fee simple ownership, professional office buildings.
These buildings will sell between 350 and 400 thousand dollars.
He has his own detail recorded deed restrictions that he will file as part of the record.
We have had ongoing dialogue with the Tampa Palms homeowners association.
The community development district.
As a matter of fact, our presentation was last night for the second occasion.
We've had representatives of the palma vista condominium association.
We sent out over 200 letters and notices, postings, and it was nice to have gloria moreda call me up and say I haven't had one call in opposition.
That's a good thing.
Hasn't happened too often to me.
But I’ll relish the moment.
We have reviewed this parcel from a number of factors, one of which is just simply compatibility.
The plan before you shows taking the same residential plat, which is certainly of record.
Only two single-family houses have been developed.
We are adding 14 new buildings and turning the two existing single-family residences to professional offices.
The two owners benefit because they can get out of a sad situation.
They were the first two buyers.
The developer pulled out no other development took place.
If you look at the photographs of record, there's just a lot of for sale signs and a lot of unkept lots, truly unfortunate.
My client proposes to put in a land use which for all intents and purposes will be a benign impact in terms of trip generation, in terms of its hours of operating.
Mostly closed on weekends and mostly closed during evening hours.
The City benefits and the community development district benefits I think, because if you take the assessed value of 400,000 buildings times 16, that's a sizable ad valorem revenue that comes through.
That's a number that I think has a major impact and should be a tax benefit to the County -- excuse me, to the City.
>>Charlie Miranda: and will be to the County too.
They get 36%.
We get 24.
>> they sure do.
My client certainly benefits because he has a prime parcel.
No question, at a corner location at amberly and bruce b. Downs Boulevard.
With that, i'd like to just show you a couple of pictures, council members, if I may.
Just lay these here.
We are looking directly into nor fleet.
This is the two-story house.
You can't see the one story directly behind it.
This is looking kind of catty corner again.
Vacant land, for sale signs everywhere.
Not real attractive although beautiful houses.
You will hear from one of the owners in just a moment.
My client intends to construct -- we can span out just a little bit.
These are the type of office buildings my client intends to construct.
Landscaping, pitched roofs, trade ceilings, roof barrel tile, gabled entryways, this is what currently sits on my client's property and bearss Avenue.
That's the corporate offices.
These are not exactly the buildings.
They will be very similar to what my client intends to construct on this parcel.
With that, council, we ask you to approve both the dri and the zoning approval tonight.
I'd like to have Mr. Jack smith stand up just for a brief moment.
>> Mr. Horner, what are the hours of operation going to be?
>> we haven't established specific hours of operation, but typically, for all my clients, it's about 13 or 14th park, they are from 8:00, 7:00 to 6 in the evening hours.
No weekend activity as well.
We do allow the owners of the properties to have access to the buildings.
Cpa during tax season needs to get in there and do his reviews.
However, the places are not open for business.
And I think that's a distinguishing characteristic.
>>Shawn Harrison: could you check with your client and see if he would be willing to put some hours of operation on the site plan.
>> while Mr. Smith speaks briefly, let me go back and chat with him just a moment.
If Ms. Poliath could stand up and be recognized.
She is one of the owners as well.
I promised her I would not have her speak this evening.
If she could just wave.
This is Mr. Jack smith.
>> thank you, mike.
I'm jack smith.
I've been a resident of the summerset subdivision for three years, and you all know the history behind it.
I indeed think it's a win-win situation for everybody.
We're able to get on with moving to another development.
I don't think without the developer coming in there doesn't seem any likelihood of the development building houses there.
So I think it's a win-win situation for us, for the neighborhood.
I think they're going to put an attractive facility in and we are in support of the petition.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you, Mr. Smith.
Anybody else in the audience care to speak for or against this petition?
Anybody in the audience who would care to speak for or against this petition?
Motion to close the public hearing by Ms. Alvarez.
I don't think he needs to rebut.
Ms. Alvarez made a motion to close.
Mr. Buckhorn, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> I spoke with my client, he said predominantly that's fine with him.
He's concerned about one person who May meet with him who May occupy a building about a building plan at 6:45 in the morning for a contractor meeting.
So with those minor exclusions, predominantly we have no problem with that, councilman.
But couldn't make it absolute because there May be one or two incidences where the owner of a building May want to meet with somebody outside of that time.
>>Shawn Harrison: I don't have any problem with that.
I think could you say normal hours of operation or say 6 a.m. To 8 p.m. And that would be fine with me and I’m sure fine with all the existing property owners.
If you'll commit to that on the site plan.
>> sure.
We have no objection to those time frames.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I was just trying to figure out the little white lines are sidewalks.
>> yes.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: great.
Okay.
>> thank you, council.
>>Charlie Miranda: we haven't done anything yet.
All right.
We close the hearing and now since Ms. Miller is not here, I’ll pass one to each council member as we go on.
>>Rose Ferlita: move an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, approving the 21st amendment to development order rendered pursuant to chapter 380, Florida statutes, filed by waterford construction and development inc. Regarding Tampa Palms area 2, parcel 7-a, a previously approved development of regional impact, dri, providing an effective date hereof.
>>Charlie Miranda: I’m going to hold this for one second.
I have a motion by Ms. Ferlita.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Bob Buckhorn: Item Number 8, ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 15275 amberly drive in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications pd to pd, providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Bob Buckhorn: move to open public hearing number 4.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have a motion to open public hearing number 4 by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Public hearing number 4 is now open on page 2.
>>gloria moreda: gloria moreda, Land Development.
The proposed special use involves the redeemer catholic church located at 10110 north central Avenue.
They are proposing to expand the existing rectory by about 2,000 square feet.
Their site plan includes a drawing of the elevation of the proposed sanctuary or the proposed rectory.
The setbacks will be 65 feet from the northern property line and 135 feet from central Avenue.
So it's well inside the campus of the church.
The campus site is over 14 acres or approximately 14 acres.
The development looks like they will comply with all Land Development regulations.
Remember, the size of the sanctuary and the student count for their school facility has been approved by council on previous occasions.
Staff has no objection with this request.
>>michele ogilvie: michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
The church has been at this site since 1960 and is a part of the fabric of the neighborhood.
The proposed additions will be added to the existing building.
Have similar height and scale of the existing building and be compatible with the surrounding residential to the north.
We find the request to be consistent with policies that require ensuring that sensitive and compatible development is achieved within residential areas.
Planning Commission staff does not object to the special use request.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
Petitioner?
>> good evening and thank you.
My name is steve Fowler, architect with Fowler associates architects in clearwater.
Staff has made a very good presentation and we're here basically to answer any additional questions you May have.
>>Charlie Miranda: anyone in the audience care to speak on this petition for or against petition number 4, page 2?
I have a motion to close the public hearing by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Discussion by council members?
[motion carried unanimously]
The petition is now closed.
Let me see.
That's item --
>>Bob Buckhorn: need to read the ordinance.
>>Charlie Miranda: Ms. Alvarez, will you so kindly hand that will one?
>>Mary Alvarez: move an ordinance approving a special use permit s-2 approving a church school in an rs-50 zoning district in the general vicinity of 10110 north central Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, and as more particularly described in section 1 hereof, providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have a motion by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn in an extremely close vote with Ms. Ferlita.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Thank you all very much for appearing.
Need to open the public hearing, Mr. Buckhorn made that motion.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item Number 5 is now open on page 2.
Yes, ma'am.
>> gloria moreda, Land Development.
The petitioner is proposing to develop an 80% rule on the property at 3301 villa rosa street.
There are two platted lots on the property that are 50 by 90.
And the proposed site plan shows development consistent with the rs-50 zoning district, the 20 foot front and rear, seven on either side.
The overhead protector shows the pattern of development in the area.
8 out of the 17 lots on this block face are in single ownership.
Staff feels that they are complying with the development standards, although they are asking for a waiver of the driveway width.
We have no objection with this request.
>>Charlie Miranda: Planning Commission?
>> michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
We drove through the neighborhood and found it to be one in which there is great redevelopment occurring as I think is demonstrated on the map gloria has presented to you.
We find the request to be consistent with policies in the housing element that ask for compatible development to be part of the redevelopment process and the affected neighborhood does have an emphasis, housing stock that has an emphasis of the living area rather than driveways and garages.
This petition has also made that commitment on the site plan that's before you this evening.
Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff does not object to the special use request.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Petitioner.
>> good evening, chairman.
Council.
Shawn donnelly on behalf of the petitioner.
601 north lois Avenue.
As was stated, this is a petition for an 80% rule for two buildable lots for the construction of two residential family homes.
I've spoken with five or six people in the neighborhood when we sent out our notices, none of them had objections once I explained it was simply for the requirement of the lot size.
And it is consistent with the development in that area, and we would would ask that you approve it.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Anybody care to speak on this item?
Motion to close by Mr. Harrison.
Seconded by Ms. -- she was nodding, but I thought she was maybe carrying on another conversation, so I didn't want to call her that way.
But Ms. Alvarez made the second in a very close vote again with Ms. Ferlita.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Mr. Harrison, will you handle this one, please?
>>Shawn Harrison: I move an ordinance approving an s-2 special use permit approving 80% lot development in an rs-50 zoning district in the general vicinity of 3301 villa rosa Avenue, Tampa, Florida, and as more particularly described in section 1 hereof, waiving the minimum driveway width from 18 feet to 16 feet, providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Harrison.
Second by Ms. Ferlita.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I think it's great that they want to make the driveways narrower.
I'm looking at the site plan.
And what you're going to see, if they didn't do that, and I wish they were narrower still, is a 50-foot lot with basically a good third of that paved, which changes the whole characteristics of the neighborhood, but at least it's a little narrower.
It could be set back further.
We like it best if the garages are in the back.
But you don't have enough room because it's kind of squeezed in.
It's okay.
>>Charlie Miranda: that's why when I’m here I feel like I’m home.
I love it here.
All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Motion by Ms. Alvarez, second by Mr. Buckhorn to open public hearing number 6.
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item Number 6 is now open.
>> gloria moreda, Land Development.
The proposed rezoning to a planned development involves the property of the southwest corner of Gandy Boulevard and MacDill Avenue.
It's currently occupied by the abc liquor store, and they are proposing to demolish that and to develop it into a cvs pharmacy as well as another retail sales for abc liquor store to relocate.
They -- both buildings will have drive-through windows.
And they are proposing to include a masonry wall along the southern property line and extensively landscape it as mitigation for the adjacent residential.
The site plan is indicate it would go waivers.
They are asking for a waiver of one loading berth for each facility as well as a waiver of the 50% tree removal requirement.
They are committing, though, as part of that removal that they will do replacement as well as replace with four-inch caliber trees.
Staff has reviewed the site plan, and has no objections to it.
>>Charlie Miranda: Planning Commission.
>>michele ogilvie: michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
This rezoning is the -- is the next step in a plan amendment that was approved in March of this year.
Plan amendment 00-21, to the community mixed use 35 plan category.
The petitioner has, as gloria said, revised the site plan immensely.
They have worked very hard throughout the months through the plan amendment to hear to do some adjustments to provide for their needs as well as to protect the neighborhood that is to the south along MacDill Avenue.
They have removed some of the driveways that were in existence through the abc liquor lounge and bar, and we would support the request based on the fact that they are not showing any access points on marlin Avenue.
And we feel that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it asks for the provision of sidewalks and the protection of trees.
Planning Commission staff does not object to the rezoning request.
>>Charlie Miranda: what is an east palatka holly tree?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I had the same question.
>>Charlie Miranda: well, because I knew you were going to ask that, see.
East palatka tree is opposite of a west palatka tree.
>>Rose Ferlita: I’m sorry to interrupt your presentation.
I have to read something into the record in terms of conflict.
I Rose Ferlita hereby disclose on April 12th, 2001, measure came and will come before my agency which inure to the special gain of cvs corporation which is the parent organization of subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
Measure before the agency in nature of my conflicting interest in measure is as follows: a rezoning petition that if granted would allow cvs corporation to build a facility on the subject property of the zoning petition.
I am employed by procare pharmacies, managing pharmacist, procare pharmacies is subsidiary of cvs corporation.
>>Charlie Miranda: and I’m a customer of cvs, so we are both in the same boat.
>> good evening, council.
For the record, elice lynn with holland & knight, ashley drive, suite 2300.
I'm going to follow suit from the prior applicants and let you know that we're here to answer questions.
We do have neighborhood support.
We did meet with the neighbors and made some changes which you'll see on the site plan, some meandering sidewalks and new architectural detail on the side of the building which will hopefully make it compatible with the neighborhood to the south.
So we're available to answer any questions you May have.
>>Charlie Miranda: anybody in the audience care to speak on this petition for or against?
Motion to close by Ms. Alvarez, second by Mr. Buckhorn.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Ms. Saul-Sena, will you take this one please, number 6.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3110 west Gandy Boulevard in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications rs-60 and cg to pd; providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
As you well know, seven was taken care of earlier.
That will be held in June.
8 was taken in concurrence with number 2.
We need to open number 9.
Motion by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
9, page 2 is now open.
>> gloria moreda Land Development.
The proposed ro-1 site plan shows the existing house at 9312 north Armenia.
It's being converted to general office use.
The house contains about 3,000 square feet and the parking will all be in the front of that structure.
They are asking for a waiver of one of the required parking spaces.
, normally we would have ten offstreet parking spaces.
However, given the tight constraints of the property and the existing structure to be able to park in the back, I believe there's a large tree in the back, we are satisfied with this petition and staff has not made objection to it.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
Planning Commission?
>> michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
We find the request to be consistent with policy b-5.5 of the comprehensive plan that directs neighborhood serving commercial and office uses to be compatible with surrounding and existing -- surrounding, existing, and planned residential development.
There is a large residential area to the east and to the north in the County.
The petitioner to the south is another office building.
That will be developed -- that is developed as similar to this one being proposed.
The petitioner is also protecting 20 inch and 24 inch oak tree along Armenia Avenue.
That will provide some of the shade tree requirements of the comprehensive plan policy d-6.2.
The Planning Commission staff does not object to the rezoning request.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Petitioner?
>> rick hampton, 3311 santiago street.
I'm not going to blow the streak.
I'll just answer any questions as well.
>>Charlie Miranda: one starts that row -- I appreciate that very much.
Anybody else care to speak for or against?
Motion to close the public hearing by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Mr. Buckhorn.
>>Bob Buckhorn: move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 9312 north Armenia Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification rs-60 to ro-1 providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Need to open public hearing Item Number 10, page 2.
Motion by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>gloria moreda: Land Development.
The proposed development is for a planned development district at 5323 south Bayshore.
The proposal is for seven single-family dwellings, three of the units will be attached.
And four of the units semidetached.
The building will have a maximum height of 34 feet and will be set back 13.4 feet off of Bayshore, 8 feet off the north and south property line, 14 feet from the western property line.
The drawings to include the ability to do wooden decks with the option to screen in the area.
That warrants a waiver of the requirements that typically they will be set back about two feet.
The development is also asking for a buffer waiver of tree and landscape code and normally requires vehicular use area to have an 8-foot buffer along Bayshore.
It will be two feet.
And they are also increasing the height of residential fence from six feet to eight.
This site was a very difficult site in the sense that there are a number of large trees.
The developer had to work around the trees and work closely with the construction services center to try to develop the best plan he could for it.
The site is just under an acre and the densities that they are proposing is about 8.5.
This is an r-20 land use classification.
Staff has no objection with this request.
>>michele ogilvie: Planning Commission staff.
This area of Bayshore south of Gandy Boulevard is developed with a variety of housing types.
To the north and to the east, there's single-family attached homes exist.
This development would be compatible with the existing development pattern along Bayshore in this area.
The request is also consistent with policy a-3.1 of the future land use element that asks that we ensure that within the MacDill air force base flight path, a density of 10 dwelling units or less is ensured in this as gloria just stated that is the case in this rezoning.
Also like to place in the record that the request is consistent with the conservation element, requirements to preserve and protect upland native plant communities.
15 significant oak trees are being protected and the petitioner has done a really great job in protecting the resources on this site and building the homes -- or at least hoping to build the homes that he's asking for this evening.
Planning Commission staff does not object to the rezoning request.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Petitioner?
>> good evening, council.
I'm mike, president of great american corporation.
I'm the petitioner, the developer, the builder.
I do it all.
My address is 3239 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
I'd like to describe the existing conditions on the property.
The property is .83 acres in an area that is predominantly town house, as you can see.
My immediate north and south of the town house developments.
I have spoken with the owners of the units that are adjoining my property or the proposed property, and they both support the project.
We don't have to go -- we didn't have to go any farther back than just the units facing Bayshore because of the way we're developing the site.
We really have very, very little neighbor impact on the north side our units adjoin the neighbor's retention area.
And on the south side, as you'll see shortly, we're not developing it.
The current use of the property is as a single-family residence, which is occupied by, if you can believe this, the original owner.
And for those of you who haven't had an opportunity to see it, this is the site.
Not unlike many sites in south Tampa of a little house stuck on a nice piece of property and --
>>Linda Saul-Sena: would you pass that around?
>> sure, I would be happy too.
That describes the existing conditions.
The salient feature of this piece of property, as has already been pointed out are the trees.
And the trees, the main trees, it's really funny, but for just a piece of property that's just 140 feet wide, the north side of the property has virtually nothing on it, no trees.
It's get a -- got a few scrub, grapefruit trees, and not quite right tangerines.
Real dinky things.
This is where we put the preponderance of the development.
Preponderance means four units and the Fire Department, of course, requires a fire lane when you have a deep lot and we've accomplished that right here.
That's -- that really governed the development of the site.
The big trees on the site are in two locations.
At the back and at the front.
And we worked with the City of Tampa forester and our landscape architect and have abided by what they asked us to abide by, the setbacks and rather than in so many developments today you have the obligatory swimming pool, well, we're not putting a swimming pool in.
We're putting a park in.
It's a private park.
We're keeping this area natural, and it's just going to be gorgeous.
But the -- that is the predominant nature of the site, and we're using mulch parking areas, and -- well, there will be no impact on the big trees that are at the rear of the site.
Likewise, at the front, we are staying within the footprint of the existing house.
So that was something that we worked out with the forester.
The density on this site would translate into at least 10 units.
And as we said, we're doing 7.
The name of the development is proposed to be "the park on Bayshore," because that's really what it is going to look like.
And that's the approach we have taken to the whole land plan.
Also, we are going to incorporate xeriscaping as our major landscape technique.
We do have an existing well on the site, and if we can, we would like to continue to use that for our irrigation.
There are 23 major trees on the site.
For sure, there are 17 that we are committed to not touching.
Of the remaining six, we think we can save two or three of them by moving them on the site.
It's mostly palms, and we have enough time to do it during the winter when we're having the most likely chance of success in doing that.
So, you know, moving trees is always an iffy deal, but if we wait until December, which is within our time span, we think we can save another two or three trees.
So there will be very few trees removed.
We have coordinated with the City forester and with the staff.
Our driveway layout, we have an in and out one lane and the position of it is dictated by the fact that the Fire Department requires a 60-foot turnaround lane.
And that's -- you'll notice this is our turnaround.
We have 61 feet.
We just made it, but they were satisfied.
And it doesn't adversely impact the property.
The property has an existing sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard for pedestrians.
Also, our entry area allows for the stack -- it's about 45 feet from Bayshore to an entry gate that we'll have and that will allow stacking of two or three cars, but for this small a development, that really isn't a big issue.
We do have plans for a wrought iron fence on the front of the property.
And at this point, I would like to show you the Bayshore elevation.
The overall design style is what would be called charleston or savannah colonial.
It's a warm traditional style that's very familiar in south Tampa and it fits in well with the developing trends of the neighborhood.
For example, the community across the street from us is called charleston.
I have photographs of the rest of the site, should you have any interest.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you have and I request that you favorably consider our development.
>>Rose Ferlita: sir, I don't have a question, I have a comment.
And I was anxious for you to finish your presentation w all due respect.
>> so was i.
[ laughter ]
>>Rose Ferlita: I want to tell you, many times, neighborhood associations get the bad wrap that they sit here all evening to protest something, to be against something.
And it is such a pleasure and a wonderful way to end our evening when I see Ms. Higgins out there representing the ballast point group.
And I’m looking at her correspondence that they encourage quality and sensitive development.
And I think it is delightful to see that type of a relationship where they're sitting here simply to endorse a compatible development that is certainly going to be an asset to their neighborhood and it's a pleasure.
And it brings up a new encouragement that neighborhoods and development can work together to present things like this.
So I commend you.
I commend her.
I commend Mr. Reynolds for going through the trouble of discussing this with you and this is certainly a win-win relationship for ballast point and for your development.
It's very, very nice.
>>Charlie Miranda: anyone else in the audience who cares to speak on the subject matter?
Ms. Alvarez.
Come on up.
>>Mary Alvarez: you mentioned the park that you had in there.
Who is going to maintain that?
>> I left out the word "private."
>>Mary Alvarez: I didn't hear private.
>> I’m sorry, I meant to say private.
This will, in fact, be a condominium homeowners association.
And it will be part of the association's responsibility to maintain.
>>Mary Alvarez: thank you.
Beautiful.
Beautiful project.
>>Charlie Miranda: yes, sir.
>> my name is john kronen.
I live at 5300 Bayshore Boulevard.
That's across the street from the contemplated development.
And there are a few comments I would like to bring to the attention of council.
I'm frankly not either for or against the overall development, but only for the reason that the only information that we have is what was sent to us under the formal notice process.
Which is very limited information.
But what I would like to share with council is that charleston square across the street will be the immediate neighbor to this development.
We are 18 units.
They're approximately 1400 square feet apiece.
Approximately half the unit owners there are single-family one-person unit owners.
We are not particularly intense development, in other words, terms of our floor area densities, we are in the general category of this project, as a matter of fact, if the information I received from the staff is correct, that these units are generally in the 4,000-square-foot floor area category.
That means a larger percentage footprint per unit.
While you're looking at seven units here against 18 across the street, you have more bathrooms, more bedrooms in all likelihood and because of the smallness of ours, the amount of activity in the community is more compatible than uncompatible to the two.
Approximately five years ago, on Bayshore, when there was less traffic and two-lane here and very unlikely to be more than two lane because of how close to the right-of-way the existing development is, the association at charleston square made application to the City to obtain permission to develop a gate at our entrance.
We have a single point of entrance, which is approximately 27 feet wide.
Our buildings are set back approximately 30 feet from the edge of our property line to the facades of the building.
Because of the turning issues and the reviews by your staff, it was determined that we had to set our gate back 42 feet from the property line, which was 62 feet from the edge of the pavement.
That was done in order to stack the traffic for left-turn movements into the development and primarily because of the rush hour problems.
We're experiencing now from day to day, backups from Gandy and Bayshore to this location in the evening rush hour.
And this is in large part due to the added development south of us and to the fact that more and more folks are using that access point at MacDill.
While it appears to be a wonderful project and I’m sure it will be an asset for the City, I would just like to point out that an imposition was made upon us under the conditions that existed five years ago in order to have a gate that we had to set our development back.
That far, 42 feet from the property line, 62 feet from the edge of pavement.
Also, the buildings being 30 feet to the front of the buildings back from the property line created light and air for two-story development along the Avenue effect of Bayshore.
I don't know what this gentleman's setback is, but I’m calling attention to council what ours is and what the requirement was in 1983 when this council approved our development.
I think that means my time is up.
>>Charlie Miranda: we're running ahead of schedule today.
>> thank you for that.
With this information, all I would like to give focus to for this council is with a gate, with the fact that traffic is loaded at peak hours there on Bayshore, consideration might want to be given to at alternative gate design.
As well, the way we see the plan is transmitted to us, our existing entrance and the entrance for the development would seem to be not quite in alignment, but also in alignment.
In other words, it could be advantageous to the community to separate those points of access to Bayshore by more distance so that you had less conflict during rush hour when people are trying to get in and out, trying to weave through that traffic.
Those would be the three issues I would like to bring to council's attention.
The gate, the fact an imposition was made by us and certified to us by your staff for the setbacks for a gate.
Also that there is a -- what appears to be a conflict between where our entrance is and where the proposed entrance to the adjacent project is.
And then the final issue of not knowing exactly what the setbacks are on the front of the buildings facing Bayshore to simply point out that we are at 30 feet and it appears that the developments to the north and south abutting this development May be somewhere between 25 and 35 feet.
But I do not know.
This came to us so quickly that we could only respond within the context of the information provided, but I did make it a point to speak with staff members today and yesterday and wrote a letter to this effect, which I would think would be in the jacket of this matter.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Anybody else in the audience care to speak for or against this item?
Item Number 10 on page 2?
>> hi.
Melanie higgins, 2916 west pearl, president of ballast point neighborhood association.
At our March meeting, the neighborhood association did review the plans and the elevations on this project and the members at that meeting voted unanimously to support it, which, as you all know, is unusual for us.
One of the great things about it, we thought, was the saving of the trees.
When I met with Mr. Yurat with steve reynolds, the first thing you see when you walk up to the property is this huge grand oak.
And I thought, oh, my god, they're going to cut that down and put a building on it.
And much to our surprise, the building that's on the left side of the property will be where the existing house is behind that grand oak tree.
And all the trees at the back are saved.
It's absolutely gorgeous.
And also, the front of the building, the wrought iron fence, will be really pretty along the street.
So I did want to say that that was a month ago that we had our meeting, and we had probably 30, 40 people there who saw the plans and did say they wanted to support it.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Anyone else in the audience care to speak on this subject matter?
>> hi.
Sorry, this is my first time.
So bear with me.
I also took pictures so you can see.
I live at 5300 Bayshore Boulevard.
Elaine taylor, my family is here.
Of course, my husband and my son.
We're actually the biggest family, the three of us.
As Mr. Crownen said, generally there's only -- there's 18 units.
A lot of them are single-family.
A couple of people, of course, married there.
But my major concern is the traffic.
And going out and coming home, actually like in the evening, there's a lot of traffic on Bayshore Boulevard.
Much more than what we recall.
We moved back from california about 8 months ago in July.
My husband has owned this unit for the past 10 years and we lived there the first three or four years.
But again, my concern is just the heavy volume of traffic.
And, you know, my son basically is able to kind of ride his bike in our area, but not able to really go out on the street, which is unfortunately.
So trying to get anywhere and adding more volume of traffic is what I’m concerned about.
I just wanted you to take that into consideration.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you so much.
You did very well.
Petitioner?
Anyone else in the audience care to speak on the subject matter who has not spoken?
Petitioner, if you want to rebut, you may.
>> I’ll make a few comments, because I think everybody always has concern when there's new development and changes in a neighborhood.
This isn't -- this is the entrance to charleston, and obviously, I don't know what the situation was five years ago when the application was made.
However, there are some significant differences between charleston and our situation.
One, they have a solid wall along Bayshore, which is probably six feet high.
And that creates a different type of an environment.
What we're using is an open wrought iron type fence.
So that has both an airflow and a visibility aspect to it that I think is important to consider.
Also, as this lady just spoke in terms of her children trying to enjoy Bayshore Boulevard, which certainly we all would hope that she could, there is no sidewalk on her side of the street.
The sidewalk for Bayshore Boulevard happens to be on the west side, which is the side that our project is on.
So that aspect of it I think speaks in favor of what we're doing also.
And lastly, the issue of traffic, you know, I don't think there is a good topic, a good way of addressing that.
If MacDill sneezes, you know, more or less traffic goes up and down Bayshore.
And that's really the main generator.
We have 14 units -- 7 units, 14 potential cars.
We have four additional.
We do have off-site parking -- I mean, on-site parking for guests on our project, so we have provided for that.
We also provided for a turnaround area should somebody pull up to the gate and decide they don't want to come in. There's an area for them to turn around in front of the gate.
And that's another favorable aspect.
And that's all I have to say.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Motion by Mr. Buckhorn, second by Ms. Saul-Sena to close the public hearing.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Ms. Ferlita.
>>Rose Ferlita: thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5323 south Bayshore Boulevard in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification rs-60 to pd, providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Ferlita.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Further discussion?
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Bob Buckhorn: move to receive and file all documents that we have not yet.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Buckhorn to receive and file all the documents.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Council members, anything you would like to bring up now?
>> I just wanted to introduce someone.
>>Charlie Miranda: oh, that's fine.
>> I would like to introduce melanie halloway.
She is on our transportation staff, and she will be coming to the City Council meetings.
>>Charlie Miranda: wonderful, where did she come from?
>> epc air division.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Anything else, council members?
Welcome aboard and May you have a long stay.
Stand adjourned.