Continued... part 3 of 3
The parking would be in the front.
And obviously option two would be for this to go away and the parking would be in the rear.
Staff had no objections.
>>Gwen Miller: Planning Commission staff.
>> kim wall, Planning Commission staff.
This site is located in the gray gables bon aire neighborhood association.
As you can see on the overhead, that area along azeele between sterling and Himes was amended quite a few years ago to residential 20 to allow for infill development of professional offices.
Just like the petitioner is requesting.
They are consistent with the floor area ratio within the residential 20 plan category.
They are consistent with policies in the future land use element addressing neighborhood serving commercial and residential office uses and we have no objections.
>>Gwen Miller: petitioner?
>> good evening, council.
Kevin ashley with engelhardt, hammer and associates, 5444 bay center drive, suite 122 in Tampa.
We are the agents for phillip conte, the owner of the property.
Again, we're proposing to rezone the property from rs-60 to ro residential office.
Property is a single-family home.
It's approximately 1200 square feet in size.
We are proposing to convert the home to professional office.
Catherine did show you a photo of the property.
Future land use category is res-20.
Does meet locational criteria for office uses.
Request is consistent with many of the policies in the comprehensive plan as stated by kim and her staff report.
In terms of surrounding zoning, i'd like to show you a graphic.
Noncommercial zoning exists practically on all sides of the property.
We have pd across the street, ro to the west.
Ro also to the east.
The property directly to the east is a rental home.
Also between -- to the west, west of sterling to Dale Mabry, that entire front -- zoned for office and commercial uses.
And so this shows you the zoning pattern as evidenced that the portion of azeele is turning toward office uses and away from residential.
We're proposing two development options in order to give the client the maximum flexibility in developing the site.
We initially submitted a site plan that included constructing the required four spaces at the front of the structure.
And that is detailed in the staff report as option one.
That plan wouldn't impact the rear yard at all.
And in that respect, we did request a couple of waivers.
One is to the rear buffer to allow the existing chain-linked fence and the vegetation to serve as a buffer since we would not be disturbing the backyard.
That is a photo of the backyard showing the existing fence along the back and the vegetation.
We also requested a waiver of the buffer on the east to reduce the buffer adjacent to the rental home to a one-foot buffer with fence and vines.
That fence would run generally to the front of the garage where the parking would be located.
We do have a letter from Mr. Hollis eggner, the property owner to the rear say thing -- stating he has no objection to the request.
We also spoken to the owner to the east, Mr. Robert muin who owns the rental home.
He verbally stated he has no objection to the request.
I'd like to submit the letter from Mr. Eggner to the council.
>>Gwen Miller: motion to receive and file.
All in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> after a little bit of further thought and a gentleman who has put a contract on the property with Mr. Conte, we decided upon an optional site plan.
That would be to place five parking spaces in the rear of the structure.
That plan would require reduction in width of two way access going from the rear property from 20 feet to 12 feet.
We feel that would be negligible due to the minimal amount of traffic created about by such a small office.
We estimate about 14 trips a day and that would include both entering and exiting.
To provide access to the rear of the garage would be relocated to an area in the rear yard.
Canopy would have to be removed in order to provide the access.
This is site plan option two.
And with this plan, we are committing to a solid finished masonry wall along the north property line in accordance with the code.
We'd have to reduce that buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet in order to fit the parking in.
Also planning to construct solid fence with vines along the entire property line adjacent to the rental home.
We do have a provision on the site plan if the property to the east ever rezoned to commercial we would not have to put that fence up.
We think that would be a reasonable request.
And also, we do have a letter from the owner at the rear, Mr. Eggner, stating he has no objection to the request providing we put up a solid fence or solid wall.
We would like to go a little further and actually place a note on the site plan to reiterate a commitment to maintain the area between our solid wall and his fence.
And I’ve passed that note on to cathy to add to the site plan and as with the first option, we do have a verbal concurrence of this plan from Mr. Muin, who is the owner east of the property.
So in short, we are requesting consideration of both of the plans.
We would like to give Mr. Conte and Mr. Mikas the option of working on either plan.
Again, there are other office and commercial uses in the vicinity on the south side of -- or the south side of azeele between Dale Mabry and sterling which do have parking in the front yard.
Much like we're proposing with option one.
The only waivers we are seeking with both of these plans would be to be able to put the parking on the site, essentially there's no other way to put parking on the site without waivers short of taking the building down which obviously we do not want to do.
We are committing to maintain the facade of the structure as required in the code.
We feel that the proposal is in keeping with the development pattern of the neighborhood.
By my count, between Himes and Dale Mabry on azeele, there are 26 parcels which are designated residential by the comprehensive plan.
Of those 26, 15 are already zoned for office or commercial.
So this would not be the first office request in the neighborhood.
We have no objections from the staff.
The staff report states the petition is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The zoning code.
We are committing to meet all of the zoning code requirements except for the waivers.
We would commit to comply with chapter 13 of the Stormwater code and with signage requirements in the code.
We do have several letters of support for owners within the notice area.
I would like to submit those to you for the record.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second to receive and file the letters.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> along with the letter from Mr. Eggner.
I'm here for any questions if you have any and jim mikas is here if you have any.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: in looking at this picture, there's a really huge tree.
I can't tell if it's on your property or not.
Your site plan doesn't indicate any trees.
>> there are three in the backyard.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: we'd be losing in option two and keeping in option one.
>> I don't believe we would be losing with option two.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: how come they are not on your site plan?
>> well, honestly, we just prepared option two not very long ago.
Probably about two weeks ago.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I mean, that's a big deal.
If you're trying to protect the residential uses to the north of you, then keeping the trees there would go a long way in doing that.
So that would be a real point of --
>> well, I believe the trees -- the crowns do go into the parking lot.
I believe we'll be able to save those.
We could provide impervious surface under the tree.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: how come it isn't on the site plan?
Aren't you supposed to put all the trees on the site plan?
>> technically we only require tree surveys if the landscape reviewer requires them.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: why didn't you require them?
>> this one with the plan that I had received early on showed the parking in the front.
There was no impact to the tree in the rear.
So I didn't require it of them.
The second submittal just somehow -- greg yarkis construction services center.
It just got lost in the transmittal.
So until this evening, I was unaware of the secondary rear parking.
So obviously with the size of that tree, I would like to see the parking stay in the front.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: well, that was important information.
>>Gwen Miller: anyone in the audience like to speak on Item Number 12?
>> my name is jim mikas.
Reside at 5005 west neptune way.
I'm the contract purchaser from Mr. Conte.
My wife and I are purchasing the property or intend to purchase the property.
And it will be used as a second site for a group called "a woman's place."
It's an abortion alternative counseling center located on Busch.
We will donate to them the use of the space for free.
It will be counseling for -- to convince pregnant girls not to seek abortion.
It will also be a place where we will be providing abstinence training for speakers who will speak in high school, including my wife.
And the -- to address the issue of the tree, we have no problem working around that tree whatsoever.
That's -- we'll work around, if you want the survey, we'll provide that and it won't be an issue.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: so you'd go with option one.
>> let me suggest to you why not.
What we will try duplicate is what catholic charities has on roland right behind the building I own.
And they have their crisis pregnancy center there and they have maneuvered in between the trees there and it provided a very residential scale looking place.
We don't want girls coming there and seeing a mass of parking in front.
We want them thinking they are coming into a very, very subdued residential looking, just a home.
They're coming in to talk -- there May be one or two ladies in there counseling them at the time.
And we just don't want to scare them away.
And parking a mass of parking in front is just not consistent with it.
So we would suggest that we would like to keep it very similar to what is located on roland.
>>Gwen Miller: all right.
Thank you, sir.
>>Shawn Harrison: I have a question.
That makes perfect sense why you want to do that.
I'm just a little concerned about us approving either or.
I don't know that I can ever remember where we had two site plans where we were being asked to approve and you all just took your pick after the fact.
>> I would take my -- the issue is that phil the owner today from the time he submitted until we got here today, I’m the contract purchaser now.
I want option number 2.
I do not want option number 1.
I do not want a mass of parking in the front yard.
I want to have landscaping there.
I want it to look like a single-family home.
I don't want it to look like an office building.
We will -- I will commit that, you know, that as I close, option number one goes away.
>>Shawn Harrison: we're not ready for option number 2.
Our arborist says he hasn't looked at it.
>> we'll be happy to provide the tree survey and whatever the arborist wants to be satisfied that that will work.
>>Shawn Harrison: I think we ought to continue this until we have that reviewed and then we can come back.
>>Gwen Miller: I need to hear from the neighbor.
We have one more to speak.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I was looking at -- this is -- the reason that all the council members need the site plan is so we can really compare them.
I'm fortunate because I can look over gina's shoulder.
The difference between site plan one and site plan two in terms of paving because I’m real concerned about paving is only one space in front.
It's not a whole lot of difference in paving.
Two has all the stuff in back, but the only thing more that one has is one more space in front.
So perhaps if they are only required, I believe it said to have four spaces but they were providing six, maybe they could just provide the four that they're required to have.
It's an idea, if they're going to have to go back and revise it to get around the tree.
They can just give up a couple of spaces.
>> I’m not sure how long it will take to get a tree survey.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: you had to have one originally.
>> we have a boundary survey.
We weren't required to have a tree survey originally on this site.
It will probably take us a couple of weeks to get a tree survey.
>>Gwen Miller: sir, do you want to speak?
Come to the mike and give us your name, please.
>> good evening, council.
Rudy sabeck.
West azeele.
If I’m speaking today and you're going to postpone it, I won't be able to speak the next time.
>>Gwen Miller: that's correct.
Sow want to wait until we come back?
>> yeah.
Because I don't know what they're going to present.
In fact, I don't even know what's going in there.
This is the third thing.
First it was going to be a lawyer.
Then it was going to be an adoption agency.
This is the first I heard of this one.
So I don't even know what's going in there.
>>Gwen Miller: two weeks it will come back.
>> will I be noticed?
>> should we make this in the morning or the evening?
>> we'll give you a time and date before you leave, now.
>> catherine brought up a pretty good point.
In two weeks, I don't know if they'll have time to review the new site plan.
You May want to make it longer than that.
>>Gwen Miller: how long do you think it would take?
>> probably a month.
>> three to four weeks at least.
If it takes two weeks to get the survey and then a week to two weeks for everyone --
>>Linda Saul-Sena: how about the second meeting in October?
>>Gwen Miller: October 24th?
Is that time enough.
>> that will work.
>>Gwen Miller: need to make your motion.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: move to continue until October 24th.
And I would like the petitioner -- in the night meeting.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second to continue until October the 24th at 6:30 p.m.
All in favor of that motion say aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: would you please contact the neighbor beforehand.
>> yes, ma'am.
>>Gwen Miller: we need to go to item 13, which cannot be heard.
We need to make a motion to amend the petition.
Need a motion to amend the petition.
All in favor of that motion say aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Item 14.
Need to open item 14.
Motion and second.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> you did reschedule item 13?
>> yes.
>>Gwen Miller: yes.
Amend the petition.
>> can you repeat what date?
>>Gwen Miller: October 24th for number 13?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: correct.
Move to open number 14.
>>Gwen Miller: it's already open.
>> thank you.
Catherine coyle, Land Development.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 216 south westland Avenue to construct four unit town house building.
Proposed use bordered to the south by commercial office zoned cg.
North, single-family house, to the east by alleyway.
Property measures 51 by 130.
The plan depicts two units, access to the alley and two units access to westland Avenue.
Front setback of 15, rear setback of 26 foot four.
Southern side setback of four feet to the commercial use and a northern side setback of nine feet single-family residence.
Second floor balconies are also shown as encroaching into the side setbacks, no more than three feet.
Petitioner has provided a four-foot -- four and a half foot pedestrian connection from the rear units to westland Avenue and supplied an elevation of the front building facade with the site plan.
I talked extensively with the commercial neighbor to the south.
She also dropped off letters of opposition and detail as to why for everyone.
She actually stated that she would like to happen -- to see the setbacks switched doesn't want the four foot setback on her side.
Because of the balcony jutting three feet into it.
Staff had no objections.
Actually, the only thing we did note was the lack of concern -- lack of open space provided for the -- for the residents of the new town homes.
Mr. Michelini did just give me something.
I didn't get a chance to read it.
He just handed it to me.
I don't know what it is.
>>Gwen Miller: move to receive and file the documents.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> kim wall, Planning Commission staff.
The land use plan designation for the site is community mixed use which is appropriate for multifamily and allows up to 35 dwelling units per gross acre.
I wanted to quickly show you our existing land use map.
As cathy stated, directly east of the site is another multifamily unit.
To the north is single-family.
To the south is the commercial along west platt and single-family to the west and an office use.
The proposal is for four unit multifamily.
The maximum density for the development is 26 units per gross acre, which is within the community mixed use 35 dwelling units per gross acre.
We felt that it was consistent with policies in the future land use element objective d-3, compatible integrated development.
The area is developed with a mixture of office, single-family and multifamily development.
The property does abut an alleyway that they are using to access the units in the rear.
And we felt that it was consistent and we have no objection.
>>Gwen Miller: petitioner?
>> good evening, steve michelini, here on behalf of the south Tampa land group.
Let me show you first what we're proposing to construct there.
And it's a pretty basic four unit town house accessing the alley.
It abuts commercial property immediately to the south.
And this property is currently zoned cg.
So we're taking it from cg to a residential use with appropriate buffers.
That's why we proposed a nine-foot setback on the north side which is residential and four feet on the south side which is commercial.
This is the structure that will be coming down which I don't think in anyone's estimation is desirable.
I think it will be a tremendous asset to the community, and it will, again, establish that residential commercial transition which is very important.
It continues the utilization of the access and the alleys which will decrease people walking through the alleys, but it will increase the opportunities for people to clean the alleys up, make them more attractive.
The letter I was handing to cathy coyle was a letter from the property owner to the north indicating their support for reduction in the landscape buffer on the north side of the property.
I'll hand that to her, but making it part of the file.
And it's a notarized letter from the 214 south westland property owner.
It needs to be received and filed and made part of the record.
>>Gwen Miller: all in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> if there are no questions, I’ll yield.
I don't think anyone else is here, but you can certainly ask.
>>Gwen Miller: anyone in the audience like to speak on Item Number 14?
We have a motion to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Shawn Harrison: I move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 216 south westland Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification cg to pd, providing an effective date.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and a second.
All in favor of that motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I just have a question to clarify.
I thought that your idea that the greater buffer would protect the residential property to the north is a good idea.
And I just want to make sure that is what we were adopting.
>> yes.
That's what is shown on our site plan.
There is no setback required on the commercial side although we provided four feet there.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I want to compliment you for using the alley for the access.
That's good.
>>Gwen Miller: item 15, need to open the public hearing.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> catherine coyle, Land Development.
This petition is proposing to rezone the property at 5805 south MacDill Avenue to construct 10 single-family semidetached units, four -- all with two car garages that access internal drive aisles leading to MacDill Avenue.
The developer agreed to save three large trees on site and provide a sizable amount of greenspace.
All of the units will be town house style and sold fee simple.
Site photos have been included with the report.
You can see it's an odd -- it's actually a pretty odd track.
The single-family detached unit is actually on this piece that juts out to the rear.
As you can see currently, it's a commercial corridor.
This is what is on site now.
I think it's some kind of lawn care mixed use type thing.
As you notice in the report, city staff has no objections.
The Planning Commission and I actually disagree.
The area lies within the apz-2 zone, which is the accident potential zone for MacDill air force base.
The front of the property on MacDill is zoned currently cg and has a land use of cmu-35, which is 35 units per acre.
The rear of the property is residential 10, which is 10 units per acre.
In the apz zone, the comp plan it talks specifically about limiting all of this area to 10 units per acre.
This renders this entire property to 10 units per acre.
The gross area on this property is 1.5 acres, which by our calculations which would be 15 units and that's what they are proposing.
Staff had no objections.
>>Gwen Miller: Planning Commission staff?
>> kim wall, Planning Commission staff.
What I just submitted to you, cathy is right.
The site is located community mixed use 35 on the front portion, and residential 10 to the west.
The site is located in the ballast point neighborhood association.
And when you look at the acreage of the entire site plan maxing out the ten units per acre, you get what the applicant has submitted.
However, there's no policy in the Tampa comprehensive plan that allows you to blend over an entire site.
So we had to calculate what the density could be achieved by calculating the square footage of the residential ten, which is 28,352.57 square feet by the maximum 10 units for that portion.
And then the community mixed use area, 36,468.96 and limiting that to the 10 dwelling units.
You don't have a provision to blend, and that was specifically not put into the plan because you had areas in beach park, other areas in virginia park.
They didn't want blending from a higher plan category which would increase densities adjacent to residential.
So until you amend the Tampa comprehensive plan, if you want to put a policy in that would allow blending for projects with two different plan categories, two or more plan categories, the request -- the requested density that the petitioner is asking for is inconsistent with the comp plan.
As cathy stated, the site is in the airport protection zone, the MacDill air force base.
I think the only difference in what the petitioner is requesting and the Planning Commission is one unit.
We came up with a total of 14 units for this site.
They have 15 units.
So we --
>>Gwen Miller: so you what.
>> oh, we were objecting to the request.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Ms. Wall, as a matter of course, is MacDill air force notified when there are proposed rezonings?
>> yes.
>>Bob Buckhorn: do they generally offer objection or nonobjection to --
>> I think they gave -- he e-mailed me back.
I'm the one that sends them out.
He stated that he -- I think they have the basic idea that they want redevelopment in the area.
>> they had the policy in the plan that limits all of the development to 10 dwelling units per gross acre.
>> that's why we viewed it as ten units per acre.
Says MacDill air force base has reviewed the information provided by the City for the proposed rezoning at 5805 to 5809 south MacDill and has no objections.
Subject property is in the accident potential zone runway 22 approach.
The subject property is outside the 65 decibel noise contour line from MacDill air force, airCRAft operations.
And the intensity of the proposed development is at or below 10 dwelling units per acre.
>> I just wanted to put on the record that this might set a precedent for other developments when they come in, other requests to ask you to blend.
And then you May get objections from adjacent residential areas because it would allow for an increased development adjacent to a residential area.
>> I guess we're having a math problem.
Steve michelini.
I'm here on behalf of the petitioner on this project, 1507 south MacDill.
The math problem is we're not exceeding the 10 units per acre.
We never asked to do that.
And it is consistent with the development patterns surrounding this property to the south and to the north and -- well, north -- it would be northwest because the other properties to the north and south of this are all general commercial.
Again, what we're taking down here is commercial property making it residential.
Didn't ask for any bonuses in density, but there's an interpretive issue regarding how do you calculate the ten units per acre.
By MacDill's standard, we meet the ten units to the acre.
By the City staff standard we meet ten units to the acre.
And in discussions with the Planning Commission staff, they indicated, yes, that's probably true, but there's no policy that clearly outlines that in the comprehensive plan.
So, you know, what we offered to do was to come back to council and say, okay, council, we're not asking for a bonus, but simply a clarification here on ten units to the acre.
We have 35 units to the acre in the front and ten in the back and when you add up all of the numbers that you do all your divisions, you come out with ten units, which is what we proposed and that's 15.
There's a little over an acre and a half of property.
And we're a very small fraction short of actually qualifying for the ten units to the acre and the method by which the Planning Commission is calculating it.
There are a number of other just put on the record, there are a number of other town house projects but they're apartments.
These are fee simple owned properties that are going to be sold in excess of $200,000.
When I discussed this with some of the property owners in the area, they called me, they said, I can't believe that we can sell these for $200,000, I could have bought the whole acre or more, the whole subdivision for $200,000.
So there are some large property owners in the area.
They are excited about the redevelopment.
We're not asking for any special consideration, but just -- we're not asking to blend different things here.
It's all one owner.
We have commercial in the front, rs-60 immediately behind that.
Rs-50 behind that.
And according to our site plan, we're showing a single-family unit all the way to the west.
That is single-family unit here, and these are the town house style units here.
This section here is what we're talking about.
We actually moved a number of the units northward of what the land use lines.
You can see the land use line here.
We move the units up past that.
We worked around these two grand oaks that are here, and established a protective radius.
So we think the 15 units is reasonable based on I think the experts at MacDill.
They calculated it 15 units.
The problem is, you don't have a policy that's currently adopted in the comprehensive plan that says, yeah, that's the way you calculate it.
By everyone else's calculation, that's what it is.
>>Gwen Miller: is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak on Item Number 15?
>> melanie higgins, 2916 west pearl Avenue.
I live in ballast point.
I drive up and down MacDill Avenue all the time.
This is the first I’ve heard of this.
And I know most of the people that live around there and no one has called me about it.
We have a planning group in our neighborhood right now, and one of their biggest issues is land use.
It's not my big issue, but it's their big issue.
And I know they haven't heard about it.
And they're talking about two oak trees on this property and they know we are the biggest tree huggers beside Bayshore beautiful and we haven't heard about the trees either.
So I object on anything going forward on this until some people in the neighborhood have an opportunity to look at the site plan and just form an opinion, right or wrong.
I don't have an opinion except that I haven't seen it, heard of it, or seen a sign out front.
Thanks.
>>Gwen Miller: anyone else like to speak?
>> I’m sharon halligan.
I own the property across the street on MacDill Avenue.
My son dj and I are involved with developing single-family homes on third street at the apex of wyoming and the back entrance to MacDill.
I oppose, this is the first time I’ve heard of this.
I got the notice that the hearing was going to be tonight.
Patiently waited to get here.
I am opposed to these many units going in.
I certainly have the option to develop my property.
We have a total of nine lots on -- facing third street.
We had the option of putting pd in there.
We chose not to.
I'm a resident of that area all my life.
Born and raised in the house that's on the property now that will eventually be razed.
We chose to put single-family homes on there because I wanted to keep the consistency of single-families on the third street.
The traffic in that area is starting to build up.
I don't mind having good homes going in there, but single-family, not multiple or the complexity of what this project obviously is starting to introduce to the neighborhood.
The neighborhood is a school area with chiaramonte right down the street at the dead end of the Himes and wyoming.
I think it's going to create some more traffic issues for wyoming.
If they went single-family on that -- those lots, I wouldn't mind it at all.
But I think the complexity of this project that they are proposing is going to put more residents in there than what could probably be safe for the neighborhood.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: ma'am, I just had a question.
I was looking at this map, and parts of third street are zoned rs-50 and parts are zoned cg.
What are your lots zoned?
>> my son owns the apex of wyoming, MacDill and third street.
He's got the triangular piece that he has retained on a cg zoning.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: but you're developing them in residential uses.
>> single-family homes.
We're going to put about seven homes on the property, yes.
We don't -- we didn't want to overdevelop it.
That was our whole purpose in not even trying to go for a pd zoning.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I just have a question for staff.
Are they allowed to do residential in cg.
>> the map isn't updated.
They just rezoned last month from cg -- judy james represented her.
The lot ten stayed commercial and then they rezoned 11 through 17 and the north 12 feet of nine.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: thank you.
>>Gwen Miller: anyone else in the audience like to speak on item 15?
Petitioner.
>> just for the record, these are called single-family attached.
This is not a multifamily development.
And the access is off MacDill.
There is no thru access on to the rear streets.
So all of the traffic coming into and going out of this doesn't create any additional traffic.
The density being proposed is the same as if you had 15 single-family homes.
The only difference is the way they are configured. So she could develop in the same manner, the rs-50 is ten unit per acre designation.
There's no difference here.
It's the style of architecture that we're talking about.
>>Rose Ferlita: Mr. Michelini, maybe respond to some of the concerns that Ms. Higgins brought up.
>> well, we met the staff's concerns.
We're not building anywhere near any of the grand oaks.
We designed around them.
We've committed to maintaining the 20-foot separation.
Actually, there's three grand oaks.
But I wasn't aware of any notice, procedure, in notifying them.
We've been working through the staff.
If a red flag had gone up, we certainly would have, you know, gotten in touch with somebody or notified somebody.
But with no staff objections and no concerns, we didn't think that there was an issue there.
>>Gwen Miller: Ms. Saul-Sena and then Mr. Harrison.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I was going to say, given that what's fronting on MacDill is currently commercial, I mean, zoned commercial and you're sort of lowering the intensity to residential and I saw the site plan, you're putting in sidewalks the proposal seems to me to be a lot more residentially compatible than what the current zoning would allow.
And I think that the courtesy notice that we're now working on as a council, which hasn't been voted on yet, which would require petitioners to notify -- I’m kind of surprised, because you're real familiar with this, I’m surprised you didn't go ahead and notify the neighborhood civic association, but you don't currently have to.
It's just a courtesy thing.
>> I wasn't aware that we didn't.
That was the first time -- I normally do that anyway.
So I’m surprised that they didn't know about it.
I can check on that later.
>>Shawn Harrison: Mr. Michelini, you say there are three grand oaks on this one-and-a-half acre parcel and you're going to build 15 single-family residences on it?
>> yeah, the two oaks are near the front.
And we've worked around them.
Also, when we separated the units from the low density to the higher density, you'll see one of those oaks is in the middle of what looks like a large lot on the south going toward -- going westward.
>>Shawn Harrison: how big are these places proposed to be?
>> the units themselves?
>>Shawn Harrison: yeah.
>> they are about 1500 square feet to 1800 square feet apiece.
They are in keeping with pretty much the rest of the developments.
Most of the houses are smaller.
They are in the 1100 square foot range.
>>Shawn Harrison: what about the concept that Ms. Wall brought up that this May open the flood gates to this idea of blending when you have two adjacent.
>> well, I don't think that it does it.
It would if we were asking for a higher density.
But we're locked into ten units regardless.
Even if you had res 50 down in the MacDill area only develop ten units to the acre.
You can blend all day and all night, you're only going to get ten units.
We have 35 in the front.
Maximize that and you went back to the r-10, res 10 in the rear, you still, you're only allowed to develop ten units to the acre regardless of how -- you're capped.
You could have multifamily high-rise land use, but you still are only going to develop at ten units to the acre.
We ran into the same problem earlier on some other properties.
But as it turned out, the land use amendment that we withdrew, we were talking to MacDill for some time about, well, do you have a problem, no, we don't.
Do we have a problem, and they eventually came back, yeah, we want to protect the bay, we have a problem.
So we withdrew it.
That's why in this case when they came pack and said we don't have a problem, we said, well, ten units to the acre is what it means.
>>Gwen Miller: motion to close the public hearing.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Shawn Harrison: move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5805, 5807, and 5809 south MacDill Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification cg, rs-60 and rs-50 to pd, providing an effective date.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second.
All in favor of that motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I wanted to explain briefly.
First of all, this the first hearing.
There will be an opportunity for everybody in the neighborhood to look at it before second reading.
When I look at MacDill, the lady who's doing the houses still kept the corner commercial.
I think that the site plan respects the residential uses all around it and I think the proposal actually lowers the intensity on MacDill and I think that the site plan is really configured to protect the giant trees which I think will sort of dominate the look of this development.
I think it looks quite good, actually.
And particularly when I look at the commercial along MacDill, that I think this is going to be a less intense use.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you.
Thank you, sir.
>> thank you.
>>Gwen Miller: item 16.
Need to open the public hearing.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> catherine coyle, Land Development.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 109 south edison Avenue to pd zoning district to construct office building 3,105 feet measuring.
This is as of the previous site plan. So bear with me.
The maximum height is 35 feet and sidewalk will be provided per code.
The structure setbacks are shown at 7 feet in the rear, 7 feet on the north side, 4 feet on the south side.
The site gains access exclusively through edison Avenue and plan states compliance with chapter 13, 25 and Stormwater regulations.
You'll see some objections in the waivers listed.
That site plan, as you can see on the left-hand side -- with the site plan that the staff report was written from.
It showed the building here.
No parking or access to the alley in the rear and these parking spots.
As of your Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning, this tree was discovered to be a grand tree.
And protecting that grand tree with 20-foot radius wiped out approximately 50% of the parking.
Hence the objection from transportation.
>>Gwen Miller: turn your mike on.
>> hence the objection from Land Development and transportation.
They were able to save this one space and reduce the buffer to eight, six feet.
A structure this size on a local street, we didn't feel that reducing the parking to that little was sufficient.
The petitioner came back with a new plan today at 3:13 in the afternoon.
Showed me this and I sat down with melanie from transportation and they showed this parking space.
I spoke with dave riley at home.
He was off today.
I called him at home and he said it was 20-foot radius.
So this parking space also needs to be shifted to show a reduction of the front buffer from eight feet to six feet.
They supplied a new elevation that showed this front facade, an entry arch which they want signage to be placed on.
However, with the protective radius of the tree, once again, it reduces it down to five spaces from their required ten.
They are showing parking in the rear, which they want to be counted.
Originally they had it as a garage and I explained to them that a garage or carport has to have a 15-foot setback from any property line just so you can get out and see where you're going.
He removed it and said it would be open but put the building as a setback of one foot four from the alley which doesn't give any visibility backing out.
We're objecting to this one as well.
And it's last minute I know with the grand tree, but we can't just approve it and say it's okay and then he has to come back.
Our suggestion is that he reworks the plan and tries again.
>>Gwen Miller: Planning Commission staff.
>> kim wall, Planning Commission staff.
The site is located at 109 south edison Avenue.
The land use plan designation is residential 35, which at this particular location, it meets locational criteria for office, not neighborhood commercial.
If you recall -- and we did not have the latest revised site plan as of this afternoon.
But if you recall just recently a recent rezoning, zo 2-24, it was just to the north of this site.
It was an existing old two-story home.
They came in.
They re-did the house for a professional office.
They put parking in the rear.
We objected originally to the first site plan because on the site plan it had cm uses.
They have removed that.
However, we still don't feel comfortable with how this rezoning request is going to be compatible with the adjacent uses.
What we had written in the staff report stated the site plan does not provide for interaction with activity around the development nor does it provide an integrated design with uses in the area.
The site plan should commit to the placement of windows and the door along the street which provides for interaction with activity around the development such as the sidewalks connecting.
The petitioner had submitted this to me before we started this evening.
You know, this is the first chance we've had to look at it this evening.
But I still don't feel that this is the style and compatible with the adjacent uses.
When you look directly across the street and to the north of this site, it's the old residential homes that have been converted to office.
And I don't know that this carries out that type of design.
Planning Commission staff is still going to keep their objection.
>>Gwen Miller: petitioner?
>> council, we -- steve michelini, here on behalf of abc capital corporation.
We ran into a problem late Tuesday, basically because we had designed a project which met setbacks and the buffers necessary for a tree, an oak tree.
And then Tuesday we found out it was a grand tree.
So we had to completely rework the site plan Tuesday and Wednesday and we had a verbal understanding of what we could try to do and then Wednesday evening and Thursday, we prepared a new site plan and got it to the staff.
And in the process of going over it with the staff late this afternoon, we discovered other inconsistencies and some errors.
And I think in fairness to everyone, we probably should continue this for a month.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second to continue for how many weeks?
>> one month at least.
We should be able to get a site plan resolved by then.
I don't want to put anyone else through a lot of discussion about things that are going to be changing.
It's a moving target right now.
It's far better for us to come back in a month.
>>Gwen Miller: October the 24th.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I just have a quick question.
The structure currently there, have you had it evaluated by the staff?
>> it was evaluated.
It's in fairly poor condition.
We did offer it.
If someone wanted it -- or take some of the architectural elements.
The gingerbread on there is very interesting.
I think that that's unique.
But certainly the architectural elements are salvageable.
And we are in the process of trying to have someone look at that.
Anyway, I think it's far better to come back with a revised plan to you.
Thank you.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second to continue Item Number 16 for two weeks.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
If you speak now, you won't be able to speak --
>> I want to object to the date.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: oh, okay.
>> I sat out here all evening and Mr. Michelini played his game again.
Delay, delay, delay.
I'm not going to be in town between the 10th and 30th of October.
I would like you to delay it past the 30th of October.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: what's the first meeting in November?
>>Gwen Miller: you need to rescind your motion.
>> that May present a hardship for my owner.
They have contracts involved in this.
And I understand that they have concerns.
We'll be happy to meet with them between now and October.
And certainly if they have an objection, you know, sue lyons is around too.
>>Gwen Miller: Mr. Lyon, could you meet with Mr. Michelini before you leave town.
>>Bob Buckhorn: do you own that small sliver of land on edison, right?
It's the one not buildable.
>> that's correct.
>>Shawn Harrison: well, it seems like we have, you know, Mr. Lyons and Mrs. Lyons are down here all the time.
And it seems like we owe them the courtesy of being able to speak at a hearing.
Mr. Michelini, I hope this doesn't cause any serious hardship to your client to continue it until they come back.
But that I think we owe them the courtesy of having that opportunity.
>> that's fine.
We'll accept it, sir.
>>Gwen Miller: rescind the motion.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: okay.
I make a motion that we have this in -- the first zoning meeting in November in the evening.
What's the date?
November 14th.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and a second to continue item 16 to November the 14th.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: in the interim, i'd like to make a motion that we alert annie hart that this structure will be available for moving I guess for free for somebody who will move it off the property and maybe it will get saved, the existing structure.
>> I’ll get in touch with her.
We already talked about salvaging the architectural elements.
>>Gwen Miller: open Item Number 17.
We have a motion and second to open Item Number 17.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> catherine coyle, Land Development.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 2201 north Armenia Avenue to pd zoning district.
Accessory office 17,860 square feet.
Height shown on the plan is 24 foot four inches.
The structure setbacks are shown at 10 feet along all sides -- all rights-of-way with parking and retention area placed in the rear abutting the residential use.
The site gains access through pine street and truck only entrance off of Armenia Avenue.
Site photos have been included with the report.
They are requesting four separate waivers, increasing the height of the masonry wall in the rear, abutting residential from six feet to eight feet, reducing required buffer to residential from 15 feet to 13 feet on the eastern side.
Allowing access to a local street and waiving the two required loading berths.
This is the property.
Currently it's zoned ci, rm-24 and rm-16.
As you can see, the property is green.
It's vacant.
Virgin land, no trees.
We found this inconsistent with the following land use policies, expansion of appropriate commercial uses adjacent to residential uses should be only considered if the expansion maintains the residential character of, which we found this did not.
Only two of the four lots are currently zoned ci while the remaining six lots are zoned both rm-24 and rm-16.
The property to the south is also zoned rm-16.
Although there is a corridor commercial property on Armenia and howard, light manufacturing and warehouse uses May impact the surrounding neighborhood adversely as it attempts to revitalize.
Property currently vacant and lies within the boundaries of the proposed west Tampa district.
New proposed developments should adhere strictly to the current code given that the regulations and design criteria for this area will soon be more strict.
Full 15-foot buffer should be provided to the north to protect the residential neighbor and thought given to the landscaping.
Very little greenspace shown on the site plan.
Very little creativity.
It's a large box.
The elevation was nice.
Transportation planning staff is objecting to the access to the local street per code.
And they are also objecting to the lack of the two loading berths shown on site.
Commercial site review also has concerns.
They are required the various things for vehicular use area, greenspace, 40 feet of linear feet, vehicular use area adjacent to the right-of-way will be required one tree -- they are just not showing a lot of detail on the site plan.
Staff object.
>>Gwen Miller: Planning Commission staff.
>> kim wall, Planning Commission staff.
The site is located in the old west Tampa neighborhood association.
The site is divided by two different plan categories.
The first along Armenia is heavy commercial 24.
The eastern portion of the site is residential 35.
With the site plan, the applicant put the ci use, the warehouse all within the heavy commercial plan category and their parking in the residential 35.
We looked at it from various viewpoints in our office.
We felt that overall, this requested rezoning May encourage reinvestment into the old west Tampa area.
It was consistent.
The request with the heavy commercial plan category which you have up and down Armenia Avenue.
The residential 35 we felt would be the buffer to the residential area to the east.
The site plan does provide an eight-foot masonry wall on that eastern boundary.
And we found the request consistent.
>>Gwen Miller: petitioner?
>> frank otero.
Here with the owner, Mr. Garcia.
He's the owner and president.
He is currently located at 2701 north Armenia.
Is he a fabricator and importer of marble and granite.
He caters to upscale home builders.
Mr. Garcia needs to expand the property.
He purchased the site and outgrowing current property.
He intends to keep both properties using this new site as show room.
He only has a few clients.
Not that much traffic flow.
Mr. Garcia recently purchased the property across the street.
For 700,000 to one million dollars.
So it's a pretty substantial amount for that area, should be an impressive building for that area, I think.
Do you have any questions?
>>Gwen Miller: anyone in the audience want to speak on Item Number 17?
>> my english is not very good.
>>Rose Ferlita: (speaking spanish).
>> 2509 west cherry street.
Camano, frances.
(speaking spanish).
>> (translator) entrance and exit should be on Armenia, instead they have that located on cherry.
He says that he's certainly not against any kind of development or business endeavors.
However, because of the nature of the product that they sell, when they come in and out of their site, there's going to be heavy equipment that's going to have to transport those marble products.
>>Shawn Harrison: the site plan shows the access is on pine, not on cherry.
>> well, the customer access is to pine.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: there's no curb cut shown on -- to cherry, unless I’m not reading this correct.
You see here, there's a little access point.
There's none on cherry, according to this.
>> the access is to pine street, not cherry street.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: however, there is a dumpster on cherry.
>> correct.
There is no access at all through cherry.
>> it's a continuous wall along cherry street.
No exit.
[ inaudible ]
>> there will be no trucks at all going through pine.
The trucks coming through Armenia.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: there's a driveway on Armenia?
>>Bob Buckhorn: (inaudible).
>>Linda Saul-Sena: the trucks go into the building from Armenia.
>> robert garcia, owner.
We can do this two ways.
Can come in Armenia to pine.
And then exit through the middle of the building.
The way this is designed is the trucks, when they come in, they'll go to the middle of the building right here.
I'm going to load them inside, not outside the building.
Overhead CRAne, slabs from there, and then exit out through Armenia and back to 275.
Actually not going to be our equipment going through here.
I might get a load maybe once a month.
I mean, it's not like we get a truckload every day.
Mostly all my customers I work with are high end customers.
They work with the decorators at their office.
Location 2706 north Armenia.
Three parking spaces in front of my building right now.
When I purchased that building, it was completely destroyed.
I renovated the entire thing.
I've been in that area about five years now.
I lived in west Tampa all my life.
I want to make the area nicer and I’m putting a very nice building in that area.
I'm not there to create any problems.
I mean, where I’m at right now, all my neighbors love me.
I make sure that traffic is always moving.
I got 30 guys working and so far haven't had any troubles.
So that pretty much says about my business.
>>Rose Ferlita: let's go further and explain to this gentleman.
I think he's under the impression that you'll have the traffic going and coming off of cherry.
(speaking spanish).
>>Rose Ferlita: you might want to explain to him the entrance on pine.
(speaking spanish).
>> we have not done any work on this property.
He's got the properties mixed up.
Do you have a picture of the property?
>>Rose Ferlita: (speaking spanish).
>> more or less the elevation.
Main entrance on either side, marble columns all the way to the top.
I think it will be a very nice building for that area.
>>Bob Buckhorn: other than just super bowl time.
Tell me how you're going to treat this street side of Armenia.
It appears to be a wonderful design on the --
>> right.
This will be the side that faces Armenia.
Actually on the top will be like the crown all the way around the building.
So be like an -- like an ol' building.
I want to make it -- all you see on the building.
Actual stone.
Top here will be concrete with precast columns and up here, that will be all precast.
So it makes it look antique.
>> the sidewalk currently is --
>> there are sidewalks all the way around the property right now.
>>Bob Buckhorn: now, are you anticipating -- because I would imagine at some point Armenia would become very pedestrian friendly and very pedestrian oriented as businesses like yours tend to spring up all along the commercial corridor.
Are you intending to do any landscaping along the Armenia side?
>> yes.
>> what type of landscaping would that be and does it require the sidewalk be widened or are we going to be able to do tree cutouts in the sidewalk --
>>Linda Saul-Sena: is there a plan?
I don't see a plan.
Is there a sidewalk?
That's a really good point.
If the building is right up to the sidewalk.
Are the circles trees.
>> right.
All that's landscaping.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: the little circles with dots in the middle.
>> all around the building will be landscaping.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: what kind of landscaping.
>> I’m open to any landscaping.
Could be oak, palm trees, it could be anything.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: at least ten feet of green.
>>Gwen Miller: any other questions from council members?
Close the public hearing.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Shawn Harrison: move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2201, 2203, 2211 and 2213 north Armenia, 2330 and 2334 west cherry street and 2333, 2339 and 2341 west pine street in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications rm-24, rm-16 and ci, to pd, providing an effective date.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> thank you very much.
>>Gwen Miller: item 18.
Need to open the public hearing.
Motion and second to open the public hearing for item 18.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
>> catherine coyle, Land Development.
The petitioner is requesting a special use of the property.
802 east henry Avenue to be used as offstreet parking for the church use at the north corner of Nebraska Avenue and henry Avenue.
Here we go.
The lot is currently vacant paved with shell and fenced with chain-link.
The plan shows only access from the lot on henry Avenue.
This is a picture.
As you can see, it's right off Nebraska in between 275 and Nebraska.
It's right off Nebraska in between 275 and Nebraska.
This is what it looks like currently.
It's shell with weeds essentially and a chain-link fence.
Staff objected to this request mainly because the site plan was never revised from our original comments.
The lot has been poorly maintained and has been cited several times by neighborhood improvement for accumulations and work without permits.
The lot was originally owned by previous church and then sold.
That's losing its legal nonconforming status as a residential parcel uses as parking.
Existing church regained ownership of the lot and is requesting to re-establish the parking use.
Transportation staff is objecting on six points.
Chapter 27 requires 15-foot buffers to residential uses with six-foot masonry walls, et cetera.
And the following notes need to be added to the plan.
Chapter 13 tree and landscape compliance and storm water regulations.
As I stated before the site plan was never revised and turned back in for second review.
Receive a letter highlighting some planning concepts and objecting to the use as a parking lot.
And I also received an e-mail from susan kiever who lives on north miami adjacent to the property also objecting to the request.
>> kim wall, Planning Commission staff.
The church is located in the old Seminole Heights neighborhood.
The long-range plan category is residential ten.
Churches, accessory parking, is a permitted use in the residential ten plan category.
But as cathy stated, the applicant never revised their site plans to meet the concerns that staff had brought up.
We found it inconsistent with policies in the future land use concerning the sidewalks, shade trees.
The site plan showed a new sidewalk along miami place, but not along east henry Avenue.
The site plan -- this is for a parking area for a church.
We also found it inconsistent.
We felt that they should have provided some shade trees along the sidewalk areas.
And until they revised the site plan to meet those concerns, we object.
>>Gwen Miller: petitioner?
>> good evening, City Council.
Barry leclare, creative infull solutions, 714 west indiana Avenue, Tampa, 33603.
We did make some revisions to the site plan.
There was lack of communication.
We dropped the ball between the engineer doing the site plan changes that staff had requested and myself.
I was out of the country with family health problems overseas and just got back today.
So I apologize to staff for not getting the revised -- the plan that addressed all the revisions.
There's a colorized version on the easel for you to look at.
I can put this on the overhead and go over most of the changes.
I do represent the church of God latin american mission located at 5710 north Nebraska and we are asking for a special use to permit for a parking lot on property that the church does own that's adjacent to the sanctuary.
It might be better if I got the portable mike.
This is the church sanctuary right here on this property.
There's a parking lot here and an office building that's owned and used by family services, family service association of greater Tampa.
There's also the family service association owns this property to the north.
This is a parking lot and this is their social service building.
This is the subject of our request for 23 additional parking spaces.
The church is currently using spaces provided by family services association on this site and this site.
I believe it's a total of 55.
We're asking for 23 more for a total of 78.
Brief history, this church was years ago apparently like a private club for seniors.
It fell out of that use and was vacant for a number of years.
The church of God latin american mission acquired the property, renovated it and brought the sanctuary building up to code.
The seating capacity is rated for 189 persons.
And three seats per parking space were required to have 63 spaces.
They currently have the use of 55 from greater family associates of greater Tampa.
We're providing 23 more for a total of 78.
One of the waivers that we had requested was for a paving waiver to continue using the shell that's there.
We decided to go ahead and they've been getting prices on paving and we're essentially withdrawing that waiver.
Should you decide to approve the use, if we could have just a few months, perhaps to the end of the year to actually get the paving in place.
But they are seeking bids.
They can raise the funds and pave the parking per City of Tampa code.
The dark green areas are existing trees.
We fully intend to meet the land scaping code, the Stormwater code as it goes through permitting and civil engineering design, it will meet all city codes and ordinances.
This sidewalk along the west side of the site, the east side of miami, this is actually miami place.
It dead-ends right here.
Is existing, and we will, as per city code, construct the sidewalk on the north side of henry, on the south side of our property.
There is an existing alley right here that is open and our entrance to and from the property essentially lines up with the alley.
East henry Avenue essentially dead ends at 275.
This site is located north of Hillsborough and south of the publix for people familiar with the Seminole Heights area.
Again, my apologies to staff and council for not getting the plans, the revised plans to staff in a timely fashion.
If you have any questions or if it's possible to have staff review it over the next two weeks and come back on the 26th at 9 a.m. To, I guess, confirm that we have addressed the comments that -- or the suggestions and requirements that staff has made, we'd be appreciative of that.
There are a number of members of the church here, if they could stand.
There are more that would have come, but we didn't want to overload the building or the room too much.
So we respectfully request that you approve this special use permit.
>>Bob Buckhorn: we want to know where you were hiding them all night.
>> they were on the first floor.
They were waiting on the first floor and shuttling to get food to sustain themselves since we knew we were last on the agenda.
>>Bob Buckhorn: (microphone not on).
>> only if you're willing to grant the waivers to residential, the 15-foot buffers.
He would have to commit to comply with chapter 13 tree and landscape, but we'd have to review that.
I guess my only concern is, the letters that I did submit, neither one of them were able to be here in person because it was tonight.
I guess they can try to be here at 9 a.m..
>>Rose Ferlita: just a couple of things that I need to put on record.
First of all, as in part of the information that we got here, the lot has been fully maintained and has been cited several times by neighborhood improvement.
Some of those complaints were generated from neighbors and came through me at the drugstore.
I called code enforcement on weekends.
There were a lot of issues.
They were making attempts to shell it or pave it or whatever they wanted to do.
And just as my colleague over here said we owe some courtesies to the lyon family it kind of upsets me that I believe these four gentlemen are neighbors who actually initiated some of those complaints through me.
They've been sitting here all night.
I think they've got some legitimate things that they want to put on record.
And all of a sudden at the 11th hour we have -- and it's very impressive that we have a big congregation here in mass to say what they want to do.
But there are some issues here in terms of the residential component that are causing some problems.
And I’m sure that's why they were here.
So I just -- I don't know where we go with this, but I am certainly very, very sorry that these gentlemen sat here from 6:30 or maybe 6:00 this evening not knowing that perhaps this gentleman as a representative of the congregation was going to come in and ask for a continuance.
I sure don't like this, is what I’m saying.
If there weren't any issues in the past where they were cited because they were doing stuff without permits and against code, then maybe that would be another thing.
But I want to tell you as one particular council member, I am certainly, certainly, certainly not impressed with the way this is going.
And everyone always has hard times.
Myself included, about speaking poorly about a church or a congregation.
But the neighborhood, that component of old Seminole Heights has a problem here because of some of the things that were done.
I mean, it was such an issue for that neighborhood, I had someone take pictures for me so I can discuss it.
The things done -- are going to cause flooding problems for that neighborhood.
I think it was inconsiderate to the neighborhood.
I don't know what else to do, gentlemen, except to apologize to you.
You understand if you speak now, when they come back, whenever this council or departments allow them to come back, then you won't be able to speak.
Again, heartfelt apologies.
I don't know what else to tell you.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: in deference to what you said, I think that people should be able -- I think we should allow them to speak now and allow them to speak when they see a site plan.
I think this also speaks to why the courtesy notification is a good thing.
If there were courtesy notification, they would have been notified and presented with some kind of site plan to respond to.
But I believe that we have the ability as a council to allow people to speak.
>>Gina Grimes: we were discussing earlier that in situations where someone gets up and speaks, but then the site plan is subsequently revised that it probably would be more fair to allow them to address the revised site plan.
Sometimes they want to put on record what their concerns are.
If they don't do that at the initial hearing, it won't be addressed in the revised site plan.
I believe it's a council rule of procedure so it could be waived and you could allow them to do that in an instance like that.
>>Rose Ferlita: I think that's a wonderful idea as a courtesy to that neighborhood.
>>Gwen Miller: anybody in the audience like to speak on item 18.
>>Rose Ferlita: make a motion to waive those rules.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: could somebody take the site plan down.
>> good evening and thank you for letting me speak.
My biggest issue was -- my name is mark.
I live at 5810 north miami place.
The biggest issue was there was no permit pulled to do the work that was done on October 6th.
There were two truckloads of fill brought in and they were crushed shell.
And then they put up a fence around the property, a chain-link fence and we're trying to get away from the chain-link fences in the neighborhood because it's overlay of the historical district.
So I did call code enforcement to find out what I could do because there was no permit pulled and I did a lot of the investigation, and they had pulled a permit, the previous owners, back in '88.
And it was to cover an existing parking lot.
Well, it never has been a parking lot.
It's always been zoned residential.
It's rs-50 as far back as I go.
So I don't know where this parking lot comes into the situation to begin with.
And the crush shell is a big issue.
It's been there since October 6th.
And I mean, it looks hideous.
They don't cut the grass.
It hasn't been cut in probably -- john cuts the grass -- I mean, all the neighbors cut the grass around there.
The property has never been taken care of in the seven years that I’ve been there.
We've always gone down, cut the grass, picked up the cans or whatever.
And I just don't see this property, you know, being taken care of, even if it's awarded a parking lot.
It was a real big issue about the crushed shell.
And the fact that it is zoned residential.
I mean, that's a nice historical pocket right in there.
I don't know whether you ever drive up miami Avenue.
It's a very, very nice area.
We have a petition here.
I have copies of the previous permit that was pulled.
Nothing was done.
I had been in contact with everyone from gloria moreda to rick del rio at construction services.
Gloria moreda at zoning, everybody possible to find out, you know, more about the property and everything.
And I just don't see how we could, you know, I would like to keep it a residential lot.
There's a lot of homes going up and being built.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I have an interesting question for you.
Would you prefer to have church folks who can't park on the lots -- the other lots that they're using on Sunday park all over the streets and have them sell this to redevelop it as residential lots?
>> they haven't parked on streets.
They are parking on the child services across the way.
They wouldn't have even parked in there if they went to rush shell.
They aren't going to walk in high heels on crushed shell and wet.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: you're saying it's currently zoned residential single-family and you would like to see it remain residential single-family in hopes that some day people will build houses there.
>> right.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: thank you.
>> I have photos actually -- I’ve got photos --
>>Bob Buckhorn: is this still the condition of the lot?
>> actually, no, it's in worse condition.
I have photos that I took actually last Sunday.
Which --
>>Rose Ferlita: excuse me, the picture we're looking at that I have here.
>> that was actually October 6th.
There is a picture here, john, you're 6'5".
Here is a picture of john standing on the property and there's weeds, you know.
This is what we've dealt with over the past seven years.
Since they fenced it, we can't maintain it.
What can you maintain about crushed shell?
Where in the City of Tampa have we put in a parking lot with crushed shell?
>>Gwen Miller: thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
>> do you want these latest photos for the record?
>>Gwen Miller: need a motion to receive and file.
>>Bob Buckhorn: let us receive and file all those.
>> how about the code violations?
>> yep.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second to receive and file the documents.
[motion carried unanimously]
>> good evening, council.
My name is jack ward.
5802 north miami place.
That's directly across the street from the parking lot.
That's what I’m facing.
And prior to buying my home, which is a little over 16 years ago, finally got it paid for last year, will be 65 here in a couple of months.
Prior to buying, verified the lot across the street was zoned residential.
Had it not been zoned residential, I would have not bought the property there.
I would have looked somewhere else.
The church of latin america had the same opportunity as me to check the zoning for that property as I did.
And I don't mean to be rude, but frankly in my opinion, my own mind, I think they did, but when the time came, they would just infall it, a parking lot there anyway and that's exactly what they did, ignoring zoning restrictions, permits, drainage, neighbor considerations, et cetera.
One day the property is a large vacant lot and the very next morning I’m looking at 300 feet or probably more of four-foot high chain-link fence built right up to the sidewalk, right up to the sidewalk.
If I had wanted to live -- if I wanted to live in a drew park industrial type setting, could I have bought in drew park for a lot less money.
While I’m sure the parking lot will add to the value of the church property, I feel definitely it will decrease the value of my property.
Most folks give an choice of two similar homes would choose the house in a total residential setting, not the one next to a parking lot.
I'm a christian.
I want to make it very clear, I mean no disrespect for the church of latin america.
I mean no disrespect to them at all.
However, their vacant lot is zoned residential, and our neighborhood wants it to remain residential.
Thank you.
First time I’ve ever been here.
I know how you people must dread Thursday nights.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: sir, you've lived there 16 years.
When you moved there, were there houses there?
>> it's always been a vacant lot.
That's another thing.
If the church wants to build a home for the pastor, not necessarily pastor, anyone there, we welcome them to the neighborhood.
We're not being mean spirited.
We just don't want to live next door to a parking lot.
That's I guess the bottom line.
Thank you for hearing me.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you.
Next.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I can ask the staff a question?
Did they have to pull a permit to put that up fence?
I believe that the zoning -- the historical rules were in effect and how did they put up the fence?
>> the overlay district?
>> chain link is not allowed in front yards in overlay district.
>> so the fence was put up illegally.
The crushed shell put down illegally.
>> everything was done illegally.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: thank.
>> greg beasley, 5810 north miami place.
I also oppose it.
Ms. Saul-Sena, you were asking if we would rather them park in the surrounding neighborhoods.
As it stands, they do not use that as a parking lot and they do not park in the surrounding neighborhood because there is not that many people that go -- there's not that many cars at the church that they need that.
You were saying they need 60 something spaces.
They have 55 that they use from Hillsborough family services.
He did not mention they also have about ten parking places just north of the church along henry Avenue.
So that would take them up to 60 something spaces there.
We would rather definitely see residential than what we see now.
Hopefully you can all see that the same way.
Thank you.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you, sir.
>> my name is john maldoni.
5809 north miami place.
I'd like to add to this that that corner there and those pictures that you folks are looking at, that there is a corner bus stop for school kids, for school children.
And I think the whole thing is just a disgrace to the whole Seminole Heights neighborhood.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you, sir.
Petitioner?
>> would it be possible for the Reverend to maybe answer some of the questions as far as the sequence of events?
I'd also like to enter into the record and just trade briefly a letter of support from family services and giving us basically permission to use their parking spaces and they state that the church of God is a good neighbor in the neighborhood.
Also, as far as the shell versus pavement issue, we agree that shell is not an option, and we, you know, will commit to paving it like any other parking lot should council decide to approve the petition.
Once again, I apologize to the council, staff and the people that were here, it was just bad timing and the engineer and I dropped the ball quite frankly.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I have a big-picture question I guess for the Reverend, and that is, given that to do what the City demands is expensive and that the neighbors don't want it and that you have enough parking the way it is, would you consider withdrawing this petition?
>> good evening.
Pastor figora.
Before I answer that, May I say something?
All right.
We purchased this property 14 years ago.
When we purchased it, it was sold to us as the church parking lot.
And I went to see kit alexander here in downtown.
She showed me the aerial photography that is there, existing there of the parking lot.
And you all can call her, get the aerial photography.
And when we bought it, it was originally shell.
We could not restore it because we didn't have the money to do it at the time.
And we decided to just restore it.
We did not think we needed a permit because it was just restoring what was already there.
We were just putting more shell there and that was a mistake.
And I apologize for that because we didn't know.
We didn't know.
As soon as we got a site -- the first citation, we stopped all the work.
The reason that we did not go in and clean the parking lot inside and it is -- it has been done now.
We would edge the outside and some of the neighbors would come and they would get very upset.
And so we decided not open the door or the gates.
We've been staying outside of the gate since we put in the fence because of the condition that they -- and the way that they would react.
And we are peaceful people.
We did not want to cause any problems.
Therefore we stayed out.
You can go by and see our property.
Our property is very clean.
It's always kept up.
And when we moved there 14 years ago, the place was really destroyed.
And we have beautified the area.
And there's a letter from family services.
And they say they've been there all this time right there with us, and they like the fact that we have kept up the property the way we have.
And the reason that -- well, I don't want to get into things that could be controversial because I’m here in a peaceful attitude.
I just want to let you know that we really need the parking before we fenced it in, the neighbors were using it to park semitrucks and all types of things.
We were the ones cleaning things out of there.
But, of course, I don't want to go into that.
But we respectfully ask you to consider the fact that we're there for the community and think a church is a blessing in any community.
And we've done -- we've done a lot of work to make things better in that corner of our community.
And we will continue to do so.
At this time, of course, we need your help to do that.
And I respectfully ask you to consider this and any of you are welcome to go by and see the property for yourselves.
>>Rose Ferlita: I have a comment, pastor.
I think what you're saying to us, we're accepting in good faith.
I have, in fact, seen the property.
You're absolutely right, you have done a good job there.
I think at the same time in reciprocal type of gesture, the neighborhood is not holding any animosity against the church either.
However, I have been involved in that community for many, many years, and that is just a very, very quaint little area of miami Avenue that is a residential component of old Seminole Heights.
And for these gentlemen to look at a parking lot across from their property or in very close proximity to their homes is something that they find offensive and certainly secondary issue versus what they May or May not feel about your church.
I think one of the gentlemen made a suggestion that perhaps the church could use that particular site for something else that is a use that the church could utilize.
The fact that you bought it, whether it was or was not a parking lot at the time, it is still lost that use because it has not been used for a long time.
So it has lost it's nonconforming status.
Of course I’m just speaking for myself.
Although I can understand and appreciate what you've done and what you want to, do still at the same time, churches have to get along with neighborhoods and neighborhoods have to get along with churches.
From what I’ve seen, I certainly would not be one of the neighbors that would look forward to looking at a parking lot.
They are certainly encouraging you to do something else.
But I would not be supportive of a parking lot.
>> okay.
With respect to what you have said, before we fenced it and it was a lot that was being used, it was being used as a parking lot by the neighbors.
>>Rose Ferlita: well, one wrong doesn't make another, ma'am.
So it doesn't matter who did what there.
If they couldn't do it obviously the code says that we cannot park commercial vehicles in a residential area.
So if that was happening or that would happen based on what occurs here later, that's a nonissue here.
What we're trying to decide is whether or not we can approve or we want to approve the use of that property as a parking lot.
That's simply the issue at hand right now.
>> I understand.
All we're asking is for a petition permit because it is -- it is a need in order for us to keep functioning as a church in that community.
That's all I have to say.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: move to close the public hearing.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second to close the public hearing.
All in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Shawn Harrison: I have a question for cathy or maybe for legal.
Could we just simply call this an interim parking lot and not rezone it?
And impose some requirements on them to clean it up and make sure it's maintained properly --
>> any parking on residential property for a commercial type use, a group c use in the code is required to have a special use.
Even in an interim.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I would like to move for denial of this request because I believe that there are parking lots that the church can use and it's so obvious that in this historic district that it's appropriate that the residentially zoned property be redeveloped residentially in accordance with the architectural requirements and I believe that the church could probably either develop it themselves or sell it to somebody and make some money from selling it.
But there's such a resurgence of interest in this neighborhood that to put a parking lot there is just not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses and certainly not with the existing land use.
>>Shawn Harrison: I’m not prepared to vote on the motion because we closed the public hearing and there would have been a few other people who May have wanted to speak on this.
I thought we were moving to continue this.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: oh, I’m sorry.
I'll move to reopen it.
>>Shawn Harrison: reopen, no.
I think we ought to move to continue it.
>>Gwen Miller: we have to leave it open to continue.
>>Shawn Harrison: so then second.
>>Gwen Miller: motion to reopen the public hearing.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Shawn Harrison: I move to continue this.
We had, I thought, picked out a date -- were we moving towards a date earlier or had we just decided?
>>Gwen Miller: we didn't come up with a date.
We stopped to allow them to speak, so they could speak now and speak another time.
So we didn't come up with a date.
>>Shawn Harrison: well, I think we're full the 24th.
How are we looking in October?
>> October 10th, you have 10 on that night.
>>clerk: six on the 24th.
[ inaudible ]
>>Shawn Harrison: i'd be willing to add one more on to the October meeting.
The 24th.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion to continue 18 till October 24th.
All in favor, aye.
[ motion carried ]
>>Rose Ferlita: I don't know how my colleagues feel about this obviously back to the issue of the fence.
Since there's going to be some prolonged time here.
I would be comfortable making a motion that at least that fence be removed because that fence should not be there at this point.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: second.
>>Gwen Miller: we have a motion and second that the fence be removed from around the parking lot.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
>>Rose Ferlita: with some clarification that obviously I’m not predicting what the outcome will be.
Even the chain-link fence -- it's illegal, shouldn't be there, should be removed.
>>Gwen Miller: we need a motion we talked about cleaning up -- which number was that.
>> I would just like to get some clarification before you go much further.
You're continuing this until October 24th at 6:30.
And you want the fence removed immediately.
>>Gwen Miller: correct.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: and would it be too much to ask that perhaps the church share the site plan with the neighbors prior to the next meeting? I'd encourage you to do that.
>> if the clerk has the names and addresses of the people who spoke tonight, we have no problem with that.
We did do the courtesy notification to Seminole Heights.
I spoke with Mr. Duval I think his name was.
>>Bob Buckhorn: [ inaudible ]
To move forward with this petition.
That it will take a significant amount of change if you are to prevail.
Because based on what I have been listening to, those votes don't exist currently.
And obviously we have two council members that are not here.
But I think injecting a parking lot into a residential community is always fraught with errors.
And we struggle with this every time one of these comes up.
It's not specific to your client.
It is the nature of what we do in interjecting a parking lot into a residential area is a difficult, difficult thing to accomplish.
So I would only offer you that word of wisdom as you proceed and perhaps May want to regroup and reconsider what you're attempting to do.
>> it's a point well taken.
We will endeavor to try and reach some kind of understanding with the neighbors if there's anything that we can do that would allow them to support it or drop their objections, we'll take that -- you know, we'll do anything we can within our power.
And by the 24th, we May just come here or send a letter in, if we can't reach an agreement, we May withdraw the petition.
But we appreciate you giving us some more time to try and reach a compromise or agreement.
Thank you.
>>Gwen Miller: you're quite welcome.
>>Rose Ferlita: on Item Number 8, we never addressed the issue of requesting that code enforcement go to 1202 east giddens and the abutting property to make sure they check those accumulations and vehicles and those type of issues.
>>Gwen Miller: all in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>clerk: [ inaudible ]
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second to receive the documents.
All in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: i'd like to request that the Planning Commission consider an area study to change the land use from giddens to the halfway up to Hillsborough from heavy commercial to residential for the existing properties that are developed as residential.
>>Gwen Miller: Planning Commission has something to tell you.
>> much like the property that we looked at at Florida and Sligh, when you're looking at this area along giddens, it would only be the area from 12th over to 15th.
Because if you start going on either side, you're going to create a lot of nonconforming uses.
They are already ci.
>> it's only two blocks.
>> there's only two blocks from 12th over to 15th.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: but what are the uses?
If the uses are residential, even if they are zoned heavy commercial, I think you should take a look at it.
>> I think those are commercial to the west.
>> to the west, those are already commercial.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: then to the east for two blocks.
Well, if there are houses there --
>> formally initiating a plan amendment for the November 2002 cycle then.
>>Bob Buckhorn: [ inaudible ]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: yes.
There's no second.
>>Gwen Miller: anybody second?
Okay.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor of that motion say aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Linda Saul-Sena: real quick.
This is really quick.
>> I have a question, too, after you're done.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I believe I was incorrect about how far west the west Tampa overlay goes.
Does it go all the way to Himes or just to MacDill?
This is relevant to one of the other issues.
I had asked her to look at that lot and I think it's outside the overlay district.
>> actually, I think it might be on the outside.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: therefore the design considerations I was concerned with were kind of moot.
Dot best you can, but doesn't have to conform.
>> I did have a question about the plan requirements that you had.
Is that something that you actually want me to do?
Because I’ll have to collect about 25 site plans for the second revision.
I collect 15 currently just to supply everyone to staff.
Just to get the additional seven or more.
>>Gwen Miller: if there's nothing else before council, we stand adjourned.