Part 3 of 4
We are not sure, actually, whether that is a
requirement for a waiver or not.
And we were talking to Greg Yurcus, but after we
explained all this to him, he was I believe satisfied
that we were addressing his concerns with the site
plan.
So with that, I believe all of the staff comments have
been addressed.
I would just briefly mention this is a project which
has come up and approved by Council before we were
increasing as Angela mentioned, some of the
development totals, and that is what necessitated
coming back before Council this evening.
And with that, we would be happy to answer any
questions.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just one.
On the proposed condition number four, which states,
Land Development Coordination shall review the project
relative to the design and regulations --
[INAUDIBLE]
And I assume that to the best of my knowledge, I guess
those of the streets -- the streetscape --
>> Well, not just the streetscape.
The actual building facade design is part of the
overall review process.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: My question is the use of the word,
shall review.
I mean, typically if a condition would say the project
shall comply with as opposed to just something more
passive like our department shall review.
So I'm just wondering, would there be latitude there?
I'm on this red-lined version.
Number four on the red-lined version.
It just says our staff will review it.
It doesn't say they will comply.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Gloria Moreda, Land Development.
The project is in the central business district.
Wilson Stair has reviewed the proposed development and
much of the language in the central business district
design guidelines is what we talked -- maybe he can
explain to you --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm trying to put teeth into number
four to say not only will we review it, of course
we'll review it, but that they would comply with the
review.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Well, I think the intent of this
petition and this site plan was really to allow for
Council to evaluate the height of the structure, that
the intent is to comply with all the central business
district design guidelines.
I'm not aware of any waivers that they are asking
related to those issues.
And that is really what Wilson checks for in his
review.
I think he can explain to you on his comfort level on
this project.
>> Wilson Stair, urban design manager for the city.
Yes, it may read that way, we shall review, but the
ordinance is a law, and they will need to comply with
the development regulations anyway.
That's on the books.
We always have a note that's on the site plan just so
everybody knows that this is the process that they
need to go through.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In other words, if we substituted
the word "comply" with "review" then we would be even
better.
>> Yes, sir.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
I'm good with that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any more questions from Council
members?
Anybody in the audience like to speak on item 10?
We have a motion and a second to close item 10.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make a quick comment.
I would like to commend Mr. DeBose for a wonderful
rendering and a wonderful proposed project for this
area of town which needs to be retie -- revitalized
and revamped which will bring in a residential and
retail component to the area and will also help --
welcome some of our newcomers to the Tampa Bay area as
well as some of the people that would like to move
from the suburbs and come on back to the city.
And it's a wonderful project and glad to see it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
the general vicinity of 536 Channelside Drive in the
City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly
described in section 1 from zoning district
clarifications CDB 2 to CDB 2 providing an effective
date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Gloria Moreda, Land Development, we
met with Mr. Michelini and did make some changes to
the site plan.
I'm speaking on petition ZO 4-42.
We eliminated the ability to go to medical office.
We also indicated that no time shall the mix of
nonresidential uses exceed the parking required of 91
parking spaces with the waiver of 22.
>>GWEN MILLER: We still read the ordinance we had
before?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Yes, I'm going to give this to sandy.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
the general vicinity of 1702 West Kennedy Boulevard in
the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly
described in section 1 from zoning clarification CI
and RM 16 to PD retail office single-family
residential attached, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
Opposed, nay.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
We need to open item number 11 and 12 at the same
time.
>> So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 11 and 12 is open.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
Opposed, nay.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>> Good evening, James Cook, Land Development
Coordination.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate the North two feet
of an unnamed unimproved 30-foot wide right-of-way.
Lieing between Beachway drive and Watrous Avenue and
Ferncroft to Westshore Boulevard.
Originally petitioner requested to vacate 9.4 feet of
this 30-foot strip right here.
They now reduced the vacating to two feet.
Essentially there's a drainage canal in there runs all
the way from Manhattan out to old Tampa Bay.
This is looking West along the right-of-way on
Ferncroft to Westshore Boulevard.
The canal is approximately 20 feet wide.
Total right-of-way 30 feet.
They are requesting to vacate a two-foot strip on the
other side of this fence right here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the underlying purpose of
the vacating?
>> To add square footage to the area, approximately I
believe 400 square feet shy of making three buildable
lots.
I can show you in these photos.
This is looking East along the right-of-way from
Westshore.
Couple of photos along the rear of the property line.
The ditch is on the other side of the fence right
here.
This is the additional nine feet in the rear of all
these property lines.
They are requesting to vacate about two feet of this.
There's all kinds of illegal improvements in the
right-of-way.
There are fences, there's another shot of the rear
property line.
This is looking West.
You can see a shed, it's also in the right-of-way.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I used to play in this ditch as a
little boy.
[ LAUGHTER ]
I thought it was sort of like a river.
I didn't know it was a ditch.
>> This is a shot looking West.
There's another shed.
This is also looking West away from the petitioner's
property line.
This is the abutting property owner, also has a fence
across the right-of-way.
Just a couple more shots.
You can see it's overgrown.
Bunch of fences.
This is the last one.
This is looking East from Westshore.
This actually goes across the nine feet right here
that you can't even see back there.
Staff has no objections to this vacating request as
long as the drainage utility easement is reserved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is the petitioner here?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Did you open both the special --
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we did.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Do you want to hear from zoning staff
and then hear the petitions jointly?
They are tied together.
Obviously, Council, I don't think, I can act on the
80% rule special use permit application unless it
first votes on the application to vacate part of the
right-of-way.
>>GWEN MILLER: So we should hear from --
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Zoning staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to 12 first.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Typically we listen to a whole --
>> Angela Hurley, Land Development.
The petitioner is requesting a special use of the
property at 5420 and 5426 Beachway Drive to construct
three single-family residences.
The three building lots each contain 7,265, two 7,270
square feet.
The petitioner is requesting to vacate the two feet of
the drainage canal that lice to the -- lies to the
South in order to attain adequate area for the special
use request.
Minimal lot area for the request is 7,260 square feet
per lot.
Each residence will have a front load two-car garage
and stand a maximum of 35 feet in height.
The setback shown in the plan are standard RS 75
setbacks.
The development review committee has reviewed the
petition and has objections to the request.
The proposed development is inconsistent with the
following land use policy.
Policy B 3.3.
It is the intent of the city that residential
redevelopment project shall be as minimally disrupted
to adjacent areas.
In order to achieve this, the city shall assess both
the potential, positive, and I have in impacts of
residential development projects on the physical
development pattern and the character of the
surrounding area.
Require mitigation of negative off-site impacts if any
consistent with the provisions of the Tampa
comprehensive plan.
The general calculations for the study area lying
generally East of Westshore boulevard, South of wood
mere Sylvan ramble West of Manhattan avenue and North
of Neptune street are total number of lots in the
study area 286 total.
Lots measuring under 75 feet lot width are 100 total.
Total percentage of nonconforming lots are 35%.
The proposed special use is inconsistent with the
following chapter 27 section 27-272 special use
criteria.
80% lot development.
The following specific standards shall be used in
deciding an application for approval of this use.
Where two or more nonconforming lots of record in
single ownership and with continuous frontage are of
sufficient width and area to provide at least 80% of
the width and area required for three lots or less, it
may be used or divided to provide no more than three
lots.
Each with at least 80% of the width and area required
in the district in which they are located.
The provisions of this specific standard shall not be
waived, except that the City Council may consider
development in which the lots do not have 100% of the
lot width, but have 100% or more of the lot area
required by the applicable zoning district.
This request involves three platted lots, lots 10, 11,
and 12; however, without the approval of the vacating
request, the petition for the special use is invalid.
The lots will not maintain enough land area required
by the R-6 residential land use category.
The development shall be consistent with the existing
pattern of development and character of the
neighborhood in which it is located.
This is another criteria of the special use criteria.
The petitioner purchased 4522 West Beachway Drive in
1992.
The conforming zoning lot comprising one platted lot
and two-thirds of another platted lot was developed as
a single-family detached dwelling.
They acquired the adjacent single-family dwelling at
4526 West Beachway Drive in 2002.
It is also a conforming zoning lot size comprising of
one whole lot platted in about one-third of another
platted lot.
The proposed special use is inconsistent with section
27-269 general standards, A-5, the use will not
establish a precedent of or encourage more intensive
or incompatible uses in the surrounding area.
The proposed special use is an increase in intensity
of use by allowing the development of three 80% lots
where currently there exists two conforming zoning
lots.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
>> Kim Wall, Planning Commission staff.
The site, as you can see on the overhead, these three
lots.
Lots 10, 11, and 12.
And you can see in the general area that there's a lot
of very unusual size lots throughout the neighborhood.
Okay.
Angela just put the map up that's usually this way.
These are -- the ones in the blue --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to point to the subject
lots we're talking about today?
>> The green, lots 11 -- 10, 11, 12.
The ones in the blue are all nonconforming lots.
They don't meet the RS-75.
There are some on the North side that do meet the
RS-75.
But it is consistent in that area that properties are
nonconforming as it relates to the RS-75.
Our consistency finding, this area is designated as
residential 6.
Unless the easement, your previous discussion for the
easement, unless you grant that, we can only find this
inconsistent.
Without those additional square feet for each of those
lots, the property is inconsistent with the land use
plan category of the residential six.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The vacating, you mean?
>> Right, it doesn't meet the requirements.
If you don't vacate the easement, this proposal is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
So I wanted to bring that to your attention.
And they do require that two feet of land that they
are requesting to be vacated to be consistent.
Overall, and that's how, you know, we approached our
staff report.
It's inconsistent as it now stands.
If you vacate, then it could be considered consistent
with the residential six land use plan category.
And if you look at the development pattern as shown on
this graphic, there are other properties that are
similar to what they are requesting.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: One question.
Is it two feet per lot or just two feet?
>>KIMLYN WALL: I believe -- I don't have that review
of the vacating.
But it's two feet all along the --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Giving additional depth coming
back.
>> The photos that --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: For the three lots.
>> The photos you were looking at towards the
easement.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Good evening, Madam Chair.
My name is John Grandoff.
My address is 46 -- excuse me, that's my home address.
[ LAUGHTER ]
My business address is suite 3700 Bank of America
Plaza.
Oh, boy.
>>GWEN MILLER: Long night.
>> Well, we're going to make it.
Thank you.
I have the pleasure of representing Sherif and
Christine Elbanna.
Sherif and Christine is with me this evening.
Sherif is in the engineering business and Christine is
a school teacher of elementary school at Dale Mabry
elementary.
If Christine and Sherif would please raise your hand.
They are with several of their neighbors also.
This is a very compelling application, and I think
it's a unique application.
I asked you to ask me several questions so you fully
understand the issues involved.
Kim and Mr. Cook began the explanation.
Can I have that study?
>> North is up this way.
Here is Westshore boulevard heading North.
This is Ferncroft avenue.
When the Beach Park plat was done in 1924, a 30-foot
right-of-way unidentified was put right here.
This map mistakenly calls it bayway.
It's not bayway.
It's just an unidentified right-of-way in the old
Beach Park plat.
It runs behind all the homes on block 19.
And it's critical to remember block 18, block 19 and
block 20 this evening.
Sherif and Chris own these three platted lots, which
measure about 210 feet in width.
So if you divide all three, you get about 70-foot per
lot on average.
I'll get back to that on the site plan in a little
more.
Anyway, this right-of-way was platted 30 feet wide.
I'll show you on the plat in a few moments.
This is standing -- these are photographs that
Mr. Cook just showed you.
This is standing on Westshore boulevard and you're
looking -- you're looking East, and you'll see the --
what is now called right-of-way.
What's unique about this is it's not 30 feet wide,
which is what was apparently intended by the
developer.
This is built about 20 feet wide, 20 to 21 feet wide.
So from the back of Culbreath bayou to this seawall is
about 21 feet.
And then you continue another 9 feet till you get to
the end of the right-of-way.
That nine feet is behind everyone's home on Beachway
Drive, but they have built their walls and their
fences, their swing sets, their gyms, their whatever,
carports, all the way back to this seawall thinking
the seawall is their property line.
It's as if you own property on Davis Island, you
definitely owned the seawall.
They don't know that.
I think it's a case of a lot of folks never looked at
their survey.
But that's what is going on.
There's an extra nine feet that's not being used for
drainage or this waterway.
Let me step over here for a moment.
Here is a survey of the Elbanna property.
And again, Westshore would be over here.
Ferncroft would be way over here.
One, two, three lots.
This is their existing survey.
Here is the seawall I just showed you.
And from here to the yellow -- from here to the top
here is the nine feet I'm talking about.
If you can see what we're asking to vacate is just the
North two feet of that platted right-of-way.
So the city will still have 28 feet of right-of-way
for this drainage canal that in actuality measures
20 feet.
It's surplus land is what it is.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the purpose of that two feet is
to what?
>> There's no longer any public purpose.
So the better purpose would be to release it to the
Elbannas so they may add it to the assemblage of
their three lots.
When a subdivision is platted, the subdivider has
title to the right-of-way.
He just dedicates it for public use.
When it's no longer used for the public, I think the
obligation is upon the public to return it back to the
private owner or his successors and assigns.
Now the private owner in 1924 was the Beach Park
company.
The Elbannas and several of their neighbors that
live on block 19 have seceded to the interest of the
developer and title would go to them on that two feet.
The staff has reported to you they have no objection
because they have no need for it.
As a compromise and, again, to show good faith here,
we're willing to still grant back easements for
utility if ever needed.
We merely need title to the property, title that was
originally the developer's back in 1924.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's because you need the
additional square footage to create the -- to comply
with what?
>> To create the 80% rule.
>> I'm going to answer the question, okay?
Yes.
We want to add that.
That way if you go back to Kim's report, Kim's report
says that we are R-6.
And the R-6 you have to have 70 to 160 square feet
which is an acre divided by 6.
When you add the two feet by 209 feet, then -- excuse
me for a moment -- we get over 7260 square feet.
I can give you the exact measurement.
We originally asked for the whole nine feet, which
would have vacated all the way to the seawall, and the
city staff says, well, if you just need to, vacate
two, why don't you leave the other seven.
Let me show you something that's interesting.
This is Culbreath bayou.
Let me hold it up for you.
Culbreath bayou did it the right way.
Culbreath bayou did it the right way.
This was platted in 1959 by buyers Thompson, George
Thompson and Joe buyers.
I put in yellow the Beach Park 30-foot platted
right-of-way platted in 1924.
You'll see on the bottom of the yellow line is the
actual property line for people that live in Culbreath
bayou behind Sherif and Christine.
Sherif and Christine's house would be right about
here.
Now, what BIERS and Thompson did, they dedicated the
rear 20 feet of each lot, and that's the blue line.
If you look between the blue and the yellow, there's a
black line.
That is the property line.
That's the way you should have done it.
They did it the right way.
All I'm asking to do it the way it should have been
done, the way Culbreath bayou did.
This is the better way.
You'll even notice there's a diagonal blue line here
that actually created a drainage easement in between
two lots on Watrous avenue.
What's critical about that is the city personnel can
get back there and get to the ditch and maintain it.
They have a platted right.
If you go back -- let me show you the Beach Park plat.
Here is the Beach Park plat.
Sherif and Christine's lot are 10, 11, 12.
I circled -- I'll get back to the other lots in a
moment.
The ones in yellow.
You don't need to pay attention to those for a moment.
Could you hold that, Mr. Massey, for a moment?
This is the original Beach Park plat which spans up to
swan avenue, Westshore and meanders with Ferncroft.
And then here is the 30-foot right-of-way.
The developer of Beach Park never identified it.
We don't know what he meant by it.
A new plat of Culbreath bayou would be here.
That's the one I just showed to you.
You'll notice there's no way for city personnel to get
to the ditch because there's no dedicated easement
coming off of Beachway to get back there and maintain
it.
And I think Mr. Awad and Mr. Cook could readily verify
this is a tough one to maintain.
We can go back to some photographs and you'll see what
I mean.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Couldn't they come off of Ferncroft
and then go up to nine foot right-of-way?
>> It's tough.
Ferncroft has a bridge that spans over.
It's a jump down.
You have to literally jump down -- well, as you
probably remember, walk down there and get -- but you
can't get machinery down there.
I think through the Culbreath bayou platted easement,
you can get machinery in there if you ever needed to.
Again, getting back to the point -- let me go back to
the photographs.
Go back to this photograph.
Now you can see dramatically the situation.
Now, this is looking -- this is the Ferncroft bridge
that you just spoke about Mr. Dingfelder.
Machinery off the ferncroft bridge would be quite
tough.
Here is Culbreath bayou.
About here is about where that dedicated easement
would be off of Watrous so you could get personnel
down there to maintain it.
What's happened here we don't know when it happened.
The city built this sheer seawall all the way down,
and that's on the Beachway side.
Give me a moment, please.
For instance, this is Sherif's and Christine's
backyard looking East.
If you look back on the survey, this is a pool is in
the right-of-way.
You'll see I'm pointing to the seawall about here.
This is the nine-foot area I'm talking about.
We would like to vacate about two feet right here.
This is another photograph looking the other way.
This is a large tree in their backyard.
Their property line is about right here, right where
the tree is.
This is right-of-way.
Sherif and Christine maintain it.
They mow it, take care of it.
Their liable for it but it's city right-of-way.
All we're asking is to move that line to right about
there.
And they would continue to maintain it and all their
neighbors.
Now, you have this pattern all the way down Beachway
Drive.
You have this pattern of development.
Here is one more photograph.
So that's what I'm speaking with on the petition to
vacate.
Give me a moment, please.
The city staff report has no objections all the way
down the line.
They request a drainage easement which is what is
reserved on the Culbreath bayou plat.
They reserved a drainage easement.
And then Verizon and Tampa Electric and bright house
networks have also requested the right to still bring
utilities through there.
And certainly we are fine with that.
That's about all I have on the petition to vacate.
If you have any questions at this point, essentially
it's not serving any public purpose at this time.
In fact, it's pretty much been serving private
purposes, and I think it would be in the interest of
the public to vacate it and move forward.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Grandoff, do you intend to make
a presentation on the actual rezoning as well at this
time?
>> Yes, if would you like.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
Let's go ahead and do that.
>> I'll go into that one.
Let's go back to this -- how is my time, clerk?
>>CLERK: You have 17 minutes --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> Thank you.
Here is the site plan that we've prepared.
And again, here is the North two feet of the 30-foot
right-of-way.
We have designed this layout.
This is very negotiable.
Let me put it that way.
7265 square feet.
7265.
7270 square feet.
We have divided the lot, since you have a meandering
road on Beachway Drive, they are not exactly perfect,
74.7 feet.
69.9 feet.
65.1-foot.
Sherif and Chris, their plan is to demolish their two
homes that they have right now.
And I'll show them to you.
Build their new home in the middle and have two new
neighbors on each side.
There's no objection on the site plan.
All these trees are preserved.
Remember the large oak tree I showed you a little
while ago.
Here it is.
You'll see it's right there near the platted
right-of-way.
We have realigned the driveways to get around trees, a
large oak in the front has been preserved also.
>> Going back to the plat, if everyone can see the
plat, there are many yellow highlights on here.
Can you hold that again, please, Mr. Massey?
This is a project the neighborhood wants to approve.
We have polled the neighborhood of Beachway Drive.
Parcel 8 -- excuse me, block 18, block 19, block 20.
Sherif and Christine's parcels are circled in yellow.
Every one that is highlighted in yellow is a family
that supports the application.
On the block face of block 19, you have 16 lots and
homes.
15 out of 16 have signed a petition in support or have
come this evening or both to speak to you this
evening.
On the opposite side on block 20, you have all but two
have done similar.
Those folks are here this evening and also have
written letters in support.
Why have they done that?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Can I interrupt?
Can you mark those somehow with a different color so
that we can get an idea of -- you don't have to do it
right now, but maybe in rebuttal at that point.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can see it better?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yeah, I could see yellow but I can't
see --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> I can pass it around to you.
As I mentioned earlier, the parcel spans 210 feet of
width.
Without the vacating this evening, the Elbannas
could file an application, a building permit
application to divide the lot into 105 feet of width
each and proceed and build two homes meeting RS-75
setbacks.
The neighborhood does not want that.
They do not want what the Elbannas could do as of
right.
They want them to build three homes of much smaller
scale on 74 feet, 69 feet and 64 feet.
I guess I can draw an analogy, you've heard before a
bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, in this
case, three in the hand is worth two in the bush.
And this is one of the most unique applications I've
ever worked on where you have a neighborhood come
forward and says we want you to build three by
permission of City Council rather than two, which you
may do as of right.
And the reason why is they do not want two
McMansions to show up on this property and I can
identify with that.
I live in sunset park and I have a similar concern
about that as well.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the buildable envelope for
each of those?
Is that 7,000 square feet?
>> No, no.
7,000 square feet of lot -- total lot area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
So that's the -- what's the buildable footprint?
>> Mr. Dingfelder, I don't know offhand.
You have a 25-foot and a 25-foot and a 25.
Seven in the middle and 20 on the rear.
I don't have the calculation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean, isn't it equally likely
that we could have three extremely large houses?
I mean, what's the limitation?
Is it going to be self-imposed?
Are you talking about 3,000 square feet for 1500 up
and down or what?
>> I'm asking you to impose it this evening.
The Elbannas have state what had they would like to
do, is they would like you to limit their development
to 3500 square feet or less.
And they would have detached garage.
Ms. Moreda's report jumps at the conclusion they would
be front-loaded garages.
They want to have detached garages.
Let me show you a few photographs.
This is a neighbor -- well, let me back up.
This is one of the Elbanna's homes, slab on grade,
built in 1953.
This is their other home.
They live in this home.
This home is investment property.
But these are the two homes.
This is a home that I worked on a couple of years ago
on 68 feet of width which was approved on wood mere in
an 80% application and Council limited it to one
story.
This is the home next door.
So it can be done creatively and we invite the City
Council to hear those -- the concerns of the
neighborhood that wants the project at three homes and
impose this condition so you don't have that extensive
massing.
You don't have the front-loaded garage.
You have the detached garage.
There's a very -- this is what they don't want to do.
And I think it's very remarkable.
They don't want this.
They don't want to do this.
They don't want to do this.
They are so tall they can't fit on here.
This is an interesting photograph.
There's some history on it, if you pardon my talking
for a minute about it.
This is an 80% rule the City Council voted down on
Culbreath avenue about 10 years ago.
The lot width is 140 feet.
There are two 70-foot lots.
I handled that application.
The application was denied by the City Council, and
what happened is you arrived at this building, seven
foot setback on each side.
20 feet in the rear.
They call this the mausoleum in Beach Park.
This is what they do not want to do.
Again, one of the most remarkable files I've worked
on.
You have a client coming before us saying John, we
want the restriction.
This is not what they want to do.
They have a neighbor that lives down the street from
them named Karen RYLES.
And excuse me for a minute.
Let me show you her house which is very compelling.
Give me a moment, please.
I left it in my briefcase.
Well, I've got too much paper moving around.
Give me one second and I'll locate it.
Aha, there it is, on the top.
This is a nice house.
This is down the street from the Elbannas.
This is Ms. RYLES' home.
She supports the application.
Wrote an e-mail to the City Council.
And her home has a detached garage.
She backs up to the platted right-of-way also.
She is in the nine feet.
Lives about three houses down.
3300 square feet.
Very nice, tastefully done two-story home.
She supports the application.
She doesn't want the Big Mac mansion type of home.
That's 3300 square feet.
Let me speak a moment about the staff report.
Again, we're not going to front load the garages.
We would welcome a condition prohibiting that and make
them detached garages.
The physical development pattern and character of the
area is significant in that block 19 is predominantly
nonconforming and in support of the application.
Also, there are conforming lots across the street.
The Kaiser family has 130 feet and they are in support
of the application.
We're not asking for any other site plan waivers.
I just want to point out the block 19 with the Elbanna
property involved.
If you approve that this evening, you would have over
90% of the homes on block 19 at less than 75 and also
in support of the application.
We have met all the requirements of ingress and
egress, parking, refuse area, lighting, utilities,
drainage.
We are compatible with the surrounding area.
That will be demonstrated by the neighbors that will
come forward.
The areawide study, the one issue I have with the
areawide study is -- and it's just a professional
disagreement.
I don't think you can see it all.
The areawide study also took in Culbreath Isles which
is a totally different plat.
That I think skews the numbers too much.
I think what you need to focus on again is block 18,
block 19, and block 20.
The standard for 80% lot development, we met standard
"A" in that we have the sufficient -- well, we have
two or more nonconforming lots.
We've gone over the consistency test.
We've gone over the infrastructure test.
We've shown you the site plan.
We've agreed to these various conditions.
Welcome to come back on a revised site plan with any
conditions that you could devise this evening to
achieve this project.
The remainder of the requirements are fine with us.
We're not asking for a six-month waiver of
construction commencement.
And we're not a local landmark.
I am trying to be as rapid as possible.
And thorough as possible.
Clerk, how much time do I have left?
>>CLERK: Five minutes and 31 seconds.
>> Let me tell you what is next.
Several neighbors will testify in support of the
application by Christine and Sherif.
There is an e-mail I trust you received, that
indicated support from several neighbors.
Karen RYLES who lives in this home, e-mailed to me,
John, I wanted to let everyone know that I did fax my
signed letter to the City Council today.
I simply signed the one that you provided.
I do hope this project is approved as I do believe it
will enhance the neighborhood and provide value to all
our properties.
I will not be able to meet at the meeting tonight but
please let me know how it turns out.
And then she wishes me good luck, which I always
appreciate in this business.
[ LAUGHTER ]
Cindy Argerious has a letter she'll read to you this
evening.
Mark Kaiser lives across the street.
His family is on 130 feet of width, and I'll
paraphrase -- 140, excuse me.
I'll paraphrase his letter.
I strongly endorse.
We would love to see three new beautiful homes.
Modest size, rather than two very large homes, which I
think would look out of place.
I would urge you to give the residents of Beachway
Drive and those in the immediate vicinity the most
consideration since this decision will affect us day
in and day out.
In closing, the residents of Beachway and surrounding
streets support this action.
All residents of Beach Park, especially those on
Beachway will benefit from this renewal.
I have another letter from Mr. Joe Valenti in support
of the application.
I'll file these at the end of the hearing.
I have another e-mail from Lynn Reynolds.
I would like to close, zoning is local and it's
neighborhood local.
And who best to tell you what they feel about a
proposal than an immediate next-door neighbor?
Mrs. Diaz lives next door.
-- Mrs. Diaz lives next door.
She lives right here.
She'll put up with construction one way or another in
these kinds of project.
She wrote a letter: I Julie Diaz am the next-door
neighbor to Sherif and Christine for 14 years.
I know them to be of the highest integrity and it has
been a real pleasure to know them and live next to
them.
I ask that you allow them to build three homes on
three lots.
These would be three attractive medium-sized homes and
would be suitable for these lots.
It would improve our neighborhood tremendously, and
all our neighbors agree.
They are honest people, and it has been a pleasure to
have a next-door neighbor.
What they are asking would be a very good thing for
our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration, Julia Diez, 4518
Beachway Drive.
This is in her longhand.
I ask you please look at this, and keep that in mind
in the various concessions that Sherif and Christine
are offering to you this evening.
I'll close at that point.
John Argerious is going to speak to you.
He lives across the street also.
Several other neighbors are going to speak also.
And I have several other letters that I'll file on
rebuttal.
Thank you for your time and I respectfully request
your approval this evening.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You still have two more minutes,
John.
>> Well, if you don't need it, don't take it.
Right?
>> Thank you for hearing me.
My name is John Argerious.
My home is directly across the street from the
subject.
My family and I have lived in this home for more than
20 years.
I was born in Tampa, grew up a half a mile South on
San Jose, and I also played in the ditch when I was a
kid.
I've been a residential mortgage banker for 25 years.
I personally associated with more than 5,000 home
purchase and refinance transactions.
The lion's share of which have been in South Tampa.
South Tampa has and will continue to be one of the
most, if not the most desirable locations for
residence in the Tampa Bay area.
It attracts those individuals who can afford to live
anywhere they choose.
There are many multimillion dollar homes within a
quarter mile of my home, and that trend will continue
as the city continues to evolve.
Property values in South Tampa have soared year after
year.
My home is presently valued at over 600,000.
However, it was built in the mid '60s with low
ceilings and other antiquated features.
With no extraordinary influences, my home should at
least maintain this value for as much as another ten
years, further increases in value unlikely due to the
age and desirability of the home structure.
The underlying land value will continue to grow in its
percent of overall property value while the value of
the improvements will continue to decline.
Should this request for three comparably sized lots to
mine not be approved as a result of not vacating the
easement, it is entirely expected that buyers capable
of paying the price for one of the 10,000-square-foot
lots that would be resulting would also plan to build
a multimillion dollar home known as MacMansions in our
community.
Suddenly, my home becomes one out of place by
comparison, outdated and beyond its useful economic
life.
I believe these enormously beautiful homes would
instantly reduce the present value of the property
something much closer to the land value.
To the immediate extent is frightening.
It will accelerate the decline in the improvements and
the market value is undeniable.
I estimate the value of my home would fall, in fact,
by as much as a hundred thousand upon permit to build
one of these giant homes.
I am for this permit as strongly as I am against the
resulting alternative.
If this proposal is approved, I believe my home will
continue to be a comparable property to those proposed
for as much as another ten years.
Although I don't believe even these compatibility --
compatibly proposed homes would help to increase my
property value.
I know they would not accelerate the inevitable -- it
is your decision today to cause every hormone within
sight of this property to benefit or suffer from the
outcome.
I hope you can see through to protecting the serious
interest of those immediately affected and already a
homeowner on this street.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this
item?
>> Mike marvel, 4220 West Culbreath.
Several issues have been brought up.
They showed a site plan of the ditch.
I see no survey stakes showing the center of the
ditch.
Everything has been construed that there's nine feet
of frontage that's over here because we build a wall
as a city for a seawall.
Nowhere has that been proven, shown or done, and if
you go down the middle of the canal, you now have five
feet on either side, so there's really only five feet.
When you take two feet, now there's three feet between
the easement and the wall.
Everyone knows that if you have children or dogs, you
put a fence up in your backyard.
Are you going to leave five feet between yours and
theirs?
No, they are going to bring the fence right up there
so their pets and children don't fall off into the
canal.
If you go to the side that says okay where is nine
feet of setback on that side where the wall is, then
nothing should be built there because that's the only
way to access the canal, to clean it, take care of
anything that needs to be done to it, maintenance.
It's a drainage canal.
If that drainage canal gets clogged all that will
happen, all the streets in Beach Park, which flood
anyway, are going to flood even more.
And if you give them the two feet, they'll be back
here for another variance so they can build their
two-car detached garage with a three-foot setback
because there's really some more on the back and they
are going to say there's all that land.
Then if you go in there and something happens and you
happen to be excavating or putting in tile or doing
anything for the canal, damage happens to those homes,
what will happen?
The city will get sued.
You know if something happens and the city did, they
are going to sue and now there's something wrong with
the house because the garage was too close because it
was detached.
The next point, three homes, I've lived in Beach Park
for 11 years.
I lived there on Culbreath avenue.
I watched the McMansions go up.
That's what happens.
I watched people that live there for years sell their
property and make a small fortune and move on.
Building three homes there, each lot value is going to
be in excess of $300,000.
Okay?
Two lots, 350 apiece.
Less profit, less ability to build.
Also, you've got an overcrowding in the schools.
People want to be able to send their children to
plant, to Dale Mabry elementary, and they are all
zoned right there.
Right now people cannot get into those schools with
the way that we have enacted it because they want to
go to plant or they want to go to Dale Mabry
elementary and they can't because there are too many
people zoned for there.
Anyone who has driven down that street knows that it's
a through street.
Okay?
So you're going to have detached two car garages in
the back.
You have a one single car driveway to get back to it.
Where do you park?
On the street.
Now you'll have cars lined up and down the street in
front of those three houses because they don't have a
double car driveway.
They have a single car driveway.
There's not enough room to turn around in the back, so
they are going to have to back out, park on the
street.
Now everybody will be going down that street and it's
the only cut through after swan.
You cut through on Swann, go around the park at
hundred miles an hour or go down Beachway at a hundred
miles an hour.
For those of that live there and have driven there,
that's how it's set up.
And also in regards to -- we covered overcrowding.
I've seen those survey stakes, so I don't know who's
property is right, who owns what.
They showed all the pictures and there's this little
shed built there, another little shed built there.
I appreciate that.
I get another three minutes because we're covering two
topics.
>>GWEN MILLER: That doesn't mean you speak six
minutes.
>> Why not?
>>GWEN MILLER: Three minutes per person.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sir, I have a question for you.
>> Shoot.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Grandoff offers an interesting
proposition because as we know, there are some
outlandishly large -- I mean, I was driving on Azeele
today, and I just can't believe the size of some of
these homes.
They just seem so out of scale and compared to the
existing homes.
And Mr. Argerious, he lives right there, and he said
he might rather have three more modest home as opposed
to the potentiality that seems very real of having two
big giant massive homes.
And I wonder if you can speak with this.
I don't know where I'm going on this.
>> Well, massive homes as in to what?
The footprint there, 3500 square foot a pretty nice
size home in a two-story house.
Is it 9,000 square feet which I have two houses from
me and I have 6,000 across the street?
No.
But they were all given variances to build that much.
All we're doing tonight is deciding that we can build
three lots.
And you build the three lots and all the people that
live on that, if I was on that street, I would say
it's a great thing.
Now I pick up two feet of free property if I'm on this
side because you'll give it to everybody on the canal.
Give it to him, everybody else gets two free feet,
they move on.
People across the street that have 140 feet.
If it gets done, they can use 70-foot frontage and
divide their property up that they bought six or seven
years ago.
Now they have two pieces worth $350,000 apiece and
their house worth 400 maybe now is now worth 650 just
in land.
That's the thing that we're doing.
And we're overcrowding this area with more and more
structures and that's what I'm looking at.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Your concern is the slippery slope.
>> It's going to be -- it is okay here.
Now it's okay there.
And it's okay and it's okay, and here is 27 of them
that we showed.
And here's 27 over here.
If you go back to the original plat book that was
done, the first plat book in Tampa, everybody had like
almost a quarter of an acre to an acre that was there.
And then that all got divided up.
And the pool that was to this house is now the pool
behind this house over here.
And it happened on Culbreath.
It happened on all the streets.
You open it up, all of a sudden, everybody is in that
area, you've just now said, okay, everybody can divide
them up.
And now we've gone from this much density to more
density than the roads can even handle.
You can't get up and down Westshore now and you can't
go up and down Lois now.
All you're going to do is put more and more.
The children can't go to Dale Mabry elementary that
want to go there because there are too many people and
can't go to plant because there are too many people.
>>KEVIN WHITE: A question for you.
On the nine feet, on some of the pictures that
Mr. Grandoff showed from the seawall for the
right-of-way to the back of the petitioner's property,
it was showing a couple of residents that had already
illegally built structures there.
I don't know what percentage of that entire block --
>> Almost all of them.
I walked it this morning.
I walked down the canal.
>>KEVIN WHITE: If they have done that, it seems
that -- especially if they are permanent structures,
what are we going to do?
Make them tear it down at this point in time?
>> If you never accessed it, no.
I'm not saying go through there and implement that.
What I'm trying to do is stop the slippery slope in
dividing up all these homes that were put there, and
they put these properties together and then a builder
comes in and builds on them.
>>KEVIN WHITE: If the illegal structures are there
already, then maintenance crews can't get in as we
spoke before because of the bridge issue and the non--
>> You could --
>> Two of them are people filing the petitions.
People filing the petition have two of them right now
there.
So, yes, I agree with you.
But they are putting fences up.
A fence there, you can take a fence down real easy.
Yeah, the shed, lawn mower, most of the houses along
there and one tearing down, doesn't have an enclosed
garage.
Got to have a place for a lawn mower.
That's why put a structure back there.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for the time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> My name is Cindy Argerious.
I'm not going to read you my letter.
You all have it.
You can read it.
You know there are 60 people who signed petitions
because we all agree with putting in three houses
rather than two McMansions.
I live directly across the street.
Beach Park is my neighborhood.
I've lived there for 20 years.
My kids went to Dale Mabry, Coleman, plant, there was
plenty of room for them.
It doesn't make sense for us to have two large,
large -- two large homes on that street.
It's a beautiful neighborhood.
There have been a couple of large homes that have gone
up.
The neighbors don't particularly care for it.
This is a neighborhood, a neighborhood of modest
homes.
35 -- 3500-square-foot homes, 4,000 max.
Three homes directly across from my house would be
lovely.
I really do not want to wake up every morning and look
at two huge McMansions.
We have enough of that in our neighborhood and I hope
they can stop it.
And thank you very much.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Argerious, since you live across
the street and we have lot 11, 12 and -- 10, 11, 12,
are there two homes there right now?
>> There are there are two homes on those three lots.
I'm directly in front of the first 450 -- the first
45 --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which one of the three are you in
front of?
>> Probably right here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Across the other way, though.
You're up to the North.
[INAUDIBLE]
>> Everybody on here except for two people do not want
to look at two McMansions.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So there are two houses.
One in each lot.
>> They have two -- own these three lots.
Two houses on it.
There should be three houses.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> Good evening.
My name is Chris Arnold.
I live at 2911 san Miguel street in Palma Ceia.
The reason I'm here this evening is to support Mr. and
Mrs. Elbanna who I have known for about 20 years.
I know they have the integrity to do what is well for
the community at Beach Park.
I just wanted to support them this evening.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Hello, my name is Tom Cramer.
I have a bad throat, so I have to talk fast.
4307 Beachway.
Beachway is a very, very busy street in case any of
you have been down there, very, very busy, lot of
traffic.
Putting two more -- putting three houses there versus
two is going to increase the density in that area.
It's going to make it very, very busy.
Even busier than it is right now.
Two big houses, I mean, you're going to put two big
houses already, three big houses on three small lots,
I'd rather have medium size houses on medium-sized
lots.
I wish my throat was a little bit better so I could
talk to you a little more.
But right now, I would ask you to vote against this.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.