Continued… part 2 of 3
And if you don't want to build it, you can pay into the fund.
I'm sure that this thing is going to be done probably within the next month.
And that's certainly not going to hold you up in your development plans.
So ....
>>Charlie Miranda: now we got a controversy about a sidewalk that nobody wants.
>> can I ask the question, though?
If there is no ordinance or a fee in lieu thereof, what kind of --
>>Bob Buckhorn: we have no grounds.
>>Charlie Miranda: Ms. Alvarez and Mr. Buckhorn.
>>Mary Alvarez: Mr. Harrison, I would agree except that the neighbors on that other case never came up and said they didn't want a sidewalk.
So these people came up and said they don't need a sidewalk.
So I agree with them.
>>Rose Ferlita: free hamburgers for the council.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Mr. Chairman, I think we are about to break new legal ground here.
We have a sidewalk nobody wants and we're going to assess them based on an ordinance we don't have.
[ laughter ]
With all due respect to Mr. Harrison, I appreciate his willingness to impose this assessment on Mr. Laroca.
If steak n shake would send Mr. Harrison some fries or something, perhaps that would alleviate his concerns.
Mr. Harrison, we can't do this.
There's no harm in asking --
>>Charlie Miranda: do we have a motion?
Ms. Miller, let's read the ordinance.
>>Gwen Miller: an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2315 south Dale Mabry in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification cg to pd, providing an effective date.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have a motion by Ms. Miller.
I have a second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussions?
I knew that was coming.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: between now and second reading, I’m going to research where we are in this thing.
Because it still seems to me that because this is something that we've stipulated that we're working on that we should be able to make an assessment for the cost of what -- what the cost of providing this sidewalk would be.
It would go into the in lieu sidewalk fund so that needy blocks could get where neighbors really want it could get this sidewalk.
As you all know, we have a tremendous backlog in the City and I think this would be appropriate.
So I’ll support this for first reading, but I’m going to do the research before second reading.
>>Shawn Harrison: me, too, Mr. Chairman.
I've been beaten into submission here.
>>Charlie Miranda: all in favor of that motion, please indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Thank you very much for appearing.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: so I guess, Mr. Chairman, the appropriate thing is to request that transportation department give us a report back by the time this comes up for second reading on what the status is of the in lieu sidewalk fund.
And I guess legal to tell us are we able to assess this while we're --
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Seconded by Mr. Buckhorn.
Discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Need to open the public hearing number 11, 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]
Item Number 11, page 2 is open.
>>gloria moreda: gloria moreda, Land Development.
The proposal is for a planned development district at 517 erie Avenue, single-family home.
The site plan has not been revised.
The petitioner's agent has asked that we have the public hearing and then they will be able to satisfy staff concerns as it relates to the site plan issues that I’ve listed in our staff report, but the real issue of whether or not this is an appropriate development of a single-family house I think is what council needs to decide.
In terms of the parcel, it is 63 feet -- 63.5 feet wide.
6600 square feet approximately.
The site plans do show compliance with the rs 75 setback requirements.
Back in 1989, which was the year that the 80% rule went from an administrative process to a public hearing process.
A few months before that, Land Development coordination issued a letter concerning this parcel.
This parcel was part of the property to the west as well.
And that letter basically said that the ownership pattern met the requirements of that 80% rule and it was a buildable lot.
It also made an error in identifying the zoning of the parcel as rs-60.
In the years that followed the property owner felt that they had what was a buildable lot.
However, the zoning line, if you can see on your map, actually goes down erie.
The north side of erie is rs-60.
The south side of erie is rs-75.
This parcel does not meet the minimum width requirement or the minimum area, even under the 80% rule, given the land use designation of this parcel.
7200 square feet more or less are required for development.
So staff is objecting to at least the City staff is objecting to this petition.
However, the petitioner would like to make the presentation, but just recall that if you approve this tonight in terms of at least the use going forward, please have the developer refer it to the Legal Department so the site plan could be revised.
>>michele ogilvie: michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
As gloria has stated to you, the site under review this evening does not meet the minimum of the 7,500 square feet or the plan designation for 7,200.
It is nonconforming in terms of density.
The proposed development is for the suburban -- excuse me, for the residential six plan category.
It exceeds the density.
However, the comprehensive plan addresses issues where you have a piece of property that you could not do anything with.
And that's what we have here this evening.
So the comprehensive plan has made provisions that if any property should be less than 1 unit, it shall be governed by the applicable zoning district, which is the pd in the nonconforming provisions of the Land Development regulations.
So that this process can occur and would be consistent with at least the provisions of the future land use element as it is with densities for the comprehensive plan.
So we're left with, as gloria said, the single-family development.
And what we have looked at is, is it compatible and does it meet the character of the surrounding area on erie?
When we met with the petitioner for the drc, we asked that they do something in scale with the lot.
It is substandard in terms of the rs 75 district and, of course, with the residential 6 plan category.
They have come back with three things we feel that really help in mitigating the circumstances of this small lot.
They're exceeding their front setback by a little bit, three feet to 28 feet instead of 25.
They're providing a side setback of 7.5 on each side.
And they're proposing a building that has a total square footage of 1,736 square feet.
It is a modest home.
And I think that given some of the discussions that are going on in the media and elsewhere about these -- we call in planning term, monster homes, I understand gloria says in Tampa we call them godzilla homes on lots, we feel that they have really tried to address the issues of making something that's -- that would be consistent with the character of the area and mitigate the circumstances for the physical development.
I just want to bring to your attention a land map, existing land use map provided to us by the property appraiser.
We did supply this in our report to you.
We looked at the block face.
There are eight lots on the block face that are -- four of them are below the 75 foot wide requirement.
And, of course, on the north side, we have a variety of uses -- of lot sizes as well on erie.
So we really feel there is some room for variety of lot sizes on this street.
We do believe that the request would be consistent with the development pattern on the street.
And based on these findings, Planning Commission staff does not object to the rezoning request.
>>Charlie Miranda: petitioner?
>> good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the City Council, my name is john grandoff.
I practice law at the hill, ward and Henderson law firm, suite 3700, barnett plaza.
And I have the pleasure of representing Dr. Jeffrey seymour.
Jeffrey is with me this evening along with his building contractor, ron culpepper.
If they will both stand and raise their hand.
Also this evening, their neighbor, sally gotiaey, I mean, jeffrey's neighbor, she lives immediately to the west.
Sally, if would you raise your hand also.
This property is right near the bridge on west davis that skips over the channel right at erie Avenue.
We have another neighbor, wayne brown, who is on the way.
He May or May not make it.
He's on the other side of the seymour property, and he is also in support of the application.
I would like to give you one other highlight.
This is the same map that gloria provided to you.
And what I’ve shown you is here is seymour property.
Here's the channel.
This is the bridge that skips over the channel on west davis.
The rs-60 district is to the north, and you'll see to the south is rs-75 and then over here is rs-60.
My opinion is that when the zoning line was drawn, you'll see it came down luzon and itasca and came down the middle of this block, no rhyme or reason, comes up middle of erie, west davis, skips here past blanca then north.
The better planning method would have been to bring the line down the middle of the channel and bring it all the way across.
You see, you already considered and approved an rs-60 here in the 75 district and rs-60 here also in the 75 district.
Here is on the block face, just down the street is a vested 53-foot lot.
The turners live there.
The goteays live here and browns live here.
They have conforming lots.
They are more than 75 feet in width.
There's no precedent on either side.
I'm telling you these are two neighbors that are comfortable with the project as has been proposed.
We're not here to rediscuss the letter that was issued by the City.
It made an error.
And I can tell that you the error was probably made there was so much confusion exactly where that line was going.
I can see it very reasonable for someone to think they're in the rs-60 district when in fact they're in the rs 75 district.
I think the solution to the issue to make everyone happy, would be to rezone the property to a pd zoning district, which is the site plan that you have before you this evening.
We have not revised the site plan, but we agree to all the comments that were delivered after the site plan was reviewed by the City staff.
And those would include indicating the height of the structure not to exceed -- not to exceed 35 feet.
We can make the driveway 18 feet.
That can be done.
We can put a note of compliance in the tree and landscape code.
And we can also add a comment that all Solid Waste will be planned for curbside pickup which is what you typically have in residential zoning.
We're not asking for first reading this evening, merely to get through the public hearing process.
We would like to come back on a first reading two weeks from now after we've revised the site plan and you're assured by Ms. Moreda we have met all those conditions.
I have nothing further to add.
We respectfully request your approval this evening and would like to save some time for rebuttal if necessary.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: it appeared that Mr. -- there's a 28-inch tree near the corner of the garage.
It looks like it's really close and a 28-inch tree is a good-size tree.
Is that allowed?
Doesn't the corner of the garage need to be further back from the tree?
>> that tree is in the building footprint.
That one is going to be removed.
It's a box elder.
There's a 30 inch.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: it shows it as continuing to exist.
There's one in the footprint that's going.
But then there's another one that's close by the corner.
It says 30 inch unknown.
>> I think you have an old plan.
Is it dated January 19?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: it's dated 11/16.
>> that's the old plan.
I'll show you the new one.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: my question is still the same.
Is that far enough away?
>> if it's not, it will be.
It has to be I think 10 feet away from the wall of the building.
And we will add a condition -- well, there's already a condition going that the project is going to comply with the tree and landscaping code which includes the requirement that it be ten feet away.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: right, the whole punch line in doing a pd.
>> we'll call it out.
Be glad to do that.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: that's one question that I had.
>> thanks.
>>Charlie Miranda: any other questions by council members?
Are you finished, sir?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on Item Number 11, page 2?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close the public hearing by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Miller.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Ms. Saul-Sena and Mr. Buckhorn.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: thank you.
Mr. Grandoff, I feel like this site plan, because it's set back, because this, by the way, was not a vacant lot, this was a yard, but now it's going to be -- but you got trees around it.
I think it will be integrated into the neighborhood.
I don't think it will stick out.
But you need to research this when you come back and make sure that the house is far enough from the tree to protect the tree.
>> I have a note and Ms. Moreda and I will make sure that is done.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: the other question I had, you were widening the driveway because our transportation people said that he had to.
>> yes, it was drawn too narrow.
I think it was drawn 17 feet and it needs to be 18 feet.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: but we've been asking transportation to let us do narrower driveways so they are less obtrusive so that when you look at the house, you don't see all driveway.
I thought we were doing that.
>> we'll take it either way.
>> christine bruno, transportation.
That would be a deviation from the transportation standards.
And it would be up to council to grant that waiver.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I would like this grant it.
I prefer narrower driveways so it's less -- particularly in a weird lot like this.
Er if and I think -- Mr. Grandoff, what is the preference of your client?
>> well, we'll leave it as is.
We would like to have it as we've drawn on the January 19 site plan, which is not quite 18 feet.
We could leave it that.
Christine wanted us to expand it to 18 feet.
We would like to leave it the way it is now.
>>Rose Ferlita: christine, you said that's the discretion of the council?
>> that's correct.
>>Rose Ferlita: I think I would agree with Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>Bob Buckhorn: that being said, I’ll move we send to legal for preparation with the amendments as stated by Mr. Grandoff and the conditions.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Buckhorn.
Seconded by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion --
>>Bob Buckhorn: that will be back in two weeks.
>> February 22, that would be 10:00 agenda?
Okay.
Thank you for your time.
>>Charlie Miranda: all in favor of the motion, please indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item 12, page 3, need to open the public hearing.
Motion by Mr. Buckhorn to open the public hearing, Item Number 12, second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item 12, page 2 is now open.
Yes, ma'am.
>>gloria moreda: gloria moreda, Land Development.
The proposed rezoning involves two acres at the southwest corner of Bayshore and Gandy.
The proposed multifamily structure is six stories with 64 residential dwelling units.
Off street parking being provided is 138 parking spaces.
A conceptual site plan is included with the pd, and they are asking for a number of variances.
The proposed building height is 68 feet, rather multifamily under the current cg zoning allows for a 60 foot.
The building setback for structures over 30 feet, the Bayshore setback being proposed is 25 feet.
Normally it's required to be set back 58 feet.
Pilgrims path setback will be 20 feet.
The Gandy corner setback will be 12 feet from the 45 feet.
Iburon, 19 from 45 feet.
And marlin Avenue, 15 from the 45-foot height limit.
They are also asking for two driveways on marlin Avenue and one driveway on elburon street.
The site plan is showing there is going to be a .2 acre park dedicated to on the site plan that is going to include park benches.
There are three grand trees on this parcel.
And the site plan is showing no development of that tract.
They are also committing to comply with chapter 13, tree and landscape code.
Sidewalks are being provided on the Bayshore side.
And there's very narrow right-of-way.
The developer is going to grant a sidewalk easement to the City.
The proposed density of the project is 35 units per acre, which is consistent with the cmu land use designation.
And city staff has no objection with the proposed development.
>>Charlie Miranda: Planning Commission?
>>michele ogilvie: michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
The land use designation for this site, it has two, community mixed use 35 and residential 50.
Both of these planned categories encourage urban densities, and what we have here at 35 units per acre is an urban designed project.
The existing -- in reviewing this petition, we looked at the existing development around this site.
There is a high-rise aclf or congregate living facility on the east.
There is two-story single-family attached units on the south and on the west and on the north is the mansion office with multifamily adjacent to that.
We believe that given the existing uses that are surrounding the site, that the proposed development would be consistent with the existing development pattern in the area.
The petition is making commitments to work with hartline to promote alternative modes of transportation.
They are committing to additional shade trees along the perimeter of the property.
As gloria stated to you, they are dedicating approximately a quarter acre as open space park for the enjoyment of the larger community.
And I would just like to point out to council that this, as you are well aware, south of Fowler Avenue is in a transportation concurrency exception area, which the purpose of which is to encourage urban infill.
The 64 units that are being proposed here are consistent with that philosophy in the transportation element.
And we would like to put that on the record as well.
We'd also like to point out to council in the design of this structure that they have made great concessions to consider the residential on the west side by creating recreational activities and leaving open balconies on both sides of the structure to encourage some, although it will be high, some activity to occur where there will be human eyes on both sides of this structure.
Based on these findings, Planning Commission staff does not object to the request.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Petitioner, Mr. Buckhorn.
>>Bob Buckhorn: just by way of reference, how tall is the aclf across the street?
>>michele ogilvie: I believe that it's seven stories -- 12 someone said.
It's even more than I thought.
But it was very high.
As a matter of fact, I do know -- oh, I forgot to say that this does not lie in the air force base's approach zone.
I know that that building does.
And because of that, MacDill had to adjust its flight path to get to the air force base.
So it is quite high on the east side.
>>Charlie Miranda: petitioner?
>>Charlie Miranda: I have a motion to receive and file by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
>> council, my name is david smith.
I'm a plan we are the law firm of sterns, weaver, miller, 401 east Jackson street, suite 2200.
Representing sunset bay developers, the petitioner for this request.
As indicated by your planning staffs, this property is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan designations on the particular property.
The densities proposed, in fact, are less than the overall densities that would be allowed on development of both these parcels.
And I say "both," because west marlin bisects the particular tract into two parcels.
One being a quarter acre, which is currently res-35.
And -- excuse me, rm-35.
And it's also the other side of the street which is cmu 35, which is zoned cg.
What I’ve handed out to you are two packets.
The smaller 8.5 by 11 basically provides an overlay survey of the existing -- the overlay is a survey of existing property.
And I’ve tried to outline in darker ink the actual building footprints that exist on the site today, which is approximately 13,000-square-foot building.
And I’ll put that up on the overhead.
What you can see from the overhead is that the outlined squares indicate where the existing office buildings are.
Pretty much they are built right on the property line abutting pilgrims path way.
The existing or the proposed facility, if you lift that up, you can see proposes -- proposes to have a significant open space area here, which is on top of a terrace, parking deck.
This terraced area is approximately seven feet tall.
It is setback 20 feet from the property line.
So what is currently there is -- about a 5.5 foot wall right on the property line and then about a 30-foot tall two-story office building about 20 feet or 15 feet back from that.
This particular development with respect to pilgrims path way would have open space of 20 feet before it started with the seven-foot high terraced area and then the tower element would start approximately 58 feet back from pilgrims path way to provide significant separation from the nearest houses at the corner of west marlin and pilgrims path way.
Other than that, what would occur and I have in that larger package that I’ve handed out to you, it indicates the separation from pilgrims path way and around the property.
As you can see, the center part of the tower, which would be 68 feet tall is approximately 115 feet away from the nearest residential units on pilgrims path way.
The only other closest residential structures exist at adeste which is across the lot we'll keep as open space that contains three grand trees.
That parcel in and of itself can be developed approximately six units per acre rather than developing that, we're basically utilizing maximum density on the cg portion of the property.
It's also important to note that on the particular site that cg is allowed to develop at 45 feet in height, 10 feet from any property boundary without any additional setbacks.
The property is in the cmu category, which means it could be developed at a 1.5 f.a.r. If half the parking was in the building.
So basically, you could have this entire site developed wall to wall at 45 foot height, 10 feet on any of the property boundaries.
What we've proposed to do in order to try to protect the pilgrims path way area is we moved everything forward towards Gandy and Bayshore.
Now, two things that have occurred here, the tightest setback occurs on Gandy Boulevard with a 12-foot setback and a 6-foot high tower element, that does provide the narrow urban connector.
While we are putting sidewalks as part of the plan and also have a landscape plan down that side.
That is a side of the property that along Gandy has the fewest trees blocking any type of view.
So additional trees would be planted there.
However, on Bayshore Boulevard, if you go to -- let me get my sheet number here for you.
If you go to page 4 of the photos, on these photos, it basically shows looking from the bottom right-hand photo is looking down Bayshore Boulevard back towards Gandy.
And the way to pick out a reference is that the tree that is in the immediate left-hand side of that photo, that tree will be removed.
It's a diseased tree.
The next one to the right that's pretty much in the center is pretty much where the end -- edge of the front face of the building will be.
So all the trees that are -- it's hard to get the directions here, westward, since it's at an angle, westward of that line will all be saved.
What we have, we have a significant row of trees and a canopy that exists down Bayshore that will not be disturbed by the development of this property.
The only significant tree on this property that will be impacted will be there's a large oak at the corner of Gandy and Bayshore, and that will be removed.
It's in the footprint.
It is not a grand tree.
We've had the tree folks out there to take a look at it.
And it's not an issue.
Other than that, the only other trees impacted are currently in the center of the site that are in landscaped islands.
The other thing that I think is important to note, flipping back to the site plan, the development of the tower element is actually going to start further away from pilgrims path way than the existing buildings to the extent that there will only be a drive with a seven-foot terrace area at the closest point.
The people at adeste, currently they have -- I’ll use the overhead again, if I might.
Currently there's a driveway that exists right here in the center of the property.
That enters into the main parking lot for the office building.
Basically, what's occurring there is the tower element and the building angles away to provide a large open area on that particular corner, which gives better protection to the people on the adeste.
They have some pretty nice french doors and windows on that side of the property.
And this will give significant opening.
We also feel by pulling the property away from pilgrims path way, we're not going to be impeding the sun light and air and circulation for the people on pilgrims path way either.
It will all be out towards the urban corridor.
As has been indicated by your planning staffs, this is an urban project.
It's urban density.
Looking at page 1 of the photos, you can see across from us, the top two photos are the alf and its height and its view from this particular property.
And also, in the bottom right-hand corner is, for lack of a better term, I think it's bay side on the Bayshore.
I call it the miami vice town houses.
They are about 20 feet off of Bayshore Boulevard straight up about 45 feet.
And I don't believe that it causes this corridor effect that people are concerned about.
I'm sure tonight you'll hear other opinions.
But I believe that that's an example of how the landscaping and the way it's approached and the fact that there's more trees on our particular site will provide a screen and -- so that when you come through Bayshore, you're going to have the overhanging trees and you're not going to be driving by a 68-foot tall structure and that's all you're going to see.
The most visible part of the structure will be on Gandy.
And that will be basically where they're getting most of their views looking down Bayshore across Gandy for their selling views.
I believe from a transportation standpoint, I know people are concerned with traffic in the area.
This project at 64 units generates the equivalent trips of about 13,000 square feet of office.
So if this property right now has about 13,000 square feet of office, there's not going to be an appreciable difference in the average daily.
As a matter of fact, there should be a drop in the peak hour from the equivalent trips generated from that much development.
Additionally, if you look at the fact that this site is only about a third developed, the front parcel at the apex of Gandy and Bayshore is not developed.
It's zoned cg.
It can be developed for some use.
The other side of the parking lot on the existing use where predominantly this building is going to be located is also available for office development.
We think this is a good alternative to commercial development of this site.
We know there's concerns with the intensity.
But we believe the traffic issues related to this site are -- they're concerns but they have nothing to do really with this project.
They are more an issue with the way the traffic operates out there today caused by other factors, MacDill and other types of issues.
I know there's significant public comment coming up.
I will defer for any rebuttal.
I'll be glad to answer any questions.
>>Charlie Miranda: any questions by council members at this the point?
Thank you very much.
Anybody in the audience care to speak on this subject matter?
One at a time.
>> hank ennis, 2808 marlin Avenue.
I live right here.
Behind the project.
And this project will route the traffic that's going west down marlin Avenue up to MacDill to MacDill then up Gandy.
It's going to increase the amount of traffic down our street.
Our street is a little narrow street.
And that's the charm of the neighborhood is it's a little narrow street that we enjoy living there because of that.
We've lived there 10 years, and I don't understand the concept that what's currently there or this will not change the amount of traffic than what is currently there.
I just don't buy that.
I know that 64 units will create much more traffic than what is currently there.
This is a great piece of property and it's a real shame to see something there that's not really a premier project.
It's at the base of Bayshore.
It defines Bayshore, and we really need something that will benefit our neighborhood.
Having this type of project really will change the character of our neighborhood, and we'd like to see something with less density.
Let them build something there that meets the current standards.
It's my understanding that currently you can build 40-plus units on that property.
He's asking for 64 units.
We don't mind a development there.
We know it's going to be developed.
We know when we move there and bought a house there, we knew it was going to turn into something.
But we expected it to be what it's currently allowed and not to go beyond that.
And we wish that the council would hear our concerns and this is an opportunity -- it's a pd.
You can send it back.
You can tell them these are concerns of the neighborhood.
Please try to address them.
We met with the developer.
We asked them to move the sidewalk.
We gave them a laundry list of things.
One of the things was move the sidewalk three feet away from the road to provide greenspace between the sidewalk and the road.
We didn't get it.
So these are simple things we would like for them to do.
And we ask that you send it back and see what you can do.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you, Mr. Ennis.
Next.
>> members of council, my name is dee hardy ella.
I live on pilgrims path way.
I live directly behind this proposed project opinion for them to say that this is not going to increase traffic in this neighborhood is, I think, absolutely ridiculous.
What we have on the project -- I mean, the existing project is a small five-unit office building that has very little traffic.
Right now, we've got a big traffic problem on pilgrims path way, because we have a lot of MacDill air force men cutting down, going fast in the morning to beat that light at chubby's pizza.
You know where that light is on the corner, well, they race down there in the morning.
The problem is, what we have here -- is this working?
What's going to happen here is, you can't get out onto Gandy, and you can't get out onto Bayshore from this project without coming down pilgrims path way.
Nobody is going to come down marlin because if they're going to try to make a left turn to go downtown, which a bunch of them are going to, do by their own admission, they are going to generate over 250 trips per day.
Of course, as we know, most of these are going to be at peak hours.
So they can't come down here because you can't get across in the morning.
And they're not going to be able to come -- they certainly are not going to be able to turn left here when they come down el bronto go left on Gandy.
If they want -- have to come back down marlin, down pilgrims path way, back up here on iburon, God help us if somebody is in here trying to make a left turn.
The street is going to be backed up as far as my house, which I’m right here at this apex.
What I’m asking the City Council to do is to deny these variances.
We've already got this new project that you all have approved down near MacDill.
And there was a big -- as you remember that, this was the shimberg development.
A lot of opposition in the neighborhood to that.
You all approved it.
But that has not even come on line yet.
Now, I’m asking the City Council, please and Ms. Ferlita was quoted in the paper this morning as saying, talking about the soho district, that the development there that we think we made a big mistake in this area.
I'm asking the City Council, don't make another mistake.
We don't even know the effects of what's happening, not even built out down there in south Tampa, and this density is too high.
It's not in keeping with the neighborhood.
And I ask you all to reject this proposal.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
Next, please.
Those that want to speak, just get in line, get closer.
One at a tile.
No problem.
>> hello.
Elizabeth boland.
And I live in the ballast point area.
I live in a modest cottage and it's not anywhere close to this development.
So it doesn't affect my personal property values, but I walk pass there almost every day.
And this area is kind of a gateway to this community.
And the motto of the neighborhood is where the grand oaks meet the bay.
And one of the reasons I moved into this area instead of to a gated community in north Tampa is because it has this quiet, rural feel to it, small roads.
And I also appreciate the economic and cultural diversity of the area.
I think that to -- whatever is put on this site and this is a nice building, will have a great impact on the character and the tone of the neighborhood.
It's a first thing you see.
Your impression of the area.
And in a nutshell, this is just too close to the road.
This other building that they're talking about is set back quite a ways.
It gives you breathing room.
I've seen owls in that area at night when I walk in that area.
50 feet to 25 feet is actually quite significant if you walk it.
If you walk the land as I do.
And I would suggest that you walk the land before you make a decision on this.
The other problem is, the traffic pattern, the traffic is already bad there, and a group of us are thinking about how we can improve that.
But the way they've designed the entrance and the egress there just encourages a safety hazards.
And I don't want anybody's health or life to be on our heads because we didn't take the proper care and the thoughtfulness in planning this project.
I'm just basically saying, make these people follow the law.
All of the people in my neighborhood follow the law, follow the variances, follow the regulations.
Why are they different?
Do they have more money or they have more capability?
Just follow the law.
That's all I’m asking.
It's kind of same thing we tell our kids when they want to do something that's against our values or illegal, just say no.
And that's what I would like you to do in this situation.
Thank you.
Just say no.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
Next, please.
>> good evening.
I'm marilyn wesley.
I'm president of the owners association at commodore grove condominium at 5020 Bayshore.
We have lived there for 22 years.
My first concern is the loss of greenspace.
There are at least 60 oaks, palms, and smaller trees on the property.
Many of these trees have been there for years.
They are tall.
They're old oaks, and they're majestic and they're wonderful.
And if we let someone put the only oaks on the front of the property behind a sidewalk, I know what's going to happen to them.
I've been in charge of the grounds where we live.
I know that you have to feed those oaks.
You have to give them special water wells and everything else.
And they're not mentioning anything about taking care of the oaks.
The trees left on Bayshore just simply won't last that long.
The household water pressure is already a problem.
I can just imagine how we'll struggle for water pressure if another 64 units are put between us and our source of drinking water.
But the worst problem is the traffic.
At rush hour, one can wait two light changes on Interbay and Gandy stoplights.
This will be made worse by the two large developments already referred to by the gentleman before me that are going in south of us on Bayshore.
We can't say that the air force base traffic is going to be less or will be less now than it was before.
They're probably going to be reopening bases with the feeling of the new presidential administration, we'll probably have more MacDill air force base traffic.
If each of the proposed 64 units had two cars, that equals 128 cars, which will spill out to park on marlin and pilgrims way.
We are against having this large development in our neighborhood.
We urge the council to consider our concerns over our neighborhood and give us a smaller development, fine.
But leave our trees.
We love 'em.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Next, please.
>> good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of council.
My name is Dr. Joel.
I live at 4941 Bayshore Boulevard.
Which is in a town house complex called adeste.
And my unit, my town house, which is two stories, will be directly in back of the this -- of this planned development.
The only way I have of getting out of my home is an exit on Bayshore.
And that other units in the 17 town houses, many of them have access on pilgrims path way, but my only access is MacDill.
I mean, sorry, Bayshore.
There are times, particularly in the afternoon when MacDill is letting out, where I have to wait sometimes 10, 12, 15 minutes and then try make it across because I have to cross -- if I’m going downtown or going to get groceries, I have to go across the one street that's going towards MacDill.
I have to get past that and get into the line of cars.
It's pretty scary sometimes.
Pretty hazardous.
Every now and then, I’ll get a good samaritan that will hold up their hand and I smile back at them and I can get in.
Sometimes I have to turn down going towards MacDill and go down pilgrims path way to get out.
When I get down to that street to exit on Gandy, it's, again, a very scary crossing.
I think the density is too high for this area.
I'm also concerned since I live directly in back, it was mentioned in the Tribune that there will be a two-year construction time.
That will be a nightmare for those that face this.
We'll have workmen's lunches and beer bottles and so forth at our back door.
We'll have CRAnes.
We'll have the noise.
I'm retired now, and I’m at home quite a bit.
So I enjoy my home during the day.
So my biggest concern as has been mentioned, I will reiterate the big concern about the increasing density of traffic there.
The one last point, this is in a flood zone area.
And with the increasing development that's going to occur there and the narrowness of the streets, this addition of 130, 140 cars in addition to what already is there, poses a considerable problem in an emergency situation that I think we have to look ahead as a real potential problem.
So I would urge that the variances not be granted and to try to recognize the quality of the neighborhood and the already increased density of traffic.
Thank you very much.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much, doctor.
Next, please.
>> good evening, my name is mat cardilla.
2804 west marlin, which is a couple of houses down from hank.
And I won't take too much of your time except to echo the fact that I think the density is far to great.
West marlin will become a freeway.
Call marlin a nice narrow street is maybe a stretch.
It's a narrow sleepy street with a rural feel to it.
There are no sidewalks.
The oaks hang over the trees.
You can't really park in the street without really obstructing traffic.
And I anticipate that the traffic flowing to the west out of the units will come straight down marlin either -- I can't remember the name of the other streets, but going towards MacDill.
There's already folks that don't appear to be neighbors that speed down the street.
And there are a significant number of kids.
I have three that are under the age of five.
I know the kids across the street are young kids.
And I know hank has two kids under ten.
So I think that is a deep concern if the council needs to take into consideration here is the increase in traffic flow.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
Next, please.
>> my name is sue lyon.
I'm here to ask that you consider denying the request for the variances on this property.
I believe the density is too severe for this piece of property.
The traffic, as has been noticed, is extremely bad in that area.
It also is not consistent with the neighborhood.
The grand court across the way sits way back from the area.
It is not a detriment, and it was built ten years ago.
People have learned to live with it, and it's an impressive structure and it's not offensive to anyone.
But if you get a 68-foot tall building or a huge building or whatever it is, if it's 12-foot from Gandy, you're going to have all kinds of trouble.
This is a very heavy pedestrian area.
Everybody walks the Bayshore.
Everybody is right there.
You're going to have people get hurt because of this.
If you're walking around there and a car comes by, you can jump in the vacant lot.
We know it's not going to stay a vacant lot.
I mean, they get out there and they try to run you down.
They've seen me up here a lot of times.
They'd like to get rid of me.
[ laughter ]
But if you put that big a project on that corner, it's too big for what it is.
They don't -- it could be a lot of other things, then fine.
It's going to be developed.
We know that.
But this is not an urban area.
It's still suburban.
And I don't care what the Planning Commission says, we need infill, but we don't need to just fill in all the spots.
You've got to have a place where people can live or else they're all going to move to north Tampa and you're going to have worst troubles out there.
You need to fill in the spots.
And it's -- it's good that the builders are doing things as long as they live by the rules.
And that's all we've ever asked.
And I thank you for your time.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
Next, please.
Mr. Reynolds, you have the job as director today.
>> hi.
Melanie higgins, 2916 west pearl.
A year ago, there was a project that came before council.
It was 15 acres down north of MacDill Avenue.
And that piece of property sold for a million dollars.
This is 1.8 acres of property on the corner of Gandy and Bayshore.
It's listed price is $2.5 million.
So capitalism is alive and well in ballast point.
And I think that is the point here.
It's capitalism.
It's -- or some people might want to call it something else.
And everyone has a right to try and do what they can to make all the money that they can.
And this gentleman is trying to do that.
And we applaud him for that, but we also have the right to oppose it.
And -- we oppose it on the basis that it doesn't fit in with the character of the neighborhood.
It's going to fill up the lot, take out the trees, and granted he's going to give us a park, but I think he needs to save those trees in order to get his 50% count.
So I’m asking you to please deny this petition.
>>Charlie Miranda: next, please.
>> sally flynn.
5206 Interbay Boulevard.
I'm not going to go through the traffic and all that again, but I think that the request for the setback variances should be denied.
I think it's too much on that property.
And it's definitely not in any way in character with the neighborhood.
We have two high-rises.
They are both on the water side.
And they're both set well back from the road.
They are not a 68-foot wall right there in your face.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you, Ms. Flynn.
Next, please.
>> malory lykes, 5427 lykes lane.
I want to thank you for hearing our concerns.
I also will not repeat what everyone else has said, but I would like to ask a very important question of this City Council.
Where are we going to have and find the water to support all of these projects?
This is very high density.
Our neighborhood has been very hard hit as the whole city has been with the water -- serious drought.
And I’m wondering how many of these projects can we honestly continue to support.
Thank you very much.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
And this is aside from this zoning petition, maybe I shouldn't say that.
Since Ms. Lykes brought up water, we will be having a special-called meeting sometime within 30 days.
The administration and this council will call one together jointly to explain just the question that Ms. Lykes asked about the water.
And we will bring a detailed explanation on where we've been, where are we, and where are we going on all these critical issues on water.
So stay tuned, it's coming.
Yes, sir.
>> my name is steve reynolds.
I live at 5810 gordon Avenue.
There are a lot of people here that won't speak tonight who I believe are very concerned about this petition.
And if could I just get them to raise their hand.
Mr. Smith has done an admirable job of putting best foot forward on this project.
I would ask you to look very closely at the site plan, most of what you're looking at is actually the second floor.
It's not the ground floor.
There is a parking garage underneath this building, and underneath that hollow area in the middle of the building.
The swimming pool will be seven feet up off the ground.
It will not be at ground level.
At least seven feet.
This pd is being used solely to avoid the required setbacks and height restrictions.
Your pd ordinance or what a pd is supposed to be says that a pd would be characterized by unique conditions or situations which other zoning districts cannot accommodate, including but specifically not limited to unusual physical or environmental features, transportation access, et cetera.
I haven't heard anything that would bring that into play tonight.
Then it goes on to say, or, includes a mixture of appropriate land uses which May not otherwise be permitted in other districts.
I haven't heard anything about that either.
I don't think it exists.
I don't really think that the pd is being used tonight the way it was intended to be used.
It was intended to accommodate inventive, creative situations, not to dodge every requirement that's on the books that limits a development.
And that's what you're being asked to do tonight.
If you were the board of adjustment or the variance review board now, you'd turn this down in a minute because there's no demonstrated hardship.
But as a pd, they don't have to show a hardship.
But they do have to show that there is a unique condition or situation or they have to show a mixture of appropriate land uses.
And they haven't done that.
And I would ask you to turn this down.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much, sir.
Next, please.
>> hi.
My name is ray.
I live at 50018 pilgrims path way.
I'm about 70 feet from the project, so I’m the closest complainer here tonight.
Obviously, the traffic is a serious thing.
We got tens of hundreds of cars coming down from MacDill.
Going to MacDill and we got tens of hundreds of people trying to get out.
And then you all want to tie up this thing and just strangle this whole thing with another 120 cars trying to get out in the morning traffic.
This is -- that's problem number one.
Number two is the infrastructure I don't think will support this kind of development.
I mean, those -- we got water problems and the pressure is okay with us right now, but you start putting this high-rise buildings right next door to us, you're not going to have water pressure, one.
Number two, the sewage problem is going to be -- I mean, very expensive.
I don't even know if the City lines will stand the additional capacity that's going to be required of it.
I mean, I’ve been there nine years.
And at times, the Bayshore just gets real ripe.
And I’m sure it's from a breakdown from time to time.
And it hasn't happened recently.
I think the City has done something to correct this problem.
But obviously, additional buildings like this is just going to be too much of a strain on that infrastructure.
So I urge you to really consider not approving this project.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much, sir.
Next, please.
>> Mr. Chairman, I have a waiver.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have a motion to receive and file by Mr. Buckhorn.
Seconded by Ms. Alvarez, I believe.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: amanda aubry, kathleen kruskek and nancy.
>>Charlie Miranda: there's three, so six minutes.
>> good evening, my name is michael chez.
I live at 6301 Bayshore Boulevard.
And I’m a lawyer and I live out there, as you can see, and many years ago, I also went to planning school.
So i'd like to approach this from the standpoint of a lawyer/planner and tell you how my analysis of this process took place.
First of all, we had a situation where we've got a cg planning at present.
And we have a developer coming in to request the pud.
Mr. Reynolds has already pointed out that it is really not what we consider from a planning standpoint as a traditional use of a pud.
They are asking for variance height from 60 to 68 feet.
They are asking for a front setback from 58 to 25.
North side setback from 45 feet to 19.
And south side setback from 45 to 15.
The density is 64 units or 192 people.
The selling price, according to the developer, is 400,000.
The main project is 1.83 acres.
The side lot is .24.
The building pad takes up one acre of the 1.8 acres.
The 1.8 acres.
The building pad takes up the majority of it.
And the reason for that is the bottom floor is the parking lot.
All the landscaping and stuff like that is on top of concrete.
There is 177,000 square feet of living space.
In six stories.
The trees that are going to be removed, there are 12 oak trees to be removed, one of which is 36 inches.
That's a grand oak.
I respectfully disagree.
There are two palm trees to be removed.
There are 15 oaks to be left and 10 palm trees to be left.
The landowner, interestingly enough, is the same gentleman who got into the controversy dealing with davis island.
Had a lot of people here on that.
It has the same law firm and the same planner representing him.
We attempted to meet with them and they would not budge even on the sidewalk.
And let me tell you about the process that our neighborhood has gone through.
First of all, as you know, we have a very active association in ballast point.
I've seen the chairman there and I’ve seen two or three other members at our meetings.
As a matter of fact, you were at the meetings when we took up this issue.
We took it up in January at our regular meeting.
We had a lot of people there --
>>Charlie Miranda: stop the time just for a second.
I want to clarify a point even though some of us might have been there, it was never discussed -- I want to put that on the record.
You asked know leave.
My wife makes me do things, you asked me.
>> we know you're not supposed to be there.
>>Charlie Miranda: I understand.
Thank you.
>> we took it up at that meeting and we also decided to form a special committee of those residents that were interested in this and we had a subsequent meeting which was also well attended.
At that meeting, the residents raised a number of concerns which I’ll get to in a moment.
They also appointed a committee, Mr. Reynolds was on it, I was on it, melanie was on it.
A lot of people were on it.
And we have met with the developer.
The committee met once in addition to the large group.
We met with the developer.
We asked for a continuance.
He went back to his client and he said that his client was digging in his heels.
He did not want -- did not want to make a concession on one single thing.
Not even any of the variances.
I have a long list of things.
We, as you know, have been very upset with this City Council because you passed over our large objection two other projects down in the south end.
The centex and the hyde park project, with the exception of Ms. Saul-Sena and Ms. Ferlita.
The rest of you folks are on our bad list.
And I’ll tell that you.
Our planning group has tried to overcome the City Council by starting our own neighborhood plan.
We have set up a process where we have a planning board.
We've asked you to approve that.
We have about 45 professional people involved in a committee structure.
We have a land use committee.
We have a transportation committee.
We have an economic development committee.
We have an environmental committee.
And we have taken this -- these kinds of projects in addition to looking at our planning process which we're in the process of doing, looking at projects like this.
This project was submitted to our land use committee.
They made four recommendations and that in turn were sent to our planning board.
They in turn approved those recommendations.
The recommendations were that the developer -- the variances be turned down and that they eliminate units "a" and "e," which are the north and south end of them.
They also recommended that the property be relocated -- the building be relocated.
So it's a little bit less obtrusive to the entrance of the neighborhood.
They also recommended that the entrance on Bayshore Boulevard be eliminated.
And they were in favor of the vacant lot being used as a park.
As I mentioned, the property owners had a considerable length of other concerns, some of which are concerns of ours that you May not agree with, but I would like to tell what you they are anyway.
One is that the exterior of the building does not meet the characteristics of the neighborhood.
That the developer causes a lot of problems to an already exacerbating traffic problem.
That we would like to see this project bonded or some evidence of it so we don't end up with a waverly place.
Then we wanted clarification as to whether or not the construction project was going to have bulldozers and things like that on it.
And if so, what kind of fencing was going to put up and what kind of trucks were we going to have to put up in our neighborhood.
We also wanted to negotiate with the developer for some kind of signage on the corner of the property since this is the entrance to the ballast point area and neighborhood.
And we wanted a little piece of grass between Bayshore and the sidewalk because it's not dangerous.
Then on the other side, that's where the sidewalk is, right on there.
So with that in mind, ladies and gentlemen, we respectfully request that you deny this.
I also have a traffic study, and we found out that your traffic in this particular area at this intersection is already at the maximum for the facility.
We are already at "f" and "e."
In the peak hours and we haven't put the other two projects on line.
And I spent a day and a half doing a traffic study of my own.
And I would respectfully request that you turn this down.
And you're always invited to ballast point.
We love you.
>>Charlie Miranda: you sounded good but he looked kind of mean there at the end.
I tell you, I catch those things right away.
Yes, ma'am.
>> good evening I’m Ms. Kinchly.
3101 fair oaks Avenue.
And I live in Bayshore beautiful.
And this is across the street from our boundary.
I am the traffic and safety coordinator.
And I’ve been down there.
I have looked at the traffic patterns.
And I think that the traffic is going to be overburdened by this property.
I think the design is going to exasperate the traffic patterns and create dangerous situations.
Mr. Reynolds mentioned earlier about the planned development aspect of this piece of property.
And I’ve always had a very high regard for his opinion and tonight I can't agree with him more.
I told sue lyon, the president of our association several days before this project came up that I was getting to the point where I cringe when I heard the word "planned development" because it seemed to be a blank check for bad taste and a blank check for unsafe situations.
I look at the bank on the corner of Bay to Bay and Bayshore.
And I look at a sidewalk that goes up to the curb and has telephone poles down the middle of it.
And I see that same thing happening on Gandy Boulevard.
And that is not safe.
If you have a tall building up there, you have a feeling of being pushed in so you're also crowding people on the street.
You're not giving them any safe access.
You'll put telephone poles on there.
It means it's not handicap accessible.
It means mothers with children cannot use that sidewalk.
It means that small children on bicycles have no safety median.
It means that somebody going too fast and doesn't make that curve, there's no forgiveness there.
And I urge you not just on this development or any planned development to take a long hard look and look not just as is there a sidewalk there, but is there an accessible sidewalk?
Is there a sidewalk that's useful?
Is there a safety sidewalk?
The sidewalks on Bayshore that we asked for with a greenspace, walk down that road.
The facility is too -- it is not suitable for the neighborhood in any shape or form.
And I’m very glad that Mr. Smith mentioned the corridor effect tonight because we addressed that in the meeting.
We also addressed the -- asked them not to have an entrance onto Bayshore, that it's unsafe.
And I have driven those streets back there.
And you cannot in some places pass two cars going in opposite directions because the street is so narrow.
You put pedestrian traffic on there because there's no sidewalks, and you have an accident looking to happen.
I thank you for your time.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
>> good evening, my name is susan mueller.
5420 lykes lane.
I promise to be brief.
And I really don't want to repeat what others have said, but I want to put in a word for all the people who use this corridor, not in their automobile, but in their jogging shoes, on their rollerblades, on their bicycles, this is a major recreation corridor.
Our neighborhood is full of people who jog, who rollerblade, who ride their bicycles, elderly people who are escorted by their caretakers.
People in wheelchairs.
All now are trying to safely negotiate this corridor, and it is hazardous.
And the most hazardous parts are the parts cited tonight by the planner where the apartment complexes are extremely close to Bayshore between the lights at Gandy and Interbay and where cars pulling out often have near misses with the people on the sidewalks.
It's not an unusual occurrence.
And I think from a city planning perspective, you all might want to acknowledge -- I’m sorry I don't know how this fits into zoning lingo, but you've got Bayshore Boulevard and you have ballast point park, two of our city's proudest amenities.
And this is the link between the two of those for a lot of people who are not in cars, but are trying to enjoy our city at ground level.
And I think putting things this close just pushes them that much more into the street and into the path of the traffic, which will be increased.
So thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much, ma'am.
Next.
>> I’m barbara garrett.
I hadn't planned on speaking tonight, but I live at 5010 Bayshore, which is directly across the street from adeste.
And my kitchen window looks out on that light at Interbay and Bayshore.
And I can tell you the traffic -- I don't think anybody has mentioned it, but the traffic, you know, trucks can't come down Bayshore, so that if they want to go south, they must come down Gandy, turn at Gandy and go right in front of our place in adeste and the new proposed apartments.
Even if they're going, I have all of these trucks that are going to ballast point and to port Tampa, all these -- carrying gas, fuel trucks that are going out to the docks in port Tampa, come right down there.
And I can hear them because they stop at the light right in front of my kitchen window and, you know, you can hear these loud trucks.
These are big trucks that come right up -- that come up these streets.
And they stop right there at that light, adeste is there.
And you all have or some City Council allowed adeste to go close to the street.
So that on that side of the street which is the west side, you can't walk because adeste gates are right there.
There's no place to walk.
So they must walk on our side of the street.
And I walked it today just -- before I came here, just to see what was going on and what -- I walked across the street to walk all around the apartment area.
And I almost got hit by people that were on skates.
The sidewalk is narrow.
There is no sidewalk across the street because zoning didn't allow a sidewalk there.
So it is really -- it's very busy there.
And I just want you to keep that in mind.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much, ma'am.
Anyone else?
Petitioner?
>> I told you we would have significant public comment.
We have had meetings with the civic association and that is typically the way I like to operate, even though we don't agree -- like to -- a couple of things have been said tonight, though, that I want to make clear.
With respect to why we're in a pd mode, this site is pretty unique.
I don't know many other sites that have five street frontages on a 1.8 acres and also have a small quarter-acre site that has three grand trees.
So what we're trying to do here since the comprehensive plan doesn't allow you to transfer density between land use categories, we're trying not to develop the site with the grand trees and trying to develop at a higher density the property or the maximum density the property that's zoned cg.
So we think there is some unique feature there.
Also a unique corridor there in that while we're trying to protect the trees on Bayshore, we're trying also to protect the community on the backside.
We could today under cg develop an apartment complex or a town house or a multifamily complex that would start out 25 feet back off pilgrims path way, 30 -- then start the setbacks to the setbacks they described.
It's basically the wedding cake effect.
When you look at these variances and it says from 58 to 20, what we're talking about is that you have a portion of the building that goes up that meets the code, seven feet say off a side yard on Gandy, can go up 30 feet tall, seven feet from the property line.
Then after 30 feet, you step back one foot for every additional foot in height.
So what we're talking about is the top 38 feet of the building on Gandy is getting the setback relief.
So one way or another, you could develop 7 feet from the property line 30 feet tall.
And that's the same situation on all these setback issues is that you have the right to go 30 feet meeting the yard requirement and then it's the additional height that you step back from.
So I think there's a little confusion even though I know we've met with the citizen representatives and they understand that conceptual fully.
Had a long discussion with Mr. Chez about that.
I think with respect to the concessions or nonconcessions by the developer, there were several things on their list that could easily be conceded to.
One of which and I marked it on your copies that you handed out was the Bayshore dropoff point.
We indicated that on that plan to be deleted.
However, the general issue of no variances developed within the current setback requirements, i.e., The wedding cake effect, of the developer in trying to stay away from pilgrims path way felt there really wasn't anywhere for him to go to compromise because he's trying to keep the view corridor but also stay away from the single-family homes.
From a transportation standpoint, right now, the properties, both of them could be developed as I already said, commercially and residentially.
If we just developed them residentially, we could develop about 50 units on the two lots.
So really we're talking about the traffic impacts of 14 units.
The developer indicated to me and when he said, Mr. Chez indicated he's stone walled and dug his feet in, what he told me was that david, for the money I’m having to pay for the property and the time I have left on my contract, I do not have the time for two months to redesign totally the project and all the other little issues would be easy to address.
Greenway behind the sidewalks, things like that.
I told him we would have significant opposition and significant concerns.
I must put on the record that I do not design these projects.
I'm a representative of the developer, and basically relate to you and the community what they need to do.
I think that the issue of traffic -- there is a traffic problem in that area but it's really not this project's to add to or delete from.
There's a problem in that area due to the design of the streets.
The configuration of the streets just begs for cut through because of the light when you make the right down by chubby's and also at the light at Gandy.
Unfortunately, that's something that this project would not make worse or make better, but as it fact.
I think that pds shouldn't get necessarily bath mouthed altogether because the alf across the street is a pd.
The town houses behind us on pilgrims path way are a pd.
The condos that the lady mention that she lives in, they were also a pd.
Pds are designed to allow people to come in and show you what they're going to do and show you how it will work.
I know there's concerns that this project won't work, but I believe based upon what I’ve been instructed to tell you tonight, that's what the developer proposes and we'll be glad to take any comments.
>>Charlie Miranda: any comments from council members at this time?
Any questions?
Thank you very much.
Need a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion by Mr. Harrison.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Rose Ferlita: just a couple of things that I would like to respond to in terms of the testimony we've heard tonight.
Mr. Yalla, you quoted me so I think it's fair I quote you back.
You're right, sir, today in the Tribune I was quoted as saying perhaps we made a mistake in the courier city project with the 368 units.
I think it's my responsibility to learn from those mistakes and perhaps not to repeat the same mistakes, but to grow into new mistakes.
I think this project in your area is going to do exactly to you what that project is perhaps going to do to the courier city.
Dr. Frivlin, you and I don't know each other but I respected you as a practitioner for many years.
As a pharmacist, I field many of the prescriptions you wrote.
During that time of practice, I think you have a -- you had a reasonable expectation during your practice and during your days of retirement, you could expect to enjoy a quality of life in your residence.
I think, again this project is going to go a long ways to take that from you.
I'd like to say this is urban density at its finest.
It's not.
So based on the testimony I’ve heard, based on my gut feeling about what it's going to do in terms of transportation for this community, I am going to move that we deny this petition.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Mr. Chairman, I’ll second.
By way of historical perspective for some of my colleagues, and this does not necessarily speak to the criteria in the zoning code, but literally speaks to the practical reality of the situation here.
The high-rise that was referenced early on across the street, the aclf, in 1991, and 1993, and 1995, this community and that air force base went through what's called a base realignment and closure commission.
One of the reasons we almost lost that base and one of the reasons that the f-16 wing was moved to luke air force base was because of commercial intrusion into the airspace.
We almost lost a 3 billion dollar economic engine and 6,000 jobs because of commercial intrusion into MacDill's air force base.
And it's not always the flight path we're talking about.
There's a cone that extends outside the flight path in the event that a pilot or airCRAfter gets in trouble, they have to have the ability to move in and out of that airspace.
Any time you put something of this intensity into that space, I can guarantee, I lived through those debates and it's only by the skin of our teeth that this community saved that base, there is another base closure coming up in 2003.
If you don't think the air force is looking at every parcel of development that takes place within MacDill's sphere, you're kidding yourself.
This project gets built, I guarantee you that's going to be subject for debate as that base closure commission decides what bases are going to get cut in this next round.
I don't think we can afford to do that.
We have worked too hard to strengthen that base.
We need that base.
I know this objection doesn't rise to the level of what is in our code, but it is a reality.
And we have worked too hard to keep that base here.
And i, for one, am not willing to put that at risk and put those jobs in that 3 billion dollar economic impact at risk.
So I’m happy to second the motion.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Mr. Ferlita, second by Mr. Buckhorn.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I think it's interesting that each council member has their own perspective on this -- the City is being frugal.
We're cutting back.
Each council member have our own orientation concerns.
Many of you spoke to the question of neighborhood character.
I serve on the mpo, we looked at something called livable roadways.
The tree canopy that goes along Bayshore from Gandy -- you can't hear me?
God, I feel like I’m screaming.
The tree canopy that goes from Bayshore, beginning at Gandy to -- along Bayshore south by ballast point park is one of the roadways that we've identified as one of the points of character in our community.
It's a canopied road that we're looking at some protective legislation to protect.
It does, as you say, establish the character of the ballast point neighborhood.
And whatever development we allow in the area should be supportive and protective of the character of your area, which you've so articulately identified.
And that's something that all of us on council will be supportive of now and into the future.
>>Rose Ferlita: one thing I forgot to address to you, so that maybe we can both learn from some of these mistake, I can certainly appreciate your position.
I can appreciate the comments you made in terms of you're just the representative for the petitioner.
But just in terms of comments, back to his comment that he said, because of the contractual agreement, he didn't have time to deal with the concerns of the neighborhood.
I think he really ought to come back with a different attitude.
Because we're probably going to see each other again, perhaps not in front of this body.
But that's something that this council takes very seriously.
And so should he if he wants to go further with his petition.
Just as a point of advice.
But that certainly has nothing to do with you, and I appreciate your gentlemanness.
>> [ inaudible ]
>>Rose Ferlita: thank you, Mr. Smith.
>>Bob Buckhorn: call the question.
>>Charlie Miranda: I do have a motion on the floor.
I think the mikes are still working?
Anyway, I have a motion by Ms. Ferlita.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Further discussion?
[motion carried unanimously]
Thank you all very much for appearing.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: can we have a ten-minute break?
>>Charlie Miranda: we're going to take a two-minute break while the crowd dispenses.
>>Charlie Miranda: Ms. Alvarez has some documents to be receive and filed.
Motion by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Need a motion to open public hearing number 13 page 3.
Motion by Mr. Buckhorn.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
13, page 3 is now open.
Yes, ma'am.
>>gloria moreda: Land Development.
The proposal is for an 80% rule at 3921 and 3923 san pedro.
They are proposing to build two single-family houses.
The lots are platted 50 by 100.
They are asking for a waiver of the six month commencement requirement as well as the waiver to have a variance board review of their proposed seven foot setback for the garage opening.
On the corner street.
The -- I did want to point out to City Council that this site has been reviewed twice before under the 80% rule.
One time, the time limitation lap and the second time -- and this time, again, is for the variance for the setback.
Given council's twice approval of the 80% rule here, we're not objecting to this petition.
>>Charlie Miranda: Planning Commission.
>>michele ogilvie: michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
We concur with the City staff on their recommended approval of this request.
As in the last two requests from 1997 and 1998, the petitioner has provided the same commitments of emphasizing the living area rather than garage and driveways.
We find the request to be consistent with policies in the comprehensive plan that ask us to assess the positive and negative impacts of residential development on the physical development pattern of the area.
Planning Commission staff does not object to the request.
>>Charlie Miranda: petitioner?
>> good evening, council members.
Mike mckell.
I reside at 3920 san pedro, which is directly across the street from this site.
I'm also a real estate agent with coldwell banker.
As gloria moreda pointed out, there's been two 80% rule su-ii proposals for the site, which were both approved by council.
We are simply asking basically for an extension of those, but because of the time did lapse, we had to come back through the 80% rule su-ii change.
The builder that owned the site before actually was going to build new construction there.
He went into another line of business.
Which involved insurance-related reconstruction.
So we got out of the new home construction business.
My client, frank Jackson, bought it, looked at it to live there, perhaps build a house for him there.
Got many estimates on expanding the house and making it suitable for living.
And it was just not cost-effective.
I don't think he would ever recoup the money he would sink into the house.
It's basically functionally obsolete.
The land is worth more than the home.
So we're just simply asking you to extend the last -- from the two previous su-ii 80% rule zoning changes and just give us a 30.
>>Charlie Miranda: anyone in the audience care to speak for or against this, please come forward.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion to receive and file by Ms. Alvarez.
Second by Mr. Buckhorn.
Mr. Buckhorn beat out Mr. Harrison by just a little bit.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: suzette mcgray, meredith beard and john weiss.
>> good evening, I’m hillary jamison.
I live at 3914 west san pedro street.
And I’m speaking on behalf of the virginia park neighbors who are here tonight.
You'll have to forgive me.
I have to read my speech.
These neighbors signed their speakers waivers over to me because we're all in favor of maintaining the existing residential zoning of 60 with an "s" as in sam, feet of frontage on west san pedro.
Most property on our street is in compliance with the existing zoning regulations and we believe that this rule was established for practical reasons and should remain the same.
The 3921 square corner in particular can greatly affect our quality of life because it needs adequate storm drainage.
If land percolation is drastically reduced on that 100 foot square, street flooding will cause us to lose valuable rainwater.
Less concrete, less percolation, less percolation, less rain runoff, street flooding a common problem in south Tampa neighborhoods.
Our 3900 block of west san pedro is in a vulnerable position in terms of land percolation of which that corner on grady and west san pedro plays a vital role.
A 30% reduction on the larger footprint would be helpful.
Perhaps our City Council could recommend a Stormwater retention permit from s.w.f.w.m.d.
In 1997, 1998, when the el nino rain struck, the street caved in.
There was a large gaping whole for several weeks.
City work orders document the expensive repair at that location.
This raises concerns about the safety of overstressing the topography on or near the corner of 3921 west san pedro.
Perhaps our City Council could recommend that those requesting the variance submit a foundation permit application which would involve drill rigging and soil and rock sampling to allow the possibility of sinkholes.
West san pedro street has a majority of homes in compliance with the residential zoning standard.
When the market trend for colossal structures yields to a trend for spacious lawns as it will in time, it will be too late to turn back of this additional request for variance on this block is granted.
Perhaps our City Council could recommend an investigation to determine the impact of sewer demands and water pressure, especially sense our block's fire hydrant is on that corner.
In addition to having a fire hydrant at that corner, there as city stop sign as well.
One virginia park resident worries that such massive structures could obstruct motorists' views at the stop sign and pose safety hazards to the building.
One building footprint is so extreme that it overwhelms us.
Another virginia park resident points out that of the 80% variance, it causes the residents to park their vehicles in the street so ambulances and fire trucks cannot even get on to our block when there's an emergency.
This has happened a number of times on the east end of our block due to the zoning variance, which makes it difficult for people to find places to park their cars.
If it happens on the west end of the block, also, there will be no way for the emergency crews to get on to our block.
The 100 foot square in question nurtures one grand and three other large oak trees that thrive on the moisture provided in the turf at that location, drastically reduce that turf area especially now while in a crisis drought and people cannot even wash their cars, could overstress those beautiful giants that have can peed our homes for so many decades.
It seems appropriate to suggest brick pavers instead of slab concrete for the driveways to allow some rainwater to be absorbed.
Perhaps our City Council could recommend that steve graham, our city arborist, submit a report on the impact of such severe pruning and extreme turf reduction at 3921 west san pedro.
I have a dream.
Wonder if those who submitted the variance request modified their request and got it out Ms. Lane's old home, renovated, reinstalled -- planted shrubs or even xeriscaping, installed automatic sprinkler and laid down sod.
All the trees would thrive and canopies remain intact.
The people could sell the home in a heartbeat thus reaching the short-term goals.
The virginia park neighborhood would maintain it's long term objective by preserving the quality of life we dearly cherish.
We submit our request as virginia park residents to keep our zoning on west san pedro street the same it has been and should be.
60 feet of frontage.
Please and thank you.
I submit my speech for the record.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Ferlita.
Second by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Yes, ma'am.
>> good evening.
I'm lois ladimer.
I live at 3924 san juan.
My husband and I built our home 49 years ago.
Approximately over the past 10 years, we have witnessed the destruction of the charming bungalow homes an the splitting of lots to build larger houses.
Now I am faced with the threat of happening in my own backyard.
If they allow to proceed two large structures and overshadow my home and my privacy.
The City of Tampa has a zoning ordinance for the required of 60 feet of frontage to build new homes.
And that's for a good reason.
Our property values have increased quite nicely within the construction of 3,000-plus square feet homes.
I would sincerely appreciate it if you would protect and preserve the limited space that remains in our neighborhood.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you Ms. Ladimer.
Next.
>> my name is andrew rock.
I live at 3903 san pedro just down the block from the property under consideration.
If I may, i'd like to start by saying that it seems to me in a series of baseball games, the fact that one team wins the first two rounds doesn't mean that the third game is automatically forfeit.
I don't know if the community was represented the two other times that this matter came before you, but we're certainly here today in strong opposition to the petition, and I hope you'll take our reasons under consideration.
I've live in this block for nine years.
I've lived in south Tampa since 1982.
And the reason I chose this area because I love it.
I love the charm.
I love the variety of old modest homes.
I love the greenspace.
I love the trees.
Over those years, I’ve seen this giving way bit by bit to these colossal monster boxes that a member of staff called godzilla houses.
I have a different name for them.
I call them Tampa greed houses, 'cause I think that's what it's all about.
It's not for the good of the neighborhood.
It does not enhance the quality of life.
We really don't want to see our neighborhood turning into brooklyn with town houses side by side with 1 or 24 inches in between them.
We want to preserve the charm that led us all to south Tampa.
So that's the first point.
The second point is traffic.
Over the years, I’ve lived there as several of these big Tampa greed houses have gone up on the block.
The traffic problems have gotten worse and worse.
People -- there's more people, more cars, more of them are parking on the street.
And I believe due to the nature of the variance that's requested here, seven feet between the house and the sidewalk, two houses, two large houses where one modest house existed, you're going to see more traffic problems.
There are boats that are parked across the street from this property during the weekends and other times during the week as well.
Typically cars that want to come down this street have to do this and wait if the car wants to come the other way, they have to wait.
At my corner where two of these large houses are across from me, it's very frequent that a car coming down church, which is a main street, has to wait while the car coming down san pedro gets out because there's a car parked near the corner and there just is not room for two cars.
This will certainly be exacerbated on a busy corner.
Point three, trees.
The point has been made that the trees are under threat.
I've had a dream about this, too.
And I have to tell you the night after I heard about this petition and heard about this hearing, I had a nightmare.
I came home and there was a crew of 40 people with chain saws mowing down all the beautiful oaks and trees on our street.
Now, maybe that literally won't happen with this one petition but that's really what this is about about.
You're talking about permitting people to clear-cut charming ol' neighborhoods to replace greenspace with concrete and why?
It is, I will submit to you, a straight greed versus quality-of-life issue.
We need to live in this neighborhood.
We've raised kids there.
Other people, I hope, will be able to do the same in the future.
When you contrast the quality-of-life issues, the safety issues versus the right of a developer, to make a short profit and get out again, I submit to you it should not be a difficult decision for you to make.
Thank you very much.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you, Mr. Rock.
Anyone else care to speak on this subject matter who has not spoken prior?
>> good evening, council.
My name is eric sume.
3917 west san pedro street, two houses east of the proposed 80% rule.
I'm here tonight not as a strict opponent to this specific proposal.
I have realized that a lot of these 80% rules have been granted in virginia park neighborhood and I tried to find out exactly how many have happened because in the short six years that I’ve been there, I’ve seen it happen quite a lot.
And what I come to find out is since before 1989, I believe, records for 80% rule grantings were not kept.
And so it's difficult to tell exactly how much -- how many of these lots have been split up.
My particular concern this evening is about -- is -- many of the neighborhood folks in that the quality of life in the particular neighborhood I think diminishes somewhat when you allow the density to increase.
I don't particularly -- I live on a 50-foot lot just two doors down.
Many other houses on the block are 50-foot lots.
And I think that small lots in the City is just fine, and I think infill and increasing density is fine.
However, where density increases, I think it's the City's responsibility to compensate or mitigate that density by allowing for some other greenspace within that same neighborhood to be acquired.
A way that the City could do this is by requiring any folks that have 80% rule applications to give to the City some impact fee money and whatever you deem appropriate and have that money collect in a pot for the neighborhood.
And that when other lots become available or up for sale, if the City or the neighborhood finds that this might be a great place for another park to mitigate for the greenspace loss due to these 80% rules that might be a really good idea.
Another thought would be that many of these 80% rules do not only have us losing trees, but losing the canopy of trees.
There's no trees that are of specific concern on this particular lot; however, immediately adjacent as some of my neighbors have said tonight, there are some large oaks.
One large oak where I am absolutely certain that part of the canopy will be removed.
This oak has been built around once previously the house that is on the lot now, was specifically designed not to damage this oak whatsoever.
Which is fantastic.
And unfortunately, the way the lots are designed on this particular proposal, there will be some damage to the canopy.
My request to the council is that when such situations like this arise that the applicant, again, be made to mitigate this damage simply by placing additional trees on the Boulevard or in the area which will compensate for that.
It's difficult to compensate for a tree canopy.
Once you lose it, you damage the tree like that, you know, it's never going to be the same.
And but, again, you know, there's other factors that you have to consider with the property owners.
So what I just wanted to repeat is there are mitigative measures that you can undertake that would assist us in the neighborhood to deal with these increasing density issues, and I would appreciate it if you look into those.
Thank you very much.
>>Charlie Miranda: anyone else in the audience care to speak on this subject matter?
Petitioner?
>> I have a few exhibits, if you don't mind.
>> this is the existing neighborhood.
This is the oak tree they're talking about.
The property is right next door to here.
I have a petition of 15 property owners in and around all of them that abut this property, except for Ms. Ladimer.
He's one of my supporters.
And this tree, while it does have a canopy which would go over, I’m sure that the developer would do whatever it could take to minimize taking any of that tree as far as trimming it.
This house is right next door.
This is my house that's right across the street.
All of these are on 5500-foot lots.
This house is directly across the street.
This house is a corner directly across the street.
If you put these two houses together, that would be the site that we're talking about directly across the street.
This is looking from the site towards the neighborhood where you see the larger house there that are all on 50 by 100 foot lots.
This house is directly across the street on grady.
Again a 50 by 100 foot lot.
These two houses are directly across the street from Ms. Ladimer, a stone's throw away from this project, 50 by 100 foot lots, both of them.
The consistency in our neighborhood, as you can see, is changing.
The houses that are on the larger lots that are the older homes that cannot -- I’m not going to say cannot, but cost-effectively cannot be renovated to where a property owner cannot even hope to get their money back out of it for years, the land is worth more than the improvements.
The houses are functionally obsolete.
Virginia park as a whole -- hang on one second.
Another smattering of homes in and throughout the virginia park neighborhood, all on 50 by 100 foot lots.
I drove through the neighborhood yesterday and counted.
There's 8 new homes on 50 by 100 foot lots between El Prado, Bay to Bay and Manhattan to Dale Mabry.
I mean, I just think it's consistent with the neighborhood.
It's consistent with what's happening in south Tampa.
Land is at a premium.
It's very expensive to purchase.
And I would certainly hope that you all would pass the project.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have a motion to close the public hearing by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Seconded by Ms. Alvarez.
Further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: Mr. Chairman, as I look and council members, as I look at this map of the virginia park area, I see a mixture of land uses, but the predominant use, I see near this are 60 foot lots.
And, therefore, I move to deny the request based on the pattern of adjacent development and i'd also like to point out to my colleagues that there is -- it's really a smattering of 80% rules and a majority of rs-60 zoning.
The two petitions alluded to by the staff were both done -- one was in '98.
One was in '97 when the majority of members of council weren't sitting here.
This was prior to our taking office.
And I think that this council is more sensitive, perhaps, to the character of neighborhood issues than a previous council might have been.
I think that the character of the area that attracted people here in the first place is treed.
It's green.
And it's 60-foot lots.
And that's what I would like to support in denying this petition.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Saul-Sena.
I have a second.
>>Rose Ferlita: I’ll support that motion.
>>Charlie Miranda: second by Ms. Ferlita.
Any further discussion by council members?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
I didn't hear seven nays or seven ayes.
Anyway, I guess it dies.
It's dead.
Unanimously denied.
>>Charlie Miranda: I can't hear myself.
We're getting tired I guess.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: Mr. Chairman, isn't it God that we have two zoning meetings this month so that we only have one more petition instead of six more?
>>Charlie Miranda: it depends how you look at it.
That means you got to do six hours instead of three.
>>Bob Buckhorn: is that the bad City Council versus the good City Council?
>>Charlie Miranda: I have some zonings coming in 1994 I’m going to bring up about the council.
One thing about Charlie Miranda, he doesn't forget anything.
Nothing.
And there was only two members out of that City Council member that voted for something.
It's coming back in March.
So we shall see.
And one of them is here.
Item Number 14, page 3.
I have a motion made by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Ms. Alvarez, excuse me, and second by Mr. Harrison.
Close vote with Ms. Saul-Sena.
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item Number 14, page 3 is now open.
>>gloria moreda: gloria moreda, Land Development.
The proposal involves the academy of holy names on Bayshore and MacDill Avenue.
The 17-acre tract of the school is proposing to do major renovations to build a new campus center of over 65,000 square feet.
A new pedestrian bridge is proposed over MacDill Avenue, soccer fields, new pool, locker room with bleachers, a new tennis courts and play courts.
There will be also lighting and irrigation of the softball field with new dugouts being built.
The facility has 546 first through 8th graders.
340 9th through 12th graders.
And there are 259 parking spaces shown on their site plan.
The petitioner elected not to revise the site plan to address staff concerns at this point.
They wanted to have the public hearing similar to the previous petition.
They've committed, however, to meet all staff comments as it relates to the transportation issues and the right-of-way issues.
Steve graham, Parks Department and dave riley have reviewed the revised site plan and have no objection with the site plan, although they do need those minor revisions as it relates to the encroachment and the transportation issues.
>>michele ogilvie: michele ogilvie, Planning Commission staff.
Semipublic is one that is used to encourage the development of schools as this petition is.
And the residential 35 plan category, which runs along MacDill Avenue permits commercial as well as office considerations.
We find the request to be supporting both plan categories in terms of the proposed use.
The site plan does call for the increase of 96 students in the population of the school.
The school has been at the site since 1925 is what the property appraiser has reported.
We believe that the new campus will be -- the site plan shows that the new campus additions will be of a similar height and scale as the existing buildings and should continue to be part of the fabric of the area.
It should be consistent with policies in the comprehensive plan that ask for -- or I should say, provide such guidance and we believe that it does meet that.
The proposed uses for the new tennis court and pool will be buffered from the adjacent use residential by a 30-foot landscaping buffer as well as commitments to restrict the hours of operation and lighting for these uses.
Based on these considerations, Planning Commission staff does not object to the request.