►
From YouTube: TCC PM 1/26/23
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
F
B
John
larocca
Murphy
laroco
Consulting
Group
I'm
the
agent
for
the
applicant,
we're
requesting
a
continuance
to
coincide
with
a
rezoning
that
we're
processing
at
this
time.
That
is
scheduled
at
this
point
for
April
13th
and,
as
you
know,
plan
Amendment
requests
are
typically
running
concurrent,
so
we'd
ask
for
a
continuance
to
be
considered
at
the
same
hearing
date.
B
C
Thank
you
very
much.
We
have
a
motion.
Excuse
me.
Is
there
any
one
of
the
public
their
wishes
to
speak?
To
this
continuance,
only
the
continuance
only
seeing
none,
we
have
a
motion
made
by
councilman
Miranda
seconded
by
councilman
maniskovka,
all
in
favor
aye
any
opposed
the
motion
passes.
Thank
you.
F
Jennifer
Malone
again
with
your
Planning
Commission
item
number
eight
thcpa
2223.
We
had
originally
requested
a
continuance
to
February
23rd,
however,
that
date
needs
to
be
changed
to
March
23
2023.
This
has
to
be
heard
by
the
Architectural
Review
commission
before
it
comes
to
council
and
there's
been
some
misnotices
in
rescheduling,
so
that
that
is
why
we're
the
Planning
Commission
has
requested
a
new
date
of
March
23,
2023
and.
E
Sure-
and
that
is
again
501
time.
Yes,.
G
C
C
Mr
Prime
Mr
Pressman
Mr
Pressman,
has
got.
Some
has
asked
that
his
case
be
heard,
and
yours
is
number
one
correct.
Yes,.
C
I
E
C
I
Same
problems
with
your
Planning
Commission
staff:
this
is
TA
CPA
2214,
located
at
1112,
West
Waters
Avenue,
some
background
on
the
request.
It
was
privately
initiated
it's
small
scale
and
the
request
is
to
go
from
0.39
Acres
or
is
for
0.39
acres,
and
the
request
is
to
go
from
Community
mixed
use,
35
to
community
and
Commercial
35.
I
Here
is
a
site
located
on
our
General
locator
map.
It's
in
the
University
planning
district
and
the
Lowry
Park
Central
neighborhood
Additionally,
the
transportation
planning
organization
staff
has
identified
this
area
in
the
non-discrimination
plan,
environmental
justice
map
as
an
area
of
having
high
density
of
minority
populations.
I
Here's
an
aerial
view
of
the
subject
site
you
can
see.
The
subject
site
is
located
at
North
Newport
Avenue
and
West
Waters
West
Waters
Avenue
along
West
Waters
Avenue.
The
main
land
use
is
like
commercial
uses.
When
you
go
north
of
West,
Waters,
Avenue
or
North
the
north
side
of
West
Waters
Avenue.
There
is
a
mix
of
some
heavy
commercial
and
with
that
Light
commercial
and
then,
as
you
move
north
and
south
of
West
Waters
Avenue,
you
can
see
that
it
quickly
transitions
to
single-family,
detached
homes.
I
I
And
just
replay
the
subjects
like
as
the
vacant
lot
on
the
single
family
home
is
not
included.
Here
is
the
adopted
future
land
use
map.
You
can
see
along
West,
Waters
Avenue
that
the
dominant
future
land
uses
Community
mixed
use,
35
and
then,
as
soon
as
you
go
north
of
Waters
Avenue,
it
quickly
transitions
to
the
residential,
10,
designation,
North
and
South
for
those
residential
to
catch
single
family
homes.
I
Here
is
the
proposed
utilities
map.
You
can
see
the
site
in
red
recognized
under
the
Community
commercial
35.
If
this
amendment
is
adopted.
I
I
City
staff
did
have
an
objection
to
this,
and
I
do
believe.
Frank,
Hall
and
Stephen
Benson
are
here
to
speak
on
that.
If
you
have
questions
and
the
planning
commissions,
the
Planning
Commission
did
find
this
consistent
with
two
policies.
I
They
noted
that
each
mixes
Corridor
should
be
analyzed
with
the
intent
of
being
developed
in
harmony
with
adjacent
neighborhoods
and
character
and
or
scale
with
the
general
look
of
the
community
in
context
with
its
culture
and
history
and
based
on
those
two
policies
on
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
pros
mapping
be
found
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
Tampa
comprehensive
plan.
That
concludes
my
presentation,
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
Any.
G
How
did
how
does
how?
How
do
you
see
this
fitting
in
with
that.
I
This
was
the
planning
commission's
finding,
so
I
can't
fully
speak
to
what
the
planning
commission's
deciding
on
with
this.
These
are
the
policies
that
they
cited
when
they
found
it
consistent
and
when
I
re-read
the
transcript,
they
didn't
really
elaborate
further
on
that,
but
that
is
what
the
policies
at
the
Planning
Commission
side
when
they
vote
in
for
this
okay.
C
K
Stephen
Benson
City
Planning
staff
did
object
to
to
this
item
and
it
was
for
a
specific
reason.
So
the
the
difference
in
CMU
versus
CC,
it's
it's
very,
very
limited.
The
the
CC
and
the
CMU
distinction
correlates
to
the
CG,
the
commercial
General
and
the
commercial
intensive
zoning
districts
and
the
code.
That's
why
they're
they're
very
similar,
but
the
difference
is
that
the
commercial
intensive
allows
for
more
intense
commercial
uses
and
in
the
map
that
was
presented,
you
can
see
that
the
pattern
which
is
everything
is
CMU.
K
If
you
look
at
the
zoning
level,
everything
is
CG,
it
doesn't
have
the
the
the
CI,
the
commercial
intensive
on
the
south
side
of
water,
so
Seth
objected
based
upon
the
fact
that
this
would
introduce
introduce
the
heavy
commercial
uses.
K
Those
uses
include
intense
commercial
and
Commercial
and
service
uses,
including
trade,
schools,
air-conditioned
storage,
automobile
rental,
Printing
and
Publishing
retail
sales
truck
and
trade,
trailer,
rental
warehouse
and
wholesale
trade,
vehicle,
Sales
and
Leasing
and
vehicle
repair.
Major
I
think
that
major
versus
minor
distinction
is
what
is
what
is
something
that's
different
between
the
CG
and
the
CI,
and
it
also
relates
to
the
land
use
the
CMU
versus
the
CC,
which
is
the
request
that's
before
you
today.
K
Permitted
activities
in
terms
of
special
use
permits
include
adult
uses,
temporary
help
agencies,
utility
transmission
sites,
Blood
Donor
centers.
Those
are
what
are
permitted
through
a
special
use
process
in
the
CI,
so
that
could
come
before
you
under
that
request:
If
This
Were
to
rezone
over
to
CI
after
this
amendment,
which
is
which
it
would
appear,
that's
what's
going
to
happen
because
that's
the
only
difference
between
the
two
land
use
categories
accessory
uses
under
the
CI
include
open,
storage
and
crematorium.
So
that
could
be
another
request
as
well
both
of
those
uses.
K
H
Good
morning
or
excuse
me
good
evening,
Mr
chairman
and
board
members
Todd
Pressman
200,
2nd
Avenue
South
number
451
in
St
Petersburg.
If
we
could
go
to
the
PowerPoint
please,
we
are
pleased
to
come
forward
with
the
Planning
Commission
recommendation
of
7-0.
They
unanimously
supported
this
request,
as
does
the
Planning
Commission
staff.
H
H
H
This
is
a
close-up
of
the
site
and
I've
noted
the
site
in
yellow
on
one
side.
You
can
see
when
you
pull
back
a
little
bit
further.
There
is
plenty
of
cc35
in
the
immediate
area,
another
aerial
site,
you'll
notice,
right
next
door.
Just
on
that
surface,
which
I'm
going
to
expand
upon
an
intensive
Trucking
use.
That's
there
now,
and
this
is
a
street
view
of
that
site
of
budding
directly
right
next
to
us.
H
This
is
directly
across
the
street
as
a
major
Auto
Repair
Transmissions,
that
is
the
cius,
and
when
you
look
at
the
existing
land
uses
now,
this
is
not
a
zoning
or
land
or
future
Landings
map.
These
are
actual
land
uses.
You
begin
to
see
that
there's
a
wide
variety
of
very
intensive
uses
in
immediate
area
the
site
is
located
dashed
line
the
word
site
in
the
Square
on
the
south
side
of
waters.
You
can
see
the
Reds,
you
can
see
the
blues.
H
Those
are
all
very
intensive
and
CI
uses
that
are
in
the
area
already,
and
this
I'm
highlighting
for
you.
So
you
have
Auto
Repair,
which
is
a
heavy
commercial
cius
automatic
ice
machine.
One
of
those
big
ice
machines
that
you
pull
up
to
that's
a
manufacturing
use,
Auto,
Sales
repair
junkyard
is
directly
across
the
street.
Ci
use
heavy
commercial
use
further
to
the
right.
Are
heavy
industrial
uses,
modem
code,
storage,
car
storage
and
shopping
center
and
to
show
you
those
photo
by
photo.
H
These
are
some
of
the
uses
that
I
pointed
out
to
in
the
media
vicinity
of
the
area,
some
of
the
uses
that
the
staff
was
talking
about
Ross
required
a
buffer
screen
under
zoning
code
of
a
15
foot
buffer
to
the
rear,
with
a
masonry
wall.
Shrubs
and
ground
cover
again
that's
required
by
code
and,
as
you
saw
in
the
mappings,
the
site
is
no
deeper
than
all
the
rest
of
the
commercial
or
heavy
intensive
zoning
from
Waters
Avenue.
H
Now
this
is
an
important
distinction,
because
your
zoniusaf
talked
about
some
intensive
uses
and
with
great
respect
they
threw
in
special
uses,
which
you
know
come
to
you
separately.
I
think
I
think
that's
unfair
to
State
those,
because
those
don't
come
forward
unless
you
approve
them.
But
when
you
look
at
CI
uses
that
would
be
permitted
on
the
site,
because
it's
very
small
it
excludes
by
code
a
lot
of
CI
uses.
So
a
dry
cleaning
plant
large
that
can't
go
there.
It's
too
big
a
small
one
is
already
permitted
in
CG.
That's
no
different!
H
It's
Zone
CG!
Now
heliport,
that's
not
going
to
go
there.
A
kennel
large
is
permitted,
but
the
site's
too
small
to
carry
it.
A
small
kennel
is
already
permitted
in
CG,
which
is
site,
is
zoned
already
no
difference
there,
maintenance
or
storage
facility.
Those
are
quiet,
uses,
storage,
small
load,
trips,
low
Vehicles,
no
noise,
light,
Manufacturing,
I'm,
sorry,
printing
in
terms
of
a
creatorium
that
is
absolutely
not
permitted
at
this
site.
There's
a
500
foot
buffer
required
from
residential
the
site
is
close
to
residential.
That
would
not
be
permitted.
H
Use
vehicle
major
repair
would
be
printed.
Minor
is
permitted
already,
but,
as
you
saw,
it's
very
active
throughout
the
immediate
area,
wholesale
and
Warehouse.
So
in
regard
to
the
request,
the
CI
uses
are
hampered
by
the
size
of
the
site
and
are
very
close
to
the
CG,
which
they
are
now
but
would
allow
a
few
more
additional
uses
which
the
applicant
would
very
much
like
to
have.
We
are
located
on
West
Waters
Street
that
has
28
000
or
38
000
vehicles
per
day.
H
It's
a
very
intensive
arterial,
very
busy,
and
this
is
located
directly
on
that
roadway.
So,
in
summary,
what
we're
asking
for
is
compatible
with
the
area.
That's
why?
The
Planning
Commission
staff
find
it
consistent.
That's
why
the
Planning
Commission
found
it
consistent
by
7-0
vote
and
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
opposition.
In
regard
to
the
request
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have.
Thank.
H
A
I
I
would
like
to
make
two
Corrections
for
the
record.
The
Planning
Commission
did
not
buy
in
this
unanimous
or
make
a
decision
on
this.
The
decision
was
five.
Yes,
three
no
and
two
absent
and
Planning
Commission
staff
did
not
bind
this
consistent.
Planning
Commission
found
this
consistent
or.
C
K
Thank
you,
Council,
just
to
be
clear.
Our
report
and
I
believe
the
planning
commission's
report
is
based
upon
what's
adopted,
so
it
doesn't
reflect
any
uses
that
might
exist
that
are
not
conforming
to
the
zoning
or
not
conforming
to
the
Future
land
use.
You
have
a
plan
to
identify
what
you
want
the
area
to
be
in
the
future,
but
that
may
not
align
with
what's
there
today,
so
that
might
be
the
distinction
that
was
presented.
K
J
H
C
M
Yes,
hello,
my
name
is
Alvaro
gabbaldin
I'm
here
speaking
as
a
private
citizen,
a
resident
near
the
plant
Amendment
before
you
I,
wanted
to
make
comment
to
support
the
staff
reports
finding
of
inconsistency.
The
comprehensive
plan
communicates
a
Clear
Vision
for
protecting
and
maintaining
the
character
of
existing
residential
areas.
This
law
directly
abuts
a
single-family
home.
It
further
illustrates
a
clear
Future
Vision
for
The
Waters
Avenue
Corridor,
with
a
consistent
block
of
CMU
35
running
east
to
west.
M
The
CMU
35
along
this
Corridor
creates
a
future
scenario
where
Waters
Avenue
can
follow
a
mixed-use
development
pattern
and
can
further
connect
the
residential
areas.
North
and
south
of
this
of
this
lot
to
important
key
planning
areas
such
as
the
dog
track,
Sulfur,
Springs,
Tower,
water,
water
tower
Park
and
potential
higher
quality,
Transit
service,
North
and
South
along
Florida,
Ave
or
275.
M
The
residential
area
is
located
north
and
south
of
this
road
would
benefit
from
that
consistent
mixed-use
development
pattern,
as
a
resident
of
the
area
can
share
my
personal
experience
and
many
people
walk
and
bike
along
this
very,
very
busy
Corridor.
A
lot
of
the
arguments
before
you
have
been
that
this
area
is,
as
Mr
Goods
pointed
out
kind
of
in
transition,
there's
a
mix
of
residential
there's
local
businesses.
There's
restaurants,
there's
a
Montessori
school
there's
families
walking
on
this
road.
M
So
this
decision
that
you
make
kind
of
sets
the
momentum
for
whether
this
Corridor
becomes
better
for
the
people
that
live
around
it
or
continues
to
follow
this
commercial
intensive
pattern.
So,
as
a
resident
I
wanted
to
point
this
out
and
highlight
that
this
is
kind
of
like
another
opportunity
for
you
to
clarify
what
Waters
is
and
just
because
it
existingly
is,
has
pock
marks
of
heavy
industrial
does
not
mean
that
you
should
saddle
the
residents
of
the
area
with
continuing
future
development
of
of
industrial
or
sorry
commercial
intensive
uses.
Thank
you.
H
Yes,
sir,
we
sent
out
about
36
separate
certified,
registered
notice
letters
to
the
media.
Neighborhood
we've
had
two
huge,
yellow
signs
right
on
Waters
Avenue
and
respect
the
gentleman
coming
on
down,
but
we've
done
a
pretty
intensive
notice
of
neighbors
and
I.
Just
had
one
gentleman
come
down,
I
think
is,
quite
frankly
not
his
comments,
but
supportive
of
The
Proposal
before
you.
Thank
you.
E
Mr
comment
Council
reminder
with
regard
to
this
hearing
and
any
of
the
future
land
use
map
amendments.
Those
are
legislative
matters,
they
are
not
quasi-judicial
and
just
so
you
know.
That
means
it
does
not
require
competent,
substantial
evidence
and
deference
is
given
to
the
board's
decision
and
it
would
be
upheld
if
reasonable
persons
could
differ
as
it's
the
propriety.
So
it's
really
a
reasonable
excuse
me,
a
a
lesser
standard
than
a
quasi-judicial
matter.
J
G
I'm
actually
really
surprised,
because
I
thought
this
is
something
that,
as
staff
mentioned,
is
clearly
not
in
harmony
with
what
we're
looking
for
this
Corridor
to
become
just
because
it
is
something
now
doesn't
mean
it's
always
going
to
be
that
way,
and
if
we
don't
want
to
have
heavy
commercial
along
this
Corridor
in
the
future.
This
is
the
way
that
the
city
plans
for
that
we
heard
from
a
resident
who
desperately
does
not
want
this
to
be
to
continue
to
be
a
heavy
commercial,
Corridor
I.
G
A
P
C
D
Q
As
you
see
the
property
right
here
outlined
in
red,
you
see
to
the
north,
you
have
East
8th
Avenue
to
the
South.
You'll
have
East
6th
Avenue
to
the
West.
You'll
have
North
17th
Street
and
to
the
east.
You'll
have
North
19th
Street,
the
property
is
Facing.
East
7th
Avenue
along
East,
7th
Avenue
you'll
have
a
multitude
of
commercial
establishments.
Restaurants,
bars
clubs
and
entertainment
type
of
establishments.
Q
Q
Parking
is
not
required
in
the
yc1
zoning.
The
proposed
use
here
is
for
a
bar
with
retail
sales,
and
the
site
plan
is
showing
that
the
operation
and
business
will
be
consistent
with
the
chapter
14
to
zoning
standards.
There
is
one
waiver,
and
that
is
section
27-132
and
that's
to
reduce
the
required.
C
Oh
yes,
now
we
I
apologize.
We
only
had
one
quasi-judicial,
so
if
anybody
is
going
to
be
giving
any
type
of
testimony
or
making
any
type
of
statements
in
this
agenda
item
number
nine
file
number
ab2-22-21,
please
rise
to
be
sworn
in
at
this
time.
Anyone
giving
any
type
of
testimony
or
giving
any
statement.
Q
Shall
I
restart?
Okay?
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Development
review
and
compliance
staff
has
reviewed
the
application
and
finds
the
application
to
be
inconsistent
with
the
Land
Development
code,
and
that
is
due
to
that
one
waiver
asking
for
separation,
if
approved
by
Council.
The
applicant
must
provide
revisions
to
the
revision
sheet,
which
is
within
the
staff
report
between
first
and
second
reading
I'm
here
for
any
questions.
Any.
P
For
not
a
question
if
I
may
I
know
you
said
it
inconsistent
because
of
the
closest
to
another
alcohol
beverage
correct.
So
how
would
the
rest
of
them
Zone?
That
way,
then.
J
Q
A
very
good
point,
I
understand
that
it
has
been
the
precedent
if
it
has
one
waiver,
it's
automatically
going
to
be
inconsistent,
I,
I'm
sure
I
can
talk
to
my
internal
staff
and
if
that
needs
to
be
changed,.
O
Good
evening,
Council
Michael
demaio
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
Unica
B
Geo's,
fine
wine
and
champagne
1730
East
7th
Avenue
33605,
located
in
Ybor
City
I've,
brought
the
cone
owner
Travis
horn
and
a
local
business
owner
Gio
fucorino.
To
answer
any
technical
questions.
If
the
council
has
them
as
to
the
corrections
that
staff
noted
in
the
staff
report,
those
have
already
been
made
and
submitted
to
acella
I,
don't
know
if
Steph
has
viewed
them.
Yet.
O
C
C
R
R
Have
been
sworn
in
a
co-owner
and
founder
of
Geo's,
fine
wine
and
champagne,
and
so
we
have
some
opportunities
to
again,
as
as
Michael
mentioned,
to
provide
some
some
Champagnes
that
tourists
and
locals
cannot
get
at
some
of
the
big
box
stores
like
Total
Wine
ABC,
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
just
offer
them
that
it's
not
we're
not
going
to
be
selling.
You
know
glasses
of
champagne
out
the
window
or
anything
like
that
or
or
packaging.
C
P
C
C
S
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
chairman
I
have
an
ordinance
being
presented
for
first
reading,
consideration
an
ordinance
approving
a
special
use,
permit
su-2
for
alcoholic
beverage
sales,
small
venue,
consumption
on
premises
and
package
sales,
off-premises
consumption
and
making
lawful
the
sale
of
Beverly
beverages,
regardless
of
alcoholic
content,
beer,
wine
and
liquor
at
or
from
that
certain
lot
plot,
where
attractive
land
located
at
1730
East,
7th
Avenue
is
more
particularly
described
in
section
2.
Providing
that
all
ordinances
are
parts
of
ordinances
in
Conflict
are
repealed.
C
S
C
D
T
T
T
Future
land
use
designation.
The
request
was
changed
to
R20
during
the
Planning
Commission
public
hearing
on
November
7th
2022,
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
the
change
to
R20
the
applicant
agreed
to
reduce
the
request
to
R20
at
that
meeting
and
the
Planning
Commission
voted
on
the
request
of
R20.
T
T
Here's
an
aerial
of
the
subject
site
and
the
surrounding
area.
You
can
see
the
subject
site
outlined
in
red.
The
subject
side
is
bound
by
North
Boulevard
and
West
North
Bay
Street,
West,
Dr,
Martin,
Luther
King
Boulevard
is
further
to
the
south
of
the
site.
The
area
around
the
site
consists
of
commercial
uses
along
Martin,
Luther
King
and
to
the
west,
north
and
east
of
the
subject.
Side
are
single
family
detached
homes,
foreign
this
is
facing
west
along
North,
Bay
Street.
The
subject
side
is
to
the
left.
T
T
T
T
T
T
K
K
That
is
something
that
the
plan
says
should
be
considered
by
city
council
and
as
part
of
that,
we
did
calculate
the
density
for
the
R20,
which
would
be
13
units
on
on
this
site
as
of
right
or
18
units
with
the
bonus
provision
met,
which
would
of
course,
come
back
come
back
before
you
as
a
PD.
There
is
a
PD
already
on
the
site
that
was
approved
from
the
2004
rezoning
cycle
for
seven
single
family
attached
units.
That,
however,
is
beyond
the
five-year
period
where
they
can
stick
to
their
plan.
K
Even
if
the
code
changes,
so
they
would
have
to
come
back
in
to
do
the
seven
units
and
make
sure
that
they
comply
with
the
current
code.
We
don't
know
if,
if
they
do
or
not,
it
just
depends
on
what
they
want
to
propose,
but
chances
are
they're
going
to
have
to
come
back
with
another
PD
anyway
to
develop,
what's
already
been
approved,
because
it's
so
old,
but
that
is
13
units
for
the
R20
and
our
objection
would
still
stand
based
upon
the
policies
that
were
already
presented.
Thank
you.
C
E
Yes,
Martin
Shelby
city
council
attorney
I
was
brought
to
my
attention
that
something
was
received
in
Tampa,
City
council's
mailbox
and
it
was
placed
into
a
incorrectly
or
inadvertently
into
another
case.
That's
on
tonight's
agenda,
but
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
I'd
like
to
place
that
into
the
record
for
this
case
and
Sir.
This
is
what
was
received,
so
you
could
have
a
copy
of
it,
so
you'd
be
able
to
see
it
and
address
it.
If
you
feel
the
need
to
okay.
U
C
E
Just
happened
was
that
something
came
into
Tampa
City
Council
to
your
mailbox
relative
during
in
the
course
of
and
I
may
have
it
I'll
just
and
unless
Council
wishes
to
see
it,
I
could
make
copies
of
it,
but
it
came
in
today
at
10,
A.M
and
I,
don't
believe
it
was
sent
into
the
Quasi
box
where
it
didn't
make
it
into
the
it
was
not
because
this
is
not
quasi-judicial
again.
This
is
legislative.
Can.
C
You
make
hot,
can
you
make
copies
of
it
and
while
auditioner
is
giving
his
presentation,
you
can
then
give
it
to
us
afterwards.
U
The
staff
really
made
an
excellent
presentation,
we're
in
agreement
with
the
staff
report
and
the
recommendations.
Again,
as
you
heard,
we
initially
made
a
proposal
for
the
R35,
but
after
hearing
some
of
the
comments
and
the
concerns,
certainly
by
the
city,
planning
staff
and
the
residents,
we
agreed
to
the
R20
and
that
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission,
the
R20
classification
is
consistent
and
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
also
compatible
with
this
area.
The
staff
report
cites
many
policies
in
the
comprehensive
plan
that
really
support
this
request.
U
I
think
one
of
the
most
important
ones
is
that
the
comprehensive
plan
recognizes
that
the
city
of
Tampa
is
growing
and
there
is
a
need
to
plan
for
that
growth.
Your
comprehensive
plan
certainly
encourages
growth
in
the
urban
Villages.
This
property
is
located
within
an
Urban
Village
and
is
appropriate
for
the
additional
growth
and
development
and
we're
really
not
talking
about
significant
growth.
We're
not
talking
about
you,
know,
multi-family,
we're
talking
about
really
low
intensity
growth
and
I.
Think
I'm
going
to
have
the
my
client.
U
U
One
of
the
policies
that
the
city
of
Tampa
comprehensive
plan
is
seeks
to
encourage
new
housing
on
vacant
properties
and
again
for
for
your
information.
This
property
has
been
vacant
for
30
years.
The
last
plan
that
was
approved
for
this
property
was
back
in
1989
and
there
certainly
hasn't
been
any
development
since
that
it's
currently
vacant
your
your
plan
also
encourages
the
development
of
infill
properties.
This
is
an
infill
property
and
certainly
underutilized
properties
being
vacant
for
30
years
certainly
indicates
that
this
property
has
been
underutilized.
This
meets
the
criteria
of
your
comprehensive
plan.
U
Both
the
Planning
Commission
staff
and
the
city
staff
determine
this
request
to
be
consistent
with
the
R20
planning
classification.
The
Planning
Commission
actually
approved
the
R20
unanimously,
but
again
you
know
with
a
comprehensive
plan
process.
This
doesn't
give
us
any
development,
rights
and
I
think
that's
important.
Really.
This
is
the
beginning
of
the
development
process.
U
What
we're
going
to
be
doing
is
coming
back
with
a
plan
development,
a
plan
and
we're
going
to
meet
with
the
community
we're
going
to
meet
with
the
planning
department
and
come
back
with
a
plan
that
is
consistent
with
the
area
and
consistent
with
the
policies
contained
in
your
comprehensive
plan,
but
again
I
think
it's
important
that
again
your
your
approval.
If
you
approve
it
tonight,
this
doesn't
give
the
applicant
any
authorization
to
move
forward.
U
This
is
really
the
beginning
of
the
process
and
we're
committed
to
working
in
conjunction
with
the
community
and
the
planning
staff
to
come
back
to.
You
ultimately
are
going
to
make
a
decision
about
the
plan,
but
we
need
to
get
moved
forward
with
getting
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
we
can
begin
that
process.
I'm
going
to
have
have
the
developer
just
come
up
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
his
ideas
for
this
property.
J
F
Jennifer
Malone
Planning
Commission
staff,
so
the
Planning
Commission
did.
This
is
a
little
different
than
the
case
that
I
believe
you're,
referring
to
a
couple
weeks
ago,
because
in
this
case
at
the
hearing,
the
Planning
Commission
voted
on
the
residential
20..
So
they
you
do
have
a
consistency.
Finding
in
front
of
you
for
the
residential
20..
The
applicant
did
not
amend
the
request
after
the
Planning
Commission,
they
amended
it
at
the
Planning
Commission
hearing
agreed
to
the
residential
20
and
that's
what
was
voted
on.
J
Yeah
but
I
don't
see
residents
of
28
all
in
this.
If
I'm
Number
Two
we're
number
two
correct,
I
see
r10
and.
F
R35
so
Susan
Johnson
Velez
will
speak
to
that
I
believe
there's
a
substitute
ordinance
for
you,
that
is
reflecting
the
residential
20.
But
if
you
look
in
your
resolution,
which
is
in
the
packet,
it
does
State
what
happened
at
the
Planning
Commission
hearing
that,
after
the
testimony
the
applicant
reduced
the
request
residential
20.
So
that
resolution
is
reflected
for
the
residential
20.
J
L
P
Miranda,
thank
you
Mr
chairman
I'm.
Last
last
time
we
had
one
of
these.
It
was
something
the
Planning
Commission
had
rejected,
something
at
80,
something
83
and
it
brought
down
to
50.,
but
the
Planning
Commission
never
saw
a
wanted
or
never
never
voiced
their
their
opinion
on
the
one
that
was
50..
However,
in
this
case,
I
believe
Mr
Benson
muffled
out
muffling
out
saying
we
would
have
voted
the
same
way
if
it
was
R35
or
R20
am
I,
correct,
Mr
Benson.
Could
you
have
him.
C
K
Name:
Stephen
Benson,
City
Planning.
We
did
not
review
for
the
R20.
What
the
plan
says
is,
if
you
ask
for
a
category,
that's
more
than
one
bump
up
like
if
you
ask
for
one,
that's
two
bumps
up
like
this
one.
We
have
to
identify
with
that.
Interim
category
is
and
tell
you
what
the
density
is
and
offer
it
as
an
alternative
that
was
written
in
our
stack
report
and
so
at
the
Planning
Commission
board.
Meeting
the
applicant
at
the
meeting
asked
the
Planning
Commission
to
consider
that
interim
category.
P
F
G
Mr
Benson
stay
right
where
you
are
because
the
petitioner
said
that
you
found
it
consistent,
but
you
told
us
that
you
found
it
inconsistent.
Can
you
please
clarify
that.
K
So,
to
be
to
be
clear,
we
don't
your
city
staff
does
not
issue
the
consistency
finding.
We
just
offer
objections.
That
would
be
the
Planning
Commission
to
do
to
do
that.
Our
objection
was
based
upon
the
R35,
but
we
identified
the
R20
as
an
alternative
in
our
staff
report.
A
V
F
Mullen
Clinic
commission
staff,
the
Planning
Commission
voted
residential
20.,
the
Planning
Commission
voted
residential
20.
staff
did
not
review
residential
20,
but
the
vote
was
for
residential
20..
So
that
is
the
difference
between
this
case
or
the
other
case
that
was
before
you,
because
the
the
Planning
Commission
as
a
body
thought
that
the
residential
20
was
more
appropriate.
So
you
have
a
recommendation
from
that
voting
body
of
appointed
officials
for
the
residential
20..
You
did
not
have
that
on
the
other
case
that
you're
thinking
of.
K
Yes,
the
analysis
in
the
report,
so
what
he
showed
you
was
at
the
bottom,
the
basis
of
review,
but
the
analysis
was
based
upon
the
R35.
So
all
the
policies
we
cited,
the
everything
but
your
plan
says:
if
there's
an
interim
category,
you
have
to
offer
it
as
an
alternative
and
that's
what
was
offered
in
the
stack
I'm
looking
at.
K
K
J
J
K
The
the
basis
of
review
for
the
plan
says
that
we
have
to
recommend
an
alternative
if
it
was
in
the
middle.
So
the
recommendation
is
not
the
recommendation
for
the
staff
report.
The
recommendation
is:
if
city
council
believes
the
r-10
is
not
appropriate
and
wants
another
option,
that's
what
the
R20
is
and
I
apologize.
If
that
was
unclear
in
the
staff
report,.
C
E
C
U
V
That
good
afternoon,
Charlie
Thomas
with
the
petitioner.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
V
V
Okay,
our
approach
is
to
meet
with
staff
and
find
what's
consistent
and
meet
with
the
neighborhood
association
and
the
neighbors
to
find
a
plan.
That's
appropriate.
We've
worked
with
this
body
prior
to
with
another
parcel
and
Seminole
Heights
that
was
vacant
for
20
years
also,
and
so
our
approach
to
this
in
concurrence
with
the
Planning
Commission,
is
that
those
vacant
pieces
of
property
that
are
in
the
urban
centers
that
are
located
on
a
collected
Road,
not
a
non-local
road
and
near
transportation
that
and
that
are
under
utilized
that
we
go
and
redevelop
those.
V
So
our
request
would
be
today
to
find
it
consistent
and
that
we
are
going
to
come
back
before
this
body
on
the
PD
process
to
come
up
with
a
plan
that
we
work
with
the
neighborhood
association,
as
we
have
in
the
past
to
come
up
with
a
product
that
they
find
acceptable.
We've
spoken
with
our
neighbors
we're
currently
not
in
full
agreement,
they're
seven
and
we're
looking
to
increase
the
density
to
help
meet
the
need
that
we
have
in
the
community.
V
We
were
We
join
a
project
on
Nebraska
that
we
brought
before
this
board
Nebraska
and
MLK
another
corner
there
we
put
13
units
there
and,
and
our
goal
is
to
provide
affordable
housing
and
so
the
mix
there
is.
We
have
a
school
teacher
from
Hillsboro
High
School.
We
have
three
sets
of
young
professionals,
and
then
we
have
a
set
of
college
kids
at
UT.
Who
are
there
and
that's
what
we
do?
We
find
blighted
property
we
come
back.
V
We
provide
affordable
and
affordable
relative
today,
with
prices
going
up,
housing,
that's
needed
in
the
city,
I
just
wanted
to
bring.
We
met
with
the
city
and
and
we're
okay.
I
would
like
I
would
request
approval
today,
but
if
not
we're
okay
but
I
just
want
for
clarity.
The
city
recommended
this.
We
spoke
to
City
staff
and
City
staff.
The
recommendation
of
the
R20
is
in
their
report
that
that
I,
don't
I,
don't
necessarily
know
that
is
that
they
have
to
offer
alternative.
They
were
rating
it
for
this.
V
They
said
we
would
recommend
R20,
which
was
a
point
that
we
shared
at
the
Planning
Commission
when
we
agreed
to
that
because
we're
looking
for
agreement
if
staff
is
in
agreement
we're
in
agreement,
we
can
work
through
this
process
and
that's
the
same
commitment
that
we
have
to
working
with
the
neighborhood
association,
as
we
have
in
the
past.
To
get
this
project
completed
and
making
this
a
useful
piece.
V
There
will
be
no
additional
pressure
traffic
put
into
the
neighborhood
because
by
its
North
Boulevard
and
there's
a
a
working
alley
behind
the
property,
there's
a
similar
situated
property
further
west
down
the
street,
where
they
have
a
property
that
faces
a
North
Bay
and
uses
alley
access
for
an
ancillary
structure.
We
look
forward
to
your
support.
If
you
have
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
I
A
C
Z
Yes,
Harold
holder
with
bush,
Ross,
Law,
Firm,
1801,
North,
Highland
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
my
clients,
who
are
at
4104
North,
Lynn
Avenue,
which,
if
you
see
up
on
the
screen
this
is
this
the
subject
site.
This
is
their
their
property.
Here
for
decades
there
was
a
single
family
home
on
the
subject
site
and
about
15
years
ago
the
developer
replatted
it.
So
there
would
be
seven
Town
Homes,
which
are
shown
here
under
the
current
density
r10.
Those
seven
Town
Homes
could
be
built.
Z
That
would
be
a
seven-fold
increase
in
in
the
prior
density
and
in
all
of
the
density
in
the
surrounding
some
South
Seminole
Heights
neighborhood,
my
clients
and
at
least
167
of
their
neighbors
I.
Have
the
petitions
here
that
I'll
attender
today
oppose
this
request
to
double
the
density
at
this
site.
The
the
surrounding
neighborhood
of
of
South
Seminole
Heights
is
filled
with
single-family
homes.
It
borders
the
river
it
borders
MLK
on
the
Frontage
of
MLK
there
there
is
some
commercial
use
on
the
Frontage
of
Florida,
which
is
the
other
border.
Z
There
is
some
commercial
use,
but
in
inside
the
neighborhood
is
all
you
know.
It's
about
12,
1250
homes
and
and
that's
this
is
from
the
the
city's
website.
The
neighborhood
guide,
doubling
the
future
density
so
would
then
allow
for
a
tenfold
increase
in
the
density
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
that
that
should
not
and
cannot
happen
for
several
reasons.
Z
First,
there's
procedural
problems
and
due
process
issues
the
the
main
one
being
that
this
is
the
the
applicant's
affidavit
yeah,
the
property
owner
and
the
affidavit
is
Paul
Sierra,
Sierra
commercial,
Holdings,
LLP,
formerly
known
as
North
Bay
real
estate
holdings
LLP.
If
you
look
at
the
Property
Appraiser's
website,
they
they
don't
own
that
property.
The
property
is
owned
by
610
Equity
Group
LLC.
There's,
there's
been
no
authorization
of
the
the
people
that
you've
heard
heard
from
today
to
submit
this
application.
They
weren't
authorized
by
the
owner
to
be
before
the
Planning
Commission.
It
fails.
Z
It
fails
from
day
one
because
of
that
issue
and-
and
it
can't
go
forward,
but
it
also.
It
also
fails
on
the
merits.
There's
some
other
due
process
issues
with
the
signage
things
that
were
brought
to
the
attention
of
the
Planning
Commission.
They
did
the
same
thing
with
the
signage,
where
you
would
only
see
it
if
you
turned
the
quarter
and
we're
in
the
corner
of
the
property,
you
wouldn't
see
it
if
you
were
driving
down
North
to
the
park
or
going
to
the
neighborhood,
but
certainly
When
The
War
got
out.
We
we
had.
Z
We
collect,
collected
all
these
petitions
to
to
address
the
merits,
the
plank
the
plan
criteria.
This
is
from
the
staff
report
at
page
60
talks
about
when
you
should
amend
the
plan
and-
and
it
talks
about
this
being
a
major
policy
decision.
It
should
only
be
done
when
the
thoughtful
and
Adoption
of
the
comprehensive
plan
that's
already
taken
place
is
no
longer
appropriate
and
it
talks
about
how
that
can
happen
when
there's
a
significant
change
or
an
error
in
the
plan,
a
significant
change
at
the
property
or
an
error
in
the
plan.
Z
There's
no
there's
nothing
before
the
this
body
or
there
was
nothing
before
the
Planning
Commission.
That
suggests
that
and
you'll
see
there
is.
There
is
an
area
designated
digital
20
to
the
north
of
here.
That's
already
been
developed
as
single-family
homes,
they're
being
built
now,
they'll
be
there
for
years.
So
even
this
one
area
in
the
neighborhood
that
was
designated
as
as
R20
is,
is
going
to
be
single
family
homes,
and
so
the
applicant
has
no
good
reason
for
this.
It
you've
heard
how
the
process
was
a
mess.
Z
E
Yes,
with
regard
to
petitions,
just
remember:
Council
petitions
in
quasi-judicial
matters
are
not
competent,
substantial
evidence,
but
confident
substantial
evidence
does
not
apply
to
legislative
matters.
This
is
a
fairly
debatable
standard
and
I'm
going
to
pass
these
around
and
then
ask
replacement
foreign.
C
E
W
John
mowell
4104
North
Lynn
Avenue
Tampa
Florida
I've
lived
within
a
block
of
this
applicants
properly
for
70
years,
so
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
the
area
and
I'd
like
to.
Z
W
Sorry
this
is
a
picture
of
that
alley
that
has
served
as
a
buffer
for
since
1908.
I'll
have
it
here.
W
They
approached
us
and
said
they
wanted
to
build
a
parking
lot
on
North
Bay
to
accommodate
a
second
story
on
a
law
office
that
was
an
MLK
and
the
city
council
at
that
time
said
no
way:
you're
not
coming
over
into
a
residential
area
which
has
been
there
for
a
hundred
years
and
change
it
to
something
just
to
accommodate
somebody
on
Martin
Luther
King,
then
that,
as
you
can
see,
it's
a
nice
alley,
nice
walk.
It
separates
the
people
from
on
MLK
from
the
residential
area
that
has
been
there
for
since
1908..
W
Please
note,
though,
Planning
Commission
staff
have
have
reviewed
the
application
for
sufficiency
statements
or
materials
provided
in
the
submittal
or
the
applicant's
own
finding
and
have
not
been
verified
by
the
Planning
Commission
staff.
They
can
say
anything
at
all.
The
world
I
mean
they
can
tell
you
that
this
is
an
arterial,
Road,
North
Boulevard.
It's
32
feet
right
away.
W
The
speed
limit
is
15
miles
an
hour
and
there's
two
lanes
that
are
designated
for
bicycles:
I
got
behind
a
bicycle,
going
five
miles
an
hour
the
other
day
and
we
crept
along,
but
they
had
the
right
to
do
that.
So
I
think
that's
kind
of
mislighting
misleading
to
say
that
the
traffic
area
around
this
would
accommodate
this
higher
density
twice.
What
they
have
been
approved
for
I
could
go
on,
but
hopefully
you'll
say
no
to
this
application,
and
perhaps
somebody
else
will
have
a
better
reason
than
I
do
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
AA
Right
so
I'd
like
to
take
an
issue
with
the
city
staff
under
their
obligation
to
review
a
lower
level
land
use
from
the
R35
to
the
R20,
as
the
developer,
Charlie
Thomas
came
up
here
and
stated
that
they
approved
that
that's
not
what
happened
here.
There
was
a
whole
debate
about
that.
AA
It
was
reviewed,
it
has
not
been
approved
and
it
was
not
reviewed
in
its
entirety
by
the
city
staff
so
to
come
up
here
and
say
that
it's
approved
by
them
is,
you
know,
just
disingenuous
as
residents
many
are
here
tonight
and
many
have
signed
petitions
and
been
here
in
previous
planning
hearings
for
the
Planning
Commission.
We
are
opposed
this
because
there
is
not
the
infrastructure
to
support
the
additional
land
use
and
densification
of
this
one
lot
right
right
now
we
have
a
14
foot,
six
inch
Street
on
West,
North
Bay.
AA
It
cannot
support
two-way
traffic,
as
is
we
are
one
block
off
MLK
right,
so
people
cut
through
to
kind
of
miss
the
traffic
and
everything
we
do
not
have
continuous
sidewalks.
We
don't
have
sidewalks.
So
that's
an
issue.
We
have
a
significant
pedestrian
traffic
personally
I
walk
over
10
miles
a
day
up
and
down
the
streets
in
that
neighborhood.
Okay
and
I
can
tell
you
that
there
is
a
problem
and
to
increase
the
traffic
to
this
area
is
crazy.
It's
just
not
supported
by
the
current
infrastructure.
AA
In
addition,
when
you
think
about
all
the
additional
units
you
want
to
put
there
right,
where
is
the
Overflow
parking?
We
don't
have
street
parking?
North
Boulevard
will
not
accommodate
street
parking.
They
are
each
single
Lane,
two-way
streets,
West,
North,
Bay
and
North
Boulevard.
You
do
not
have
increased
land
use
on
these
particular
roads.
You
have
it
on
MLK,
which
is
four
lanes
across.
You
have
commercial
use
and
some
residential
use
on
those
on
that
line,
but
it's
four
lanes
across
we
also
coupled
with
this
current
R20
right.
AA
We
have
the
church
lot,
which
was
a
church
lot,
not
used
for
the
five
years
that
I've
lived
there,
but
they're
building,
13
single-family
homes.
You
combine
that
with
the
additional
you
know:
population,
growth
and
unit
growth
on
this
one
corner
Which
is
less
than
a
block
away.
You
are
going
to
drown
this
beautiful
neighborhood
I,
understand
Urban
I
lived
in
New,
York
City
for
50
years
of
my
life
before
I
moved
here
five
years
ago.
I
understand
it
I
understand
what
it
is
to
park
on
a
street
to
parallel
park
to
look
for
parking.
AA
I
get
it.
You
don't
understand
what
it's
going
to
do
to
this
neighborhood.
That
cannot
support
it.
You
don't
have
one-way
streets.
You
have
two-way
streets
that
cannot
support
two-way
traffic.
As
of
now,
you
look
at
a
regular
SUV.
That's
like
six.
You
know
six
feet
across
when
people
come
and
pass
you
can't
pass.
There
are
no
sidewalks
of
pedestrians.
When
you
talk
about
having
additional
land
use
and
population
where's
the
sanitation
going
to
go.
Where
is
the
infrastructure
to
support
this
increased
population
growth?
You
don't
have
proper
setback
for
sanitation.
AA
Where
are
they
going
to
put
their
garbage?
It's
going
to
sit
out
on
a
residential
street.
We
are
single
family
homes.
The
church
lot,
which
is
much
bigger,
did
not
build
a
20-store
building.
They
built
single-family
homes
commensurate
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood.
In
addition,
the
South
Seminole
Heights
civic
association
is
opposed
to
this
and
they
had
to
leave
and
someone
else
will
read
their
statement.
Thank.
C
AB
Hello,
everybody
I
was
not
expecting
to
read
this,
but
you
know
we
jump
in
and
do
our
part
I.
My
name
is
Patrick
Gore
I'm
a
20
some
odd
year
resident
of
South,
Seminole,
Heights
third
generation
Tampa
I'm.
Reading
this
on
behalf
of
Emily
Perkins,
the
South
Seminole
Heights,
civic
association
was
unable
to
be
here
so
I
got
a
tldr
to
read
here
so
bear
with
me,
hello
and
so
just
bottom
line
up
front.
AB
The
civic
association
I,
don't
know
who
said
it
over
here
opposes
this,
but
we'll
get
to
the
long
form
here,
hello,
Council.
My
name
is
Emily
Perkins
and
I'm.
Vice
president
of
South
Seminole
Heights,
civic
association,
our
president
Charlie
Hartford
has
an
extended
illness
that
prevented
her
from
speaking
in
opposition
this
evening.
Both
of
us
oppose
of
this
change
in
land
use,
designation
for
the
property
at
West,
North,
Bay,
Street
and
North
Boulevard
in
South
Seminole
Heights
of
the
Seminole
Heights
overlay
District
in
the
entire
Seminole
Heights
over
Lake
District.
AB
The
only
place
you
do
find
several
multi-story
R20
and
larger
designations
throughout
the
Seminole
Heights
overlay
District
are
all
developed
to
front
one
of
our
four-lane
state
highways
like
Dr,
Martin,
Luther,
King,
Boulevard,
Florida,
Avenue,
East,
Hillsborough
or
Nebraska.
Each
of
these
developments
border
only
one
single
City
street.
This
proposed
development
does
not
meet
that
criteria.
AB
We
wish
to
keep
it
this
way
for
several
reasons.
These
narrow
two-lane
streets
that
border
this
property
are
not
suited
for
additional
traffic.
West
North
Bay
Street
is
only
17
feet
wide
and
there
is
only
sloppy
dirt
for
curbing
on
the
street.
The
minimum
width,
even
for
Rural
Road,
the
smallest
described
Road
in
traffic
planning,
is
a
minimum
of
20
feet
wide
in
Seminole
Heights.
Every
case
in
which
his
multi-story
apartment
complexes
has
been
built.
Beside
one
city
street
has
caused
significant
parking,
overflow
and
traffic
problems
on
that
street.
AB
AB
Since
Armature
Works
was
built,
North
Boulevard
traffic
has
significantly
increased
it
horribly
and
is
used
as
a
shortcut
by
Seminole
Heights,
Riverside
Heights
and
table
Heights
to
reach
both
Armature
Works
in
South
Tampa.
There
is
no
left
turn
traffic
signal
on
MLK
and
it
would
be
required
to
reach
its
property
when
eastbound
or
communities
not
advocated
30.
AB
Thank
you,
sir,
to
fdot
since
2016
to
install
this,
but
have
repeatedly
answered
with
a
no
most
traffic.
Turning
down
the
speed,
turning
North
speed
up
down
the
Narrow
Street
increasing
density
and
making
it
more
dangerous,
South
Seminole
Heights
boasts
the
highest
historic
home
percentages
in
Seminole,
Heights
overlay,
District,
78,
are
of
our
home,
of
our
homes
are
in
South,
Seminole
Heights
built
between
1900
and
1959..
We
love
our
neighborhood
and
the
Charming
aesthetic
of
our
historic
homes.
AB
We
do
not
want
to
set
dangerous
precedent
in
your
ruling
and
ruin
the
charm
with
their
entire
Seminole
Heights
overlay
District.
If
this
land
use
designation
change
is
approved,
developers
will
seek
to
build
additional
multi-story
apartment
complexes
that
border
two
or
three
more
smaller
neighborhood
streets.
Ask
yourself:
would
you
want
a
14-unit
apartment,
complex
built
next
to
your
house
on
your
street?
These
are
all
residential
streets.
The
examples
given
prior
are
specifically
on
Commercial
streets.
AB
To
put
it
simply,
this
is
in
apples
and
oranges,
sort
of
comparison,
that's
being
made
to
justify
this
building
or,
as
my
mom
would
say,
this
is
you
know,
arosco
and
mango.
This
is
all
mixed
up.
AB
P
AC
I'm
Megan,
Uecker
and
I'm
as
well
a
resident
in
this
neighborhood
I
live
at
4105,
North,
Lynn
and
I
would
just
like
to
read
and
excerpt
in
the
event
that
city
council
determines
that
the
above
criteria
are
not
met.
Then
city
council
may
have
caused
to
deny
the
amendment.
If
city
council
makes
a
determination
that
the
existing
land
use
classification
is
no
longer
in
the
best
interests
of
the
public,
it
may
approve
the
amendment
or
direct
the
local
planning
agency
to
propose
an
alternative
Amendment
to
the
existing
land
use
classification.
AC
If
a
land
use
is
changed
based
on
this
criteria,
the
property
owner
shall
process
through
a
site
plan
district
and,
if
provided
for
in
the
city's
Land
Development
regulations
shall
meet
the
development
performance
incentive
criteria
unless
the
development
is
within
an
approved
Community
planning
area
adopted
form-based
code
area,
in
which
case
a
site
planning
plan.
Zoning
may
not
be
required,
as
provided
for
in
the
specific
plan
in
the
Land
Development
regulations.
AD
Hello
city,
council,
respectfully,
my
name
is
Bill
weiner
I
am
a
recent
Resident
of
this
area.
I've
lived
there.
Two
years
my
house
faces
West
North,
Bay
Street,
one
block
east
of
the
proposed
site
to
back
out
of
my
driveway
I
have
to
turn
twice
because
the
street
is
so
narrow
without
hitting
John's
property
behind
it.
It
just
simply
doesn't
support
that
kind
of
use.
You
cannot
I
mean
a
delivery.
AD
Truck
will
come
by
and
you
can't
get
by
the
truck
until
he's
done
and
moved
his
truck
out
of
the
way
vehicles
cannot
pass
each
other
on
the
road
it's
it's
and
to
introduce
volumes
of
people
coming
back
and
forth,
cutting
around
the
block
to
shortcut
MLK
and
the
traffic
lights.
There
would
create
a
hazard
for
children
and
baby
carriages
that
the
neighbor,
the
residents
walk
down
the
street,
with
no
sidewalks
they're
on
the
street,
walking
their
kids
and
families
and
and
dogs,
and
it's
it's
very
difficult.
AD
It's
and
I
I
would
not
even
see
the
site
from
my
house,
but
the
traffic
and
the
support
of
the
infrastructure
would
be
untenable.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
AE
Thatch
I
live
around
the
corner
on
on
Clearfield.
This
whole
thing
is
kind
of
seems,
kind
of
ridiculous
got
20
units
in
there
and
I.
The
thought
of
my
brain
was
okay
in
a
Super
Bowl
party.
How
many,
how
many
Extra
Spaces-
and
there
are
none
where
the
car
is
going
to
go-
I
mean
it's
it's
kind
of
a
little
bit
ridiculous
and
and
then
you
get
storm
water
runoff,
you
got,
you
know
it's
they're,
taking
a
0.7
acres
and
putting
you
know
basically
blocking
it
off
the
where's
the
water
go.
AE
You
know
now,
we've
got
all
those
issues
and
you
know
the
argument
is
like
give
me
a
million
dollars.
Anybody
up
there
want
to
give
it
I'll
take
500
000.,
you
know
that's
the
argument
of
R35
to
R20
I
mean
it's.
It's
almost
like
I,
don't
know!
You
know
I'm
I'm
kind
of
perplexed
by
the
argument.
It's
r10,
but
we're
going
to
ask
for
R35
but
give
us
our
20..
AE
AF
AF
They
did
not
I,
never
heard
of
them
for
from
them
asking
us
how
we
felt
about
it,
so
that
was
a
little
misleading
on
their
part.
We
have
new
development
in
the
neighborhood,
the
pla,
the
the
lot
is
probably
three
times
as
big
as
that
one
they're
putting
13
houses
on
it
and
that's
a
lot
compared.
She
already
approved
for
another
section
that
they
build
four
more
houses
or
five
more
houses.
Already
that's
in
addition
to
those
13.
Now
they
want
to
add
an
apartment,
complex
right
there.
We
cannot
support
it.
AF
We
don't
have
the
infrastructure
I,
invite
you
to
come,
walk
the
neighborhood
with
us
at
any
time
and
you'll
see
that
nightmare,
that
we
face
every
single
day
with
traffic
no
sidewalks
and
to
add
more
residents
to
the
area.
I
understand
that
we
need
more
development,
but
that
this
is
just
not
the
right
place
to
do
it.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
C
X
X
That
my
husband's
grandmother
and
grandfather
purchased
in
1908
to
build
a
house,
and
so
we
are
a
historical
Community.
We've
been
there
a
long
time
as
one
of
the
other
people
said
most
of
our
houses,
our
old
houses,
the
developer.
When
he
purchased
the
sign
on
the
this
for
sale.
Sign
said:
seven,
seven
houses
could
be
built,
and
so
I
I
think
that
for
him
to
then
decide
well,
he
could
make
more
money,
so
he
could
come
before
you
and
make
build
more
houses.
X
My
concern
is
that
what
this
is
is
the
nose
the
camel's
nose
in
the
intent,
if
you
put,
if
you've
been
on
North
Boulevard
South
of
Martin
Luther
King,
you
know
that
they're
building
and
building
and
building
apartments,
and
so
my
concern
is
that
West
of
North
Boulevard
there
are
a
lot
of
houses
that
have
very
deep
lots,
and
what
will
happen
is
that
they
will
come
back
to
you
come
back
to
you
and
say:
well
you
have
that
apartment
across
from
there.
X
So,
let's
just
go
on
down
until
we
get
to
the
Korean
church
and
so
then
that
whole
thing
will
be
Apartments
and
when
the
developer
says
he's
wanting
to
build,
affordable
housing,
new
houses
in
our
area
easily
go
for
a
million
dollars
now
and
so
I.
Don't
think.
Any
developer
is
going
to
come
into
this
to
this
art
to
our
community
and
decide
that
they're
going
to
build
affordable
houses
when
they
can
build
a
700,
000
and
800
000
and
900
000.
A
million
dollar
house.
X
I
would
hope
that
you
would
help
us
to
protect
this
historic
neighborhood
and,
as
Jesus
said,
they
have
not
reached
out
to
us
and
and
they
at
the
Planning
Commission
they
told
us
that
they
would
they
have
not.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
V
Yep
Charlie
Thomas.
Thank
you
again
for
your
time.
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
meet
Mr
Jesus
I
have
spoken
to
my
friend
and
his
wife
on
several
occasions.
I've
spoken
to
my
neighbors
on
several
occasions
at
their
property.
My
partner
spoken
to
him
at
our
subject:
property
on
the
site.
We've
I've
talked
with
the
other
neighbors
down
the
street
and
just
to
get
clarity
on
on
our
street
between
North
Bay,
between
Lynn
and
North,
Boulevard
I
think
there's,
six
new
houses
that
have
been
built
during
this
time
period.
V
The
house
directly
across
is
new,
there's
a
remodel
house
just
East
and
there's
two
new
construction
houses
as
you
go
down
the
street
and
if
you
work
your
way
down,
North
Boulevard
the
development
is
coming,
and
so
the
the
challenge
is:
how
do
we
balance
the
development
but
as
they
spoke
as
they
speak
as
you
go
down,
North
Boulevard
from
MLK
going
north
I.
Think
every
house,
except
for
maybe
one
or
two
on
North
Boulevard
on
the
east
side,
are
brand
new.
It's
changing.
The
neighborhood
has
changed.
V
It
has
continued
to
change
in
housing
and
bringing
the
density.
That's
needed
in
the
neighborhood.
Let
me
to
answer
the
ownership
question.
We
purchased
the
property.
We
were
under
contract
with
Paul
J
Sierra
and
then
610
Equity
Group.
We
own
16,
Equity
Group.
That
was
the
chain
of
ownership,
wanted
to
bring
Clarity
to
that.
V
A
V
Yes,
sir,
all
right,
let
me
to
clarify
how
we
got
to
the
CMU
35
when
we
first
took
this
talk
to
City
staff.
On
the
development
side,
there
was
a
similar
situated
property,
just
north,
just
south
of
MLK
that
come
before
you,
that
is
in
the
Tampa
Heights
overlay
District,
but
it
was
all
residential
and
the
council
turned
that
project
down
because
it
didn't
have
any
commercial
components.
V
That's
how
we
got
to
when
we
were
talking
with
count
when
we
were
talking
with
staff.
He
said
you
have
a
similar
project
of
what
you're
proposing.
This
is
what
happened,
and
this
is
why
it
happened.
That's
how
we
got
to
the
CMU
35.
V
We
were
because
the
R20
didn't
allow
for
us
to
be
able
to
use
a
commercial
use
if
Council
saw
that
that
was
the
direction
that
they
wanted
to
go
in,
as
we
were
going
through
the
process
when
we
were
at
the
Planning
Commission
and
that's
when
we
were
always
amenable
to
R20.
But
that's
where
the
rm35
came
from.
U
Appreciate
that
again,
Stephen
Thompson
attorney
for
the
applicant.
A
lot
of
the
issues
that
were
brought
up
by
the
opposition
really
are
site
plan
issues
and
will
be
dealt
with
later
in
the
process
and
certainly
I
want
to
make
the
representation
we're
not
going
to
put
multi-family
development
on
this
property.
U
You
know
the
comprehensive
plan
is
what
should
be
guiding
the
council
and
the
city.
We've
followed.
The
plan
I
mean
when
we
when
we
met
with
the
planning
department.
We
always
said
that
you
know
what
is
appropriate.
You
know
what
is
a
consistent
land
use
and
that's
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
right
now,
based
upon
the
policies
and
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
public
hearing,
your
Planning
Commission,
unanimous
unanimously
approved
it
financed
in
compliance
with
a
comprehensive
plan.
U
We're
we're
also
not
asking
for
development
at
this
point
in
time.
We
know
we're
going
to
have
to
go
through
that
plan
development
process
and
I'm
going
to
make
the
representation
we
are
going
to
meet
with
the
community.
It's
going
to
be
a
plan
that
is
going
to
be
discussed
with
the
community.
We're
not
going
to
come
here
without
having
that
that
input,
but.
B
U
We're
going
to
develop
a
site
plan,
that's
consistent
with
your
comprehensive
plan,
we're
going
to
work
with
the
community
and
with
your
staff
to
come
back
and
present
this
plan.
We
would
request
the
approval,
so
we
can
move
this
process
forward.
The
other
thing
I
would
like
to
mention.
This
property
has
been
vacant
for
30
years.
It's
about
time
that
we
get
some
development
on
this
property.
Thank
you.
L
I
do
want
to
just
mention,
particularly
because
the
applicant
has
said
several
times
now
that
you
know
a
lot
of
these
issues
will
be
dealt
with
at
site
plan
and
when
we
do
the
rezoning,
we
come
back
with
a
specific
plan
for
this
property,
so
I
just
wanted
to
remind
Council,
and
you
do
have
in
the
at
the
very
last
attachment
F
to
the
staff
report
from
the
Planning
Commission,
there's
three
or
four
pages
that
talk
about
what
what's
happening
when
you're
adopting
an
amendment
to
the
comprehensive
plan
and
and
what
that
means.
L
So
I
just
want
to
read
a
little
bit
from
that.
It
says
an
amendment
to
the
Future
land
use
map
in
particular
is
a
declaration
that
growth
and
development
pattern
initially
sought
by
the
city
in
a
particular
location
through
thoughtful
adoption
of
the
comprehensive
plan
is
no
longer
appropriate
and
so
part
of
what
you're
deciding
is
whether
or
not
the
r10
at
this
location
is
no
longer
appropriate,
and
if
it,
if
you
believe
it
still
is
appropriate,
then
then
you
know
you
should
let
that
guide.
L
Your
guide,
your
decision
on
this
application
to
to
double
the
density
so,
and
it
also
talks
about
the
fact
that
amendments
should
not
occur
with
the
same
frequency
as
partial
rezonings
and
their
effect
upon
the
entire
comprehensive
plan,
including
the
Practical
consequences
of
the
policy
shift
signified
by
the
amendment,
should
be
considered
so
and
I
also
want
to
remind
Council.
You
know
the
property
changes
hands
all
the
time.
This
particular
piece
of
property
changed
hands
while
this
application
was
being
processed.
L
So
the
you
know,
statements
that
are
made
by
the
applicant
in
front
of
you
shouldn't
I,
don't
want
to
say
shouldn't
be
taking
this
true,
I'm
sure
they're,
true,
but
lots
of
things
can
happen
with
property
in
the
interim
between
the
time
that
you
make
the
comprehensive
plan
change
and
the
time
that
the
property
is
ultimately
developed.
So
the
question
before
council
is
whether
the
r10
continues
to
be
appropriate
or
whether
a
change
in
this
area
is
a
more
appropriate
designation.
C
N
Can
you
or
someone
on
staff
confirm
that
the
applicant
is
the
owner
of
the
property.
L
I
Believe
Miss
Malone
has
spoken
to
the
to
the
applicant
and
they
are
I
believe
the
gentleman
that's
here
is
a
representative
both
610.
L
F
C
G
File
number
ta
CPA
22-16,
denying
an
ordinance
amending
the
Imagine
2040
Tampa
comprehensive
plan.
Future
land
use
element,
future
Lane
use
map
for
the
property
located
at
610,
West
North,
Bay
Street
from
residential
10
to
residential
20
right
I
mean
we
can't
relate
the
conflict.
Providing
severability
doesn't
really
matter
so
stop
right.
There.
C
G
I'm
happy
to
add
it
that
that
it,
it
does
not
fit
within
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
it
is
not
in
harmony
with
the
adjacent
neighborhood
and
the
and
not
in
character
or
scale
with
the
general
community.
C
G
E
AG
AG
AG
This
is
Linebaugh
Ave,
Facing,
East
again
north
of
the
subject
site.
AG
This
shows
the
adopted
future
land
use
map.
The
subject
site
is
surrounded
by
the
dashed
line.
It
is
currently
residential
10
and
immediately
to
the
South
and
North
you'll,
see
more
residential
10
over
to
the
east
and
west
of
the
subject
site
a
little
further
out.
You
will
see
residential
20
Community
commercial
35,
as
well
as
a
plot
of
residential
35.
AG
foreign
units
allowed
will
be
about
five
with
the
potential
for
10.
With
this
change,
existing
non-residential
will
be
about
7
600
square
feet
with
that
change
being
about
10
800
square
feet
of
non-residential.
So
this
would
allow
for
an
increase
in
development
potential,
allowing
higher
residential
density
and
greater
commercial
intensity.
Any
non-residential
uses
must
meet
commercial
locational
criteria.
AG
City
of
Tampa
staff
did
object
to
this
plate,
Amendment
and
they're
here.
To
provide
further
comments
on
that.
AG
AG
J
Ma'am,
can
you
put
the
the
map
up
the
gold,
red
and
brown
back
again.
K
Stephen
Benson
City
Planning
staff
just
to
clarify
staff's
objection.
The
difference
between
the
r10
and
the
R20
is
R20
introduces
multi-family
uses.
Our
10
only
allows
single
family
uses,
so
the
form
and
the
scale
could
be
different
and
after
this
occurs,
the
available
zoning
districts
under
this
classification
would
be
rs60
rs50,
but
also
residential,
multi-family,
12,
multi-family
16
multi-family
18,
as
well
as
the
plan
development
based
upon
any
of
those
different
zoning
districts.
V
Good
evening
Council
Charlie
Thomas,
we
asked
for
your
support
on
this
project.
We
find
it
consistent
with
Planning
Commission
I
just
want
to
bring
Clarity
to
City
staff's
comment.
The
property
is
currently
zoned
multi-family,
so
it
won't
introduce
any
more
with
multi-family,
because
it's
a
multi-family
property.
It's
a
townhouse
car
I
mean
a
duplex
currently,
so
it
wouldn't
be
adding
multi-family
into
the
neighborhood
because
it
currently
exists
as
multi-family.
P
P
V
What
they
their
statement
is
that
it
would
introduce
multi-family
into
the
neighborhood
the
multi-families
already
existed
in
the
neighborhood.
It's
already
been
a
part
of
the
neighborhood,
so
it
people
are
currently
living
there
in
a
multi-family
house,
so
it
can't
introduce
multi-family
into
a
property.
That's
currently
multi-family.
You
can't
do
that
so
that
maybe
they
changed
the
word,
but
they
can't
introduce.
G
F
It
is
we'll
pull
up
a
us.
Do
you
have
a
site,
a
picture
of
the
subject
site,
but
we
did
a
field
visit
and
it
is
two
residences
attached.
Yes,
so
you
can
kind
of
see
it's
hard
to
tell
because
we
didn't
want
to
walk
onto
the
property
okay,
but
there's.
G
There's
two
doors
there:
okay,
so
my
question,
though,
is
that
currently,
as
it
stands
now,
you
could
put
five
dwellings
on.
F
The
site
in
the
residential
10-
yes,
because
it's
a
it's
a
half
acre
so
those
but
but
the
residential
10-
only
permits
single
family
attached
on
the
periphery
of
the
neighborhoods
through
a
plan
development
rezoning.
F
So
it
wouldn't
be
by
right.
But
but
there
is
potential
if
Planning
Commission
staff
thinks
it's
appropriate
to
find
that
request.
We'd
have
to
review
it
and
it
would
come
before
you
as
a
zoning.
G
V
J
Or
point
of
not
Clarity
for
staff
with
the
petitioner
and
that's
what
I'm
hearing
today
and
it
doesn't
seem
clear
that
the
petitioner
is
saying
staff
is
telling
him
one
thing,
but
staff
is
saying
another
so
I'm
to
me:
I,
don't
know
if
it's
interpretation,
comprehension
or
what
have
you
with
some
there's
some
kind
of
Disconnect
here
and
and
I
see.
J
You
know,
I'm
looking
at
my
sheet
here
and
I
see
three
of
these
things
coming
back
to
back
so
I'm
I'm,
seeing
a
pattern
that
would
be
going
down
the
road
road
here,
so
I,
I
and
I'm
not
telling
the
petition
or
what
to
do,
but
to
me
I
think.
Maybe
the
the
petition
needs
to
go
back
for
more
clarity
before
we
decide
on
these
other
issues.
Tonight.
That's
just
not
tell
anybody
what
to
do
but
I
think
there's
a
point
of
not
understanding.
J
Because
it's
been
kind
of
confusing
me
to
me
tonight
so
I'm,
just
saying:
I'm,
not
telling
all
the
questions
and
what
to
do,
but
I
think
that
there's
a
lack
of
communication
or
understanding
on
some
parts
there
and
I
think
they
need
to
be
cleared
up.
So
you
actually
can
know
what
you
can
do,
what
you
can't
and
understand
what
staff
is
telling
you
or
staff,
is
not
giving
you
the
right
direction
to
get
the
right
direction.
All
right!
That's
just
my
comments.
E
C
E
K
E
And
if
I
can
to
address
councilman
Goods
I'm,
going
to
ask
you
to
hearken
back
to
West
what
Ms
Johnson
Velez
said
and
is
in
your
staff
report
as
to
the
purpose
of
why
it
explains
why
this
is
legislative
and
not
quasi-judicial,
as
the
courts
have
found
it,
because
what
you're,
in
fact
doing
with
these
are
making
policy
decisions
as
to
the
direction
of
what
you
want.
Your
future
land
use
map
to
look
like
every
time.
You
change
your
future
land
use
map
the
future
changes.
J
V
J
Side
plate
disciple
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
I
see
one
two
and
three
of
them?
Yes,
I,
don't
think,
leave
you
or
or
in
concert
with
staff,
to
understand
what
that's
comprehensive
plan
that
you
want
change
understand
what
goes
there
what's
she
doing,
and
what
the
city's
looking
to
be
there
right,
I.
L
Legal
department
and
I,
you
know
maybe
either
Miss
Malone
or
Mr
Benson
can
confirmed
this,
but
the
R20
is
the
next
The
Next
Step
Up
in
land
use
category.
So
there's
nothing
in
between
there
to
to
be
a
lesser
request.
If
that's
what
the
purpose
of
the
continuance
is
right.
So,
oh.
J
That's
not
my
purpose.
Okay,
my
purpose
is
I.
We're
saying
this
is
our
plan.
Our
policy
don't
believe
the
gentleman
what
he
wants
to
do
is
it's
going
to
be
in
conformance
to
what
we
say.
We
want
there
and
that's
what
I'm
saying.
Maybe
he
needs
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
with
staff
to
make
sure
what
is
allowed,
what
isn't
allowed
and
what
our
plans
for
the
city
for
that
zoning
is
versus
us,
trying
to
deny
him
maybe
again
and
again,
and
he
not
have
a
full
understanding
of
what
our
plan
is.
E
Because
because
because,
frankly,
Council
and
and
certainly
I
can't
speak
to
to
every
hearing,
but
this
Council
has
made
changes
to
the
Future
land
use
map,
depending
on
the
circumstances,
depending
on
the
trend,
depending
on
what
council
sees
where
in
whatever
particular
area.
The
pattern
of
development
is
and
makes
a
policy
decision.
So
I'm
just
asking
you
if
there's
a
specific
something
to
be
gained
by
a
continuance,
then
certainly
that's
in
order.
But
I
know
that
Council
has
in
the
past
been
concerned
about
having
continuances
when
it
is
not
for
a
particular
something
that.
J
You
anticipate
happening
I'm,
just
saying
for
me,
I
believe,
is
necessary.
This
gentleman
has
three
items
on
the
on
on
the
table,
all
with
the
same
type
of
situation
and
I.
Don't
think
he
clearly
understands
in
my
opinion
of
what
what's
going
on
here,
I
think
he
needs
to
go
back
and
get
with
staff
to
get
a
clear
understanding
of
that.
That's
all
I'm,
saying
whether
you
Bria
disagree
with
it.
R
F
Sure
Jenna
from
loan
Planning
Commission
staff-
that
is
correct.
There
is
no
next,
the
category
is
r10.
The
next
category
is
our
20..
The
applicant
cannot
ask
for
anything
in
between
because
it
doesn't
exist.
I
just
want
to
remind
you,
though,
that
Planning
Commission
staff
found
this
consistent
and
the
Planning
Commission
found
it
consistent.
So
the
consistency
on
is
on
the
record
from
the
Planning
Commission.
The
city
of
Tampa
plant
staff
always
reviews
these
and
provides
comments
and
objections.
But
the
official
recommendation
from
the
Planning
Commission
is
consistency
for
the
residential
20.
C
V
We
we
would
ask
for
the
board
to
to
vote
on
it
and
we
believe
that
the
Planning
Commission
has
spoken
to
what
the
intent
is
for
the
city.
What
the
city
has
told
to
instructed
the
Planning
Commission
to
do
and
go
say
hey.
Do
you
find
this
consistent
with
the
growth
patterns
with
the
housing
needs
with
those
things
to
be
addressed
and
I?
Think
the
Planning
Commission
has
said
yes
to
that,
and,
unlike
the
previous
case,
there's
no
neighborhood
objection.
V
There
isn't
any
of
this
and
it's
it
meets
the
needs
of
what
the
city
says
that
they
want
and
it's
comprehensive.
The
city's
objection
is
more
zoning
related
to
that
technical,
because
it
says
this
use
predates
the
zoning.
So,
yes,
we
don't
think
duplexes
are
appropriate,
except
that
it's
a
duplex
there
and
it's
a
mix
of
that
in
the
neighborhood.
That
is
the
neighborhood.
The
neighborhood
is
a
transient
neighborhood.
If
you
look
to
the
West
there's
a
mobile
home
park,
there
cem
30,
35
I,
believe
there
there's
there's
a
lot
of
multi-family
in
there.
V
We
believe
it's
consistent.
We
believe
it's
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
and
we
believe
that
we're
in
line
with
the
goals
that
you
guys
have
set
for
the
Planning
Commission,
which
they've
come
back
in
their
report,
to
say
yes
and
that's
why
the
board
unanimously
voted
for
it.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
C
J
What
been
presented
for
first
reading
consideration
I
noticed
in
many
in
Imagine
24,
the
Timberwolves
are
playing
future
land
use
element.
Future
land
use
a
map,
but
probably
located
at
701
East
Linebaugh
Avenue
for
residential
10
or
10
division
of
20
R20,
providing
for
po
awareness
and
conflict,
providing
for
severely
providing
effective
date.
G
I'm
also
going
to
deny
this
one
only
because
right
now,
what's
all
around
it
is
our
10.
I
mean
it's:
it's
everything
around
it
and
right
now
they
could
build
five
town
homes
and
I
think
that
for
where
what
that
the
land
use
is
right,
now
is
perfectly
appropriate.
I
think
putting
10
would
drastically
change
the
neighborhood
and,
yes,
we
need
more
density,
but
we
need
to
do
it
smartly
and
in
areas
and
in
ways
in
which
fits
with
the
with
the
neighborhood
and
moving
slowly
toward
what
we
want
to
see.
G
E
S
Meliscalco,
thank
you
very
much.
I
moved
to
deny
file
number
t
a
CPA
22-17,
and
that
is
the
ordinance
amending
the
Imagine
2040
Tampa
comprehensive
plan.
Future
land
use
element.
Future
land
use
map
for
the
property
located
at
701,
East,
Linebaugh
Avenue
from
residential
art
10
to
r10
residential
20,
providing
for
repeal
of.
E
C
C
D
C
D
Was
yes,
Gould's
was
an
absolute
vote.
C
F
F
Here's
the
subject
site
outlined.
As
you
can
see
it's
on
the
Northern
portion
of
West
Linebaugh
Avenue.
We
have
North
Boulevard
over
here,
North
Ola
Avenue.
We
have
a
church
right
here
and
some
other
churches
and
multi-family
use
development
in
the
surrounding
area
and
to
the
north
is
the
Danny
Del
Rio
pool.
F
F
So
this
is
facing
north
along
the
eastern
border
of
the
subject
site.
It's
kind
of
over
here,
Facing
East
along
the
southern
border
of
the
subject
site
and
then
here's
the
adopted
future
land
use
map.
This
Corridor
might
look
familiar
to
you
because
this
parcel
right
next
door
came
in
for
the
same
request.
F
A
couple
years
ago,
in
front
of
this
Council
for
residential
10
to
residential
20.,
we
have
residential
tennis
subject
site
residential
10
here,
but
then
we
have
residential
20
to
the
South,
and
this
is
a
multi-family
development
right
here
and
then
the
Danny
Del
Rio
pool
right
here
is
recreational
open
space
which
actually
came
before
you
as
part
of
your
purse.
One
of
your
Parks
plan
amendments
in
that
series
and
then
here's
the
proposed
future
Landy
snap,
recognizing
that
residential
20
continuing
along
West
Linebaugh
Avenue.
F
So
the
Planning
Commission,
oh
so,
the
impacts
that
would
go
from
five
to
ten
dwelling
units.
The
amount
of
non-residential
would
increase
a
little
bit,
but
the
site
would
still
be
required
to
meet
locational
criteria
for
any
non-residential
use
because
it
is
a
residential
land
use
category,
it's
very
limited.
If
you
want
to
do
some
non-residential,
it's
very
controlled.
So
this
is
consistent
with
the
plan
policies.
The
Planning
Commission
found
the
protection
of
the
promotion
of
infill
development.
F
The
the
plan
supports
putting
that
density
along
your
corridors
and
West
line
by
Avenue
is
is
a
corridor
or
that
that
density
yes
and
the
locations
of
multi-family
areas.
It
also
supports
placing
more
where
there's
already
some
existing.
We
already
have
that
residential
20
next
door
and
across
the
street
in
that
development
pattern.
F
The
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
proposed
amendment
be
found
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
plan.
I
did
not
have
a
slide
for
sea
of
Tampa
staff
comments
because
there
was
no
objection
to
this
one
from
the
city
of
Tampa
staff
and
Stephen
Benson's
here
to
answer
any
questions
on
that.
Any.
V
Good
evening
again,
we
ask
your
support
on
this.
This
parcel
the
adjacent
parcel
we
came
before
this
board
previously
and
and
got
it
changed.
We
also
came
before
this
board
with
the
PD
project
of
eight
town
home
units
that
we're
building
over
there.
We
were
able
to
work
out
a
deal
with
the
church
and
was
able
to
acquire
the
next
piece
of
property.
V
So
we
would
like
your
support
to
continue
on
what
we're
doing
currently
doing
that
that
you
guys
found
consistent
previously,
and
that
is
consistent
with
what
the
city
is
looking
for
in
development
patterns.
Thank
you.
C
P
G
A
C
I
Good
evening
Saint
Thomas
with
your
Planning
Commission
staff,
this
is
tacpa
2219
located
at
2302
and
2304
North
Boulevard
some
background
on
this
request.
It
was
privately
initiated
at
small
scale
in
size,
approximately
0.34
acres,
and
the
request
is
to
go
from
the
residential
10
to
the
residential
20
designation.
I
Here's
an
aerial
map
of
the
subject
site.
You
can
see
the
subject
site
highlighted
in
yellow
it's
at
the
intersection
of
West
Park
Avenue
and
North
Boulevard
on
the
east
side
of
North
Boulevard.
The
development
pattern
is
mainly
single
family,
detached
on
the
on
the
west
side
and
on
the
east
side
of
North
Boulevard,
the
hotel
development
pattern,
switches
to
a
mix
of
multi-family
single-family
attached
and
single-family
detached
as
you
go
up
north
to
the
intersection
of
Columbus
Drive
and
North
Boulevard.
I
You
have
a
mix
of
some
like
commercial
uses
and
single
family
attached
or
detached
up
there
and
then,
as
you
go
south
Ross
Avenue
you
get
into
the
heights
mixed
use
development.
You
can
see
the
Pearl
apartment
complex
in
your
corner
and
then
further
over
to
the
West.
You
can
see
the
Hillsborough
River
in
the
corner
questions.
I
Here
is
the
adopted
future
land
use
map.
You
can
see
the
site
here
recognized
under
the
residential
10..
You
can
see.
Residential
10
is
pretty
dominant
in
the
Richard
Park
neighborhood.
When
you
go
south
there
is
some
R35
and
then,
when
you
cross
North
Boulevard
to
the
east,
you
can
see
that
it's
all
recognized
under
the
R35
south
of
Palm
Avenue,
there's
some
of
the
rme
100
and
then
north
of
that
intersection.
Where
that
Light
commercial
uses
are,
as
the
community
makes
use.
35.
I
I
would
like
to
point
out
this
site
here
at
the
corner
of
North
Boulevard
and
West
Columbus
that
came
before
you
guys
not
too
long
ago.
It
was
tacpa
2211
and
that
request
isn't
reflected
on
this
map.
That
request
changed
this
parcel
up
here
entirely
to
community
mixed
use,
35
and
it
changed
it
to
Southern
Parcels
to
residential
35.
I
And
here
is
a
proposed
future
land
use
map.
You
can
see
the
site
recognized
under
the
R20
I
would
also
like
to
mention
that
I
believe
this
came
in
for
a
plan.
This
actually
did
come
in
for
a
plan.
Movement
I
believe
in
2021
to
move
the
site
to
R20
as
well.
I
The
potential
impacts
of
this
request
currently
on
the
r10
the
site
can
be
considered
for
three
units
with
the
residential
20.
The
site
can
be
considered
for
six
units.
There
is
a
possibility
to
do
non-residential
uses
on
the
site,
but
they
do
have
to
meet
locational
criteria
and
some
other
conditions
for
that.
But
overall
it
would
increase
the
density
intensity
on
the
site
and
it
introduces
the
possibilities
of
rm12
rm16
rm18
and
the
r01
zoning.
I
The
city
sap
did
have
an
objection
to
this
request
and
I'll.
Let
them
speak
on
that.
I
The
Planning
Commission
did
find
this
consistent
with
multiple
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan
such
as
using
limited
land
resources
to
finish
this
efficiently
enough
to
designate
housing
options
to
meet
the
needs
of
Tampa's
growing
population
and
additionally,
to
promote
development
patterns
consistent
with
the
complex
compact
City
strategy
form,
which
is
encourages
infill
development
within
proximity
to
Transit
and
employment
services.
I
K
Stephen
Benson
city
planning,
this
objection
also
originated
from
Land
Development
coordination,
and
the
explanation
for
the
objection
is
that
the
R20
category
would
double
the
allowable
density
on
this
site
and
allow
for
the
introduction
of
multi-family
uses
within
a
single
family
area.
So
the
potential
maximum
development
potential
would
be
six
units
and
that
would
likely
come
before
you
as
a
PD,
but
at
that
point
they're
allowed
to
have
the
six
units,
because
you
would
have
already
approved
it
here
today
as
part
of
this
plan
Amendment.
So
that's
what
staff
objection?
That's!
G
K
F
F
I'd
have
to
Jennifer
Malone
pending
commission
staff.
I'd
have
to
look
at
the
old
Maps,
it's
hard
to
say,
but
I
will
say
part
of
the
reason
why
it
is
so
different
is
because
the
east
side
of
North
Boulevard
is
the
Tampa
Heights,
Urban
Village,
and
so
the
plan
directs
the
greatest
year
of
growth
for
urban
Villages,
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
different
development
pattern
and
then
the
west
side
of
North
Boulevard
is
not
part
of
the
Urban
Village.
F
C
A
AH
Good
evening
my
name
is
Angela
halber
with
hillward
Henderson,
101,
East,
Kennedy,
Boulevard
and
I'm
here
for
the
petitioner
professional
Aid
group.
Actually,
you
can
leave
that
up
there,
because
this
map
is
pretty
much
illustrates.
AH
Why
we're
here
tonight
this
there
is
no
transition
currently
between
the
R35
and
the
r10,
and
there
is
no
such
thing
as
R15.
AH
The
applicant
is
hoping
to
do
four
units
and
actually
has
a
plan
development
application
in
for
rezoning.
That's
a
companion,
of
course,
it's
all
dependent
on
this
being
approved.
Currently
there
are
three:
they
can
get
three
units
on
this
and
they
want
four.
So
again,
this
is
the
other
part
of
this
is
that
all
of
these
Lots
currently
front
on
North
Boulevard,
which
is
in
arterial
and
they're
the
site
to
the
South,
is
completely
vacant.
The
lot
to
the
north
is
it's
currently
vacant.
AH
It's
there's
a
structure
there,
but
it
needs
to
be
demolished
and
we
have
an
application
pending
review
for
that.
So
again,
we've
got
the
proposal
to
do,
are
20
and
create
that
buffer
between,
but
the
sensitive
transition.
The
comprehensive
plan
contains
the
policies
that
support
this.
This
is
a
gentle
nudge
that
increases
the
density
between
these
two
areas,
which
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
it
also
maintains
the
stability
of
the
Ridgewood
Park
neighborhood
to
the
East,
and
that's
pretty
much
why
we're
here?
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
let
me
know
any.
P
C
N
I'd
like
to
move
I
found
number
of
tacba
22-19
ordinance
being
presented
for
first
reading,
consideration
an
ordinance
amending
that
imagine.
2040
Tampa
companies
that
plan
future
land
use
element,
future
land
use
map
for
the
property
located
at
2302
and
2304
North
Boulevard
from
residential
10
r10
to
residential
20
R20,
providing
for
repeal
of
ordinance
as
a
conflict
provider
for
cerebrality
providing
effect.
Today,.
G
Yes,
since
we're
just
having
discussions
tonight,
maybe
I'm
the
only
one
but
anyway
I
I
really
do
think
that
the
that
step
is
appropriate
and
probably
needed
along
North
Boulevard.
So
I
think
this
helps
bring
that
along.
C
And
if
I
may,
Council,
I
I
couldn't
agree
with
you
more.
This
is
one
of
those
areas
where
a
transition
is
going
to
be
needed.
It
wouldn't
be
higher
density
and
then
single
family.
This
would
gently
ease
in
so
I
agree
with
you
any
other
further
discussion.
I'm.
P
Not
going
to
be
supportive,
I've
I
looked
at
this
and
I
know
it's
needed,
but
it
was
nieces
everywhere
else
and
we,
but
anyway
it's
just
my
feeling.
Don't
worry
about
it.
D
C
P
D
P
D
D
Okay,
second
reading
and
adoption
will
be
held
on
on
2023
at
9,
30
A.M.
T
T
T
T
T
This
is
the
adopted
future
land
use
map.
You
can
see
the
subject
site
outlined
here
in
Black.
The
red
is
the
community
commercial
35
and
the
pink
is
this
community
makes
use
35
you
can
see
along
Columbus,
you
can
see
the
transitions
between
the
community,
commercial
35
and
the
CMU
35
as
well,
and
further
to
the
north
and
south
are
the
residential
designations.
T
T
T
T
The
Planning
Commission
found
inconsistent
with
multiple
aspects
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
comprehensive
plan
has
policy
direction
that
identifies
the
need
to
designate
enough
land
for
housing
options
to
meet
the
needs
of
Tampa's
growing
population
and
consider
the
development
of
mixed-use
areas
that
can
accommodate
local
serving
commercial,
employment
and
entertainment
uses.
The
comprehensive
plan
promotes
a
development
pattern
consistent
with
the
compact
City
form
strategy,
which
encourages
mixed-use
infill
development
within
the
proximity
to
Transit
and
employment
services,
and
the
comprehensive
plan
also
seeks
to
direct
the
greatest
share
of
growth
to
the
urban
villages.
T
K
Stephen
Benson
city
planning,
this
objection
also
came
out
of
Land
Land
Development
coordination
staff
and
the
rationale
as
if
this
would
introduce
the
commercial
intensive
uses
which
don't
currently
exist
further
along
Columbus
Drive,
those
commercial
intensive
uses,
so
the
allowed
uses
that
could
be
asked
for
include
the
the
same
list
that
was
talked
about
in
the
prior
case.
It's
going
to
be
auto
repair
and
auto
shops
and
that
those
types
of
uses.
K
K
Last
thing
that
I
want
to
mention
is
there
was
a
study
completed
by
heart
that
was
tied
to
the
bus,
Rapid
Transit,
going
up
and
down
Florida
and
Tampa.
That
study
recommended
and
had
identified
a
need
for
higher
density
on
the
corridor,
so
that
has
been
out
there
in
the
community.
It
came
from
feedback
that
recommendation
has
not
been
implemented
in
the
plan,
we're
going
to
try
to
implement
it
as
part
of
the
plan
update,
but
that
is
also
a
rational
basis
to
potentially
approve
the
amendment.
I
just
want
to
offer
that
on
the
record.
C
K
G
K
You're
already
you're
already
at
CMU,
let's
see
you're
already
at
CMU
and
CC.
Yes,
that's
there's
nothing
in
between.
G
Okay,
so
I
think
my
question
is:
why
don't
we
have
something
because
it
seems
like
we
have
either
Community
commercial
or
Community
mixed
use,
which
is
which
makes
a
lot
of
sense
it
to
me,
it's
residential,
it's
it's
retail,
it's
all
of
that
stuff,
and
then
you
come
to
Urban
mystery,
so
you
60,
which
can
have
like
heavy
duty,
commercial
intensive
uses
and
that
so
there's
there's
so
you're
saying
that
there's
really
nothing
else
else.
You
can
do
to
get
that
density
except
to
use
far.
G
G
K
G
K
AI
Good
evening,
Council
Alex
Shaler
400
North
Ashley
Drive
for
the
record
I'm
here
with
tacpa
2222
I,
think
you
all
are
pretty
familiar
with
where
this
was
located.
I'll
keep
it
relatively
brief,
but
at
the
intersection
of
Tampa
and
Columbus,
which
I'll
detail
a
little
bit
more
on
those
roadways
and
a
couple
different
slides,
the
request,
cc35
CMU
35
to
umu
60.
Those
maps
are
shown
on
the
screen,
and
this
is
a
comparison
of
the
far
that
was
briefly
mentioned
before
so
right
now,
Baseline
far
is
one
for
cc
and
CMU
35
umu6.
AI
You
would
bump
that
up
to
2.5
and
then,
as
you
can
see,
the
next
line
with
bonus,
it
would
be
going
from
a
two
to
an
allowable
3.25.
Far
as
mentioned
a
little
bit
more
about
these
roadways,
so
Tampa
Street
and
Columbus
Drive-
and
this
is
this-
is
relatively
our
justification
for
the
request.
Both
of
them
are
arterial
roadways,
so
the
site's
going
to
be
fronting
two
arterial
roadways
at
a
major
intersection
there
in
Tampa
Heights
West
Columbus
Drive,
is
a
Transit
emphasis
Corridor
as
designated
in
the
comp
plan.
AI
C
C
A
C
L
Good
evening
chair,
the
two
that
is
registered
are
not
online
at
this
time.
C
S
Thank
you.
I
have
an
ordinance
being
presented
for
first
reading
consideration
ordinance
amending
the
Imagine
2040
Tampa,
comprehensive
plan,
future
land
use
element;
future
land
use
map
for
the
property
located
at
101,
West
Amelia,
Avenue
2500
and
25
10
North
Tampa
Street
and
106
108
110
and
114
West
Columbus
Drive
from
the
community
commercial
35,
CC,
35
and
Community
mixed
use.
35
CMV,
35
to
Urban
mixed
use,
60
umu
60,
providing
for
repeal
of
all
ordinances,
providing
preserability
providing
an
effective
day.
C
C
D
C
C
S
First,
a
this
is
very
important:
a
happy
belated
birthday
to
council
member
Vieira.
S
C
We
have
motion
made
by
councilman
Maniscalco
seconded
by
councilman
Goods,
all
in
favor
aye,
aye,
councilman,
Vera.
Y
Yes,
sir,
just
really
quick
if
I
may
I'd
mentioned
before
regarding
the
veterans,
parks
and
I'm
glad
the
city
is
going
forward
with
that.
I
wanted
to
get
an
update
on
that.
If
what's
the
furthest
out,
I
can
schedule.
Y
Oh
okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
I'll!
Do
it
in
the?
What
are
we
in
in
the
first
first
week
of
October
of
2020?
What
are
we
in
2013
just
on
the
status
of
the
veterans
Parks
throughout
the
city
of
Tampa,
our
memorials
throughout
the
city
of
Tampa?
If
I
made
October.
Y
And
it's
second
and
thank
you
Council.
Second,
if
I
may
Angela
Alderman,
who
some
of
you
all
may
know,
was
the
nice
young
woman
who
led
up
the
memorial
for
the
College
Hill
Cemetery
I
wanted
to
give
her
a
city
council
Commendation
at
our
April
2023
conversation
meeting
by
May.