►
From YouTube: TCC PM 1/12/23
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
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
D
E
D
E
Mr
Shelby,
yes,
sir.
Thank
you
very
briefly.
Quasi-Judicial
matters,
as
per
council's
custom
end,
is
going
to
become
its
its
standing.
Rule
is
going
to
allow
for
and
does
allow
for,
in-person
participation,
also
by
virtual
participation,
the
instructions
of
which
are
available
on
the
city's
website
at
tampa.gov
forward,
slash
city
council
and
also
in
the
notice
of
hearing
and
on
the
agenda
and
I
would
like
Council
to
please
make
a
motion.
A
D
D
E
Last
thing-
and
we
might
as
well
do
this
at
the
outset,
Sir
with
regard
to
ex
parte
Communications
for
the
quasi-judicial
hearings.
If
there
are
any
quasi-judicial
excuse
me,
is
this
any
ex
parte
Communications
before
the
hearing
takes
place?
If
you
can
please
announce
with
whom
it
took
place
and
the
sum
and
substance
of
that
communication
with
regard
to
the
written
Communications
which
have
been
available
for
public
inspection,
please
at
this
time
a
motion
to
receive
and
file.
D
B
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
members
of
city
council,
and
thank
you
for
just
a
brief
introduction.
Dana
Crosby
Collier
joined
the
city's
legal
department.
Last
month.
We've
not
had
an
opportunity
to
introduce
her
to
you.
Dana
is
going
to
be
working
in
the
land
use
and
real
estate.
Practice
Group.
You
will
see
her
coming
before
Council
as
we're
processing
amendments
to
chapter
27..
B
During
her
interview
she
indicated
that
she
enjoyed
legislative
matters
and
we
said
we
can
work
with
you
on
that
she'll
be
very
busy,
but
just
a
little
bit
about
Dana,
she
graduated
from
the
Florida
State
University
College
Vlog
go
Knowles.
B
She
comes
to
us
from
the
law,
firm,
Australia,
Robin
and
verica
before
that
she
was
with
Sheffield
Lowman
and
Wilson,
but
she
is
extensive
public
sector
experience,
which
is
something
that
was
very
important
to
us
and
very
attractive
to
the
city.
Dana
was
an
assistant
County
attorney
with
Orange
County
between
2006
and
2015.,
an
assistant
City
attorney
with
the
city
of
Gainesville,
between
2003
and
2006,
and
an
assistant
County
attorney
with
Polk
County
from
1999
to
2003,
and
she
has
other
experiences
well,
but
with
all
of
those
different
public
sector,
employers
and
the
private
sector.
B
F
A
pleasure
to
be
here
I'm,
a
Tampa
native
I
was
born
here.
I
went
to
University,
I,
went
to
Robinson
as
well
graduated
Robinson,
High
School
and
went
to
University
of
Tampa
and
then
moved
away
for
a
while
and
then
came
back
to
Tampa
been
trying
to
get
back
to
Tampa
ever
since,
since
I
left
so
I'm
delighted
to
be
here,
I
couldn't
be
happier.
So.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity.
G
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
Council
lashon
doc,
development
coordination
and
there
are
a
few
items
I
like
to
clear
on
this
evening's
agenda.
So
the
first
item
is
item
number
two.
This
is
a
request.
This
is
Rez
2244.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
continuance
on
this
item
to
April
13
2023.
H
D
I
J
D
E
D
H
D
G
D
G
And
the
last
item,
Council
to
clear,
is
item
number
seven.
This
case
is
Rez
2283.
This
case
was
a
miss.
It
is
a
missed
notice,
and
this
is
the
second
time
that
this
has
been
a
misnotice
for
this
particular
application.
So
the
applicant
is
being
represented
by
Steve
mcgillini.
He
is
here
and
he'd
like
to
request
the
date.
L
Good
evening
Council
we
apologize
for
the
second
missed
notice.
We
transposed
some
numbers
on
the
folio
numbers
when
we
requested
the
notice
documents
from
the
Property
Appraiser's
office
and
that
ended
up
providing
us
with
inaccurate
information
for
the
notice.
We
have
since
corrected
that
and
respectfully
request
a
new
hearing
date.
What
date.
L
L
L
E
O
Hi,
my
name
is
Carol
Ann
Bennett.
You
know
we
just
have
a
real
problem
with
the
schedule
of
city
council.
I
know
you
all
are
always
having
to
add
extra
nights.
The
scheduling
is
an
issue,
the
constant
misnoticing.
Over
and
over
again
the
request
for
continuances.
It's
been
misnoticed
twice.
That's
enough.
It
should
be
follow,
follow
the
rules.
It
should
be
withdrawn.
No
continuance.
Thank
you.
D
E
Well,
your
rule
states
that,
or
your
customer
right
now
which
is
going
to
it
is
it's
been
consistently
council's
position
that
if,
on
more
than
two
occasions,
the
matter
is
properly
set
before
Council,
but
the
petition
it
is
one
of
the
following,
and
one
of
them
is
fails
to
perfect
public
notice
is
set
forth
in
the
applicable
provision
of
code
of
ordinances,
then
Council
May
deem
a
petition
withdrawn
and
dismiss
the
petition.
That's
what
your
customer
has
been
more
than
two.
E
L
K
E
D
B
I
may
Mr
chairman.
This
is
addressed
in
section
27-150
of
the
Land
Development
code.
So
it's
not
in
council's
rules
of
procedure
and
it
says
we're
an
applicant
filing.
An
application
for
rezoning
property
fails
to
perfect
his
application
by
not
filing
the
affidavit
on
time
or
otherwise
fails
to
perfect
the
notice
or
site
plan
requirements
set
forth
in
this
chapter
so
that
the
petitioner
may
not
be
heard
at
the
scheduled
public
hearing
and
any
of
the
foregoing,
Acts
or
omissions
occur
for
two
consecutive
public
hearings
scheduled
for
the
subject
petition.
B
Then
no
new
or
amended
application
involving
the
same
property
may
be
heard
for
a
minimum
period
of
six
months
from
the
date
of
the
last
public
hearing,
specifically
scheduled
for
that
petition
and
or
property.
So
I
think
that's
different
than
what
Mr
Shelby
indicated,
where
he
he
was
advising
Council
that
you
may
deem
it
withdrawn
that
language
is
not
actually
in
the
code.
This
just
addresses
two
consecutive
misnoticed
hearings
and
a
six-month
waiting
period
that
it
would
be
considered
withdrawn.
B
E
See
you
yeah,
and
that
is
what
what
is
Wells
is
stating
is
correct.
E
E
M
M
E
B
Kate
Wells
for
the
record
the
one
time
I'm
aware
of
where
Council
waived
this
requirement
attorney
Clayton
brickelmeyer
had
testified
that
for
the
first
scheduled
hearing
he
had
not
received
the
notice
from
City
staff.
So
in
that
situation,
Council
found
extenuating
circumstances
in
a
waived
the
requirements
and
allowed
the
hearing
to
get
scheduled
for
a
third
time.
That's
the
the
one
time
I'm
aware
of
that
Council
has
waived
the
provisions
of
this
section
when
it
has
been
triggered.
Q
Sorry
I
was
just
going
to
ask
if
I,
if
I,
should
vote
on
it,
but
Mr
Marty
I'm
familiar
with
the
case
because
I,
because
the
legal
department
briefed
me
on
it,
but
I
did
not
hear
the
testimony
so
should
I
vote
on
it
or
not.
I
apologize
to
everyone.
I
got
stuck
in
traffic
with
a
kid
thing.
D
Miss
doc,
you
approached
the
collector,
are
you
do
you
want
to
say
something?
No,.
E
Q
I
I
understand
the
the
situation.
I
did
not
hear
the
up
against
testimony,
but
I
I
just
heard
this
side
of
it.
If
the
applicant
would
like
me
to
accuse
myself,
I
can
but
I
apologize.
I
missed
the
Tesla.
D
G
Thank
you,
Council
that
completes
all
of
the
items.
R
G
D
I
would
like
to
do
something
at
this
time.
We
have
a
room
full
of
people.
We
have
people
downstairs.
Are
you
going
to
run
downstairs
right
now.
S
M
T
Got
popcorn
d
ude
good
evening,
Council
Jennifer
Malone,
with
your
Planning
Commission
staff
before
I
dive
into
the
presentation.
I
would
just
like
to
address
some
questions
and
I'm
sure
this
Council
has
about
this
case
and
provide
some
some
options
for
city
council
so
as
I
think
there
is
a
letter
that
was
uploaded
to
sire
kind
of
explaining
the
background
of
this
case.
T
Yes,
the
Planning
Commission
requesting
a
reduction
in
density
from
the
residential
83
to
the
residential
50
designation
in
the
instance
of
a
reduction
of
the
request
after
it
is
heard
by
the
Planning
Commission,
it
does
not
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission.
Nor
do
we
file
a
new
staff
report
because
it's
a
reduction
had
the
request
been
an
increase
it
would.
The
process
would
be
different.
T
There
is
an
adopted,
comprehensive
plan,
Amendment
procedures
manual
that
you
all
actually
adopt
by
resolution
for
the
cities
of
Tampa,
Temple,
Terrace
and
Plant
City,
and
it
goes
to
those
jurisdictions
as
well.
That
is
silent
on
this
process,
so
it
has
always
been
the
standard
operating
that
when
the
when
the
request
is
reduced.
We
don't
issue
a
new
staff
report.
Neither
did
City
staff
because,
as
you
know,
we
send
this
out
for
City
staff
review,
so
they
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
a
report
and
Stephen
Benson
is
here.
M
T
Right
that
is
correct.
The
applicant
has
asked
for
residential
50.
I
believe
that
you
have
a
substitute
ordinance
prepared
by
legal
and
the
original
the
adopted
future
land
use
is
residential
35.
and
the
proposal
before
you
now
after
the
after
the
amended
request,
is
residential
50..
It's
very
rare
that
these
things
happen.
I've
only
seen
it
one
other
time
in
my
seven
years
here
that
the
that
the
request
is
amended
after
the
Planning
Commission.
M
Even
though
rare
when,
when
issues
do
arise,
I
think
we
have
to
fix
things
when
they
do
become
rare,
so
I
would
suggest
in
the
future.
Our
people
and
your
people
have
a
revision,
and
then
we
won't
have
these
kind
of
controversies
coming
for
us
and
we
can
move
things
through
the
Easter
I'm
going
to
ask
that
you
take
that
back
and
make
sure
it
can
be
a
policy
Over
The
Institute
of
this
Council
needs
to
put
something
here.
T
Absolutely
councilman,
thank
you
for
that
direction.
I'd
also
just
like
to
add
council,
has
discretion
to
move
forward
tonight.
Reviewing
the
residential
50,
but
knowing
that
the
Planning
Commission
has
not
reviewed
that
request,
the
neither
the
board
either
the
Planning
Commission
as
an
appointed
body
or
staff,
so
that
is
within
your
purview
or
you
may
make
a
motion
to
send
it
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
the
residential
50
requests
to
go
through
the
process,
but
I
believe
the
applicant
would
probably
like
to
to
to
provide
some
a
statement.
D
M
Hear
from
legal
is
coming
up
before
we
proceed,
I,
don't
waste
any
more
time.
M
Q
You
why
why
wouldn't
it
just
automatically
go
back
to
the
Planning
Commission?
First
before
we
come
here,
okay,.
U
Susan
Johnsonville
has
legal
department,
so
under
state
law.
State
law
requires
that
the
Planning
Commission
conduct
a
public
hearing
on
a
comprehensive
plan
Amendment.
So
that
hearing
has
happened,
albeit
with
a
higher
density
category
being
the
subject
of
the
Planning
Commission
hearing.
So
there
the
state
law
has
been
complied
with,
because
there
has
been
a
hearing
and
again
it's
an
unusual
circumstance
where
the
request
changes
after
that
Planning
Commission
public
hearing.
U
Q
So
when
someone
asks
for
continuance,
we
we
asked
for
public
input
on
the
continuance.
In
this
case,
we
can
review
the
case
or
we
can
send
it
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
that.
Q
U
I
mean
Council
does
have
the
discretion
to
proceed
with
the
comprehensive
plan
Amendment
this
evening,
with
the
understanding
that
you
do
not
have
feedback
from
either
Planning
Commission
staff
or
the
Planning
Commission
as
to
their
their
thoughts
on
what
the
R50
category,
whether
that
is
consistent.
T
Mission
I
just
want
to
point
out
too,
for
the
record,
it's
impossible
to
predict
how
the
Planning
Commission
would
vote
on
a
residential
50
request,
so
we
know
how
they
voted
on
the
residential
83
I
do
not
know
how
they
would
vote
on
the
residential
50,
nor
would
staff's
finding
would
be.
Thank
you
for
that
time.
Q
No
I,
just
just
one
last
question
for
the
attorney:
if
is
there,
should
we
we
have
to
make
a
motion
to
send
it
back
before
we
hear
the
case,
should
we
make
a
motion
to
send
it
back
to
Planning,
Commission
and
then
hear
from
the
applicant
the
public
just
on
that
matter,
and.
Q
P
I'm
curious
about
the
applicant
with
the
applicant.
No,
no,
no
just
just
asking
in
general.
Is
there
a
reason
that
that
an
applicant
wouldn't
could
the
applicant
request
that
it
go
back
through
the
Planning
Commission
or
was
do
they
not
have
that
option.
T
Jennifer
Malone
Planning
Commission
staff-
the
applicant
yes
at
any
time,
could
have
said
that
you
know
we'd
like
another
review
to
the
Planning
Commission
that
we
could
have
moved
this
meeting
to
accommodate
that
that
that
is
accounted
for
in
in
the
procedures
manual.
We
need,
if
there's
a
if,
there's
a
change
of
the
request.
We
need
it.
I
think
30
days,
there's
a
deadline
in
the
procedures
manual
before
the
Planning
Commission
hearing,
but
it's
silent
on
what
happens
before
the
Tampa
City
Council
hearing
so
so,
and
then
they
could
have.
T
P
So
that
request
was
not
made
I'm
just
clarifying
that
is
correct,
okay
and
then
my
other
I'm
gonna
second
councilman
Goods
recommendation
because
I
actually
said
it
during
my
prep
meeting
for
this.
If
there's
anything,
we
need
to
do
ordinance
wise
to
change
that.
Let
us
know
because
we
don't
want
to
waste
anyone's
time
again,
so
please
don't
hesitate
to
get
with
one
of
our
offices
we'll
make
the
motion
just
let
us
know,
because
we
don't
want.
P
We
don't
want
this
to
happen
again,
but
then
I
would
like
to
hear
from
the
applicant.
K
I'm
sorry
I
was
going
to
Safeway
councilman
Carlson
spoke
about.
We
don't
really
know
what
the
Planning
Commission
was
going
to
do.
We
know
what
it
did
in
the
83,
but
we
don't
know
what
about
the
50.
so
for
us
to
to
get
involved
in
this
we
may
be
open
some
type
of
legality
towards
the
city,
I
guess
I'm,
not
sure
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
Cuts.
W
And
for
the
record
Julia
Mandel
law,
firmary
Robinson,
401,
East,
Jackson
Street
I-
have
been
sworn
in
this
particular
case
when
it
went
to
the
Planning
Commission
the
whole
issue
before
the
Planning
Commission
had
to
do
with
the
increase
in
density
and
whether
or
not
there's
some,
whether
or
not
I'm
at
the
coastal
High
Hazard
policies.
Candidly,
it's
not
going
to
change
with
an
R50.
That
is
still
the
issue
that
is
going
to
be
in
front
of
the
Planning
Commission.
W
There
are
reasons
we
asked
for
the
r83
because
of
the
way
your
comprehensive
plan
requires
you
to
apply
for
a
comp
plan,
Amendment,
meaning
you
have
to
apply
for
a
comp
plan
Amendment.
If
there's
a
comp
plan
designation
adjoining
your
property,
the
only
comp
plan,
designations
of
joining
our
property
other
than
CMU
35
and
rr35
is
r83..
It's
I,
I'll
I
can
get
more
into
the
reasons
why
we're
doing
this
to
begin
with,
but
I,
don't
think
that's
your
question.
W
O
U
P
M
M
If,
if
we
know
it's
not
right
right
now,
I
don't
feel
comfortable
voting
or
something
I
prefer
it
go
back.
I
don't
want
to
say
and
hear
these
people
talk
and
still
that
makes
no
sense
to
me.
If
it's
not
right,
we
just
send
it
back
and
then
we
move
on
to
the
next
case,
but
it
just
sit
here
and
say:
we're
gonna
send
it
back
into
here.
Some
have
a
testimony.
I,
don't
I,
don't
agree
with
that.
M
D
K
The
same
question
that
Mr
Gooch-
this
is
a
rarity.
This
is
not
I've,
never
seen
this
before,
where
you
say,
you're
not
going
to
see
it
after
though
they
wanted
something
higher.
You
can
come
out
afterwards,
so
for
clarity.
I
want
the
declared
I,
see
a
clerk
here,
nice
lady,
here
doing
her
job
and
I
see
all
the
good
people
that
missed
dinner
and
I
see
a
lot
of
people
here,
ranchers
one
way
or
the
other.
K
So
what
I'm
saying
in
order
for
clarity
until
that,
if
something
happens,
we
have
something
to
hang
our
hat
on,
that.
It
should
not
be
heard.
That's
just
my
feeling,
because
I
for
the
good
people
for
the
developer,
for
the
people
who
come
here
to
say
that
they
like
it
or
don't
like
it
that
that's
the
best
thing
for
them
to
have
today.
If
this
happens
and
it
gets
thrown
back,
we
have
to
re-air
it
again,
go
back
to
this
and
and
it's
a
mess.
T
You
chairman,
citro
I,
would
just
add
I
I.
Thank
you
Council
for
all
of
this
great
feedback,
I'll,
definitely
work
with
Susan
Johnson
velez's
department,
and
on
on
how
we
can
make
that
more
clear
in
the
manual.
If
you
do
choose
to
send
it
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
tonight.
I
would
ask
that
in
your
motion.
It
is
for
the
February
2023
plan.
Amendment
cycle.
T
I
would
really
appreciate
that,
because
we
take
these
four
times
a
year,
so
that
would
that
would
help
us
for
our
processing.
Thank
you.
Q
A
couple
questions
did:
did
council
member
Goods
make
a
motion
and
and
councilmember.
D
Q
Then
Ms
Johnsonville
lies
if
we,
if
we
made
a
motion
to
send
it
back
before
you
hear
the
case,
so
we
make
a
motion
to
send
it
back
to
Planning,
Commission
I
think
you
said
a
minute
ago.
We
should
allow
public
comment
right.
It's.
E
E
There
is
a
motion
of
city
council
to
send
this
back
to
the
Planning
Commission,
and
that
is
open
for
discussion,
and
the
chair
asks
whether
you
want
to
speak
to
that
remanding
it
back
to
the
planning
that
I
guess
that
would
be
the
proper
term
remanding
it
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
ask
that
to
be
placed
in
the
February
2023
cycle
that
you
do
not
discuss
the
merits
of
the
case.
You
do
not
talk
about
number
one,
the
comp
plan
Amendment
or
number
three,
the
rezoning.
You
do
not
talk
about
the
facts.
E
W
Rebecca
Julia
Mandel
I,
just
there's
a
couple
things
I
want
to
clarify.
First
of
all,
the
applicant
has
not
brought
the
court
reporter,
so
that
is
not
our
report
reporter.
Secondarily,
if
there's
concerns
about
going
forward
today,
I
think
it
was
stated
to
you
that
it's
your
discretion.
So
if
you
do,
if
you
do
hear
it
today,
that's
your
discretion.
If
you
send
it
back,
that's
your
discretion.
The
applicant
will
waive
any
right
to
have
that
heard
today.
W
So
that's
not
where
the
issue
would
be
so
I
wanted
to
make
that
clear
for
the
purposes
of
the
record
and
also
to
to
just
let
you
know
that
if
you
do
decide
to
make
a
motion
to
remand,
it
I
would
like
the
opportunity,
like
two
minutes,
to
discuss
with
my
client
what
that
would
mean.
So
that
way
we
we
can
give
you
our
whole
position
on
that
for
the
purposes
of
the
record
that
is
being
made
by
someone,
not
us.
So
if
just
I
would
ask
for
that
Indulgence.
Thank
you.
M
Made
it
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
review
of
the
8350
designation
or.
M
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
W
Thank
you
again.
Julie
mandahl
for
the
record
I've
had
an
opportunity
to
discuss
this
with
my
client
and
they
don't
have
an
objection
to
this
being
remanded
back
to
the
planning
Vision.
Our
intent
with
this
application
is
to
be
as
transparent
as
open
as
possible
and
if
that
makes
Council
more
comfortable,
I'm
presuming,
it
also
makes
members
of
the
audience
more
comfortable.
W
If
that
is
where
oh
well,
that
that
I
will
leave
to
council,
but
I
mean
certainly,
we
would
be
fine
going
forward
today,
but
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
we
don't
object
to
it
being
sent
back.
If
that
is
what
you
would
like.
K
K
K
Consistent
okay,
so
if
the
Planning
Commission
had
found
it
consistent
and
the
applicant
wanted
not
83
but
50.
it'd
be
no
problem.
We'd
have
the
hearing,
however,
the
circumstances
are
not
those
at
all.
So
it's
putting
an
awkward
position
on
all
of
us
and
legal
things
happen
for
a
reason,
and
this
may
be
one
of
the
reasons
because
since
I've
been
here,
the
planning
commissions
always
put
on
record
their
feelings
are
whether
consistent
or
inconsistent
on
every
case
am
I,
correct.
K
That
is
before
you
tonight.
Well.
If
this
Council
makes
to
hear
this
cage
I
think
there's
a
possibility
that
some
other
things
that
we
do
not
want
to
happen
will
happen
to
the
city,
because
it
has
broken
the
chain
of
evidence
that
we've
always
looked
at
not
only
the
Planning
Commission
recommendation,
but
the
city's
staff
recommendation
am
I
correct.
Yes,.
K
E
Yes,
sir,
it
is
also
I've
had
this
opportunity
to
discuss
this
with
Ms
Johnson
Velez,
and
it's
also
my
recommendation,
in
my
opinion,
that
to
open
it
to
the
floor,
creates
a
risk
of
Council
hearing
things
that
may
ultimately
be
inappropriate
and
unhelpful
down
the
road.
So
it
is
my
suggestion
that
Council
have
act
on
the
motion
on
the
floor
and
see
where
it
goes
from
there
and
and
and
not
take
public
comment
if
Council
feels
compelled
and
feels
it
necessary
in
its
discretion.
To
take
public
comment.
E
I
will
be
very
mindful
of
the
ability
to
interrupt
people
to
be
able
to
protect
the
record
moving
forward,
but,
as
I
say
to
you
for
the
sake
of
expediency
and
for
the
sake
of
protecting
the
record.
The
best
course
of
action
would
be
to
not
take
public
comment
and
act
on
council's
motion
that
it
brought
up
on
its
own.
Q
I
I
would
prefer
to
hear
from
the
public
we've
heard
from
the
applicant
I
prefer
to
hear
from
the
public.
Only
to
this
point,
and
if
we
did
I,
would
ask
that
whatever
groups
there
I
don't
know
who's
for
against,
but
I
would
ask
whatever
groups
to
try
to
not
have
a
bunch
of
people
say
the
same
thing,
but
just
have
a
few
people
make
their
Salient
arguments
about
whether
it
should
or
shouldn't
go
back
to
the
Planning
Commission.
D
P
I
the
people
are
here:
I,
don't
have
a
problem
and
hearing
if
they
want
us
to
hear
this
or
not.
As
long
as
no
comment
is
made
about
the
case
itself,
I
tend
to
agree
with
councilman
Carlson.
E
M
E
D
C
D
Q
I
would
like
out
before
we
before
everybody
be
I
would
like
somebody
to
somebody
from
legal
to
explain
to
the
public
what
the
next
steps
are,
so
that
they
can
understand
what
the
dates
and
processing.
E
Is
that
before
sorry
Mr
chair
give
me,
but
is
that,
before
or
after
the
vote
you
want
somebody,
because
you
voted
to
call
the
question
calling
the
question
ends
the
debate
and
brings
the
main
motion
back
on
to
the
floor.
Did
you
want
them
to
raise
the
issue
you
want
to
raise
the
issue
after
the
because
there
wasn't
a
vote
yet
on
whether
to
remand
but
yeah.
E
If
you
don't
understand,
I'll
I'll
explain
it
the
way
you
can
to
call
the
question
does
not
mean
to
call
the
question
in
and
of
itself
is
a
motion.
A
subsidiary
motion
to
the
main
motion.
That's
on
the
floor.
That
is
the
motion
to
whether
to
end
the
debate
and
that
motion
passed,
which
now
brings
to
council
without
further
debate.
The
main
motion
on
the
floor,
which
is
council
member
Goods
motion
seconded
by
council
member
Maniscalco,.
D
A
R
D
D
D
Q
T
Jennifer
Malone
Planning
Commission
staff,
so
as
part
of
the
February
2023
cycle,
we're
just
we're
going
to
consider
this
amendment
as
part
of
February
2023,
with
the
revised
request
of
residential
50.
that
tracks
for
a
May,
8th,
Planning,
Commission
hearing
date
and
then
I
believe
it
would
be
before
you
in
either
late
May
or
early
June.
Depending
on
scheduling,
we
have
to
work
out
with
City
staff,
so
that
date
you
approve
those
by
motion.
So.
T
D
Q
T
Q
Think
the
the
point
is-
and
you
all
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
there's
at
least
one
opportunity
for
the
public
to
go
before
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
there
are
going
to
be
at
least
two
other
opportunities
that
come
before
city
council.
Yes,
so,
instead
of
instead
of
hearing
it
tonight,
we
don't
usually
hear
cases
that
aren't
that
aren't
don't
have
an
opinion
from
the
Planning
Commission
and
since,
in
effect
the
paperwork's
not
complete.
Q
T
G
Q
They
that
we
ask
the
applicant
to
re-notice.
Q
G
Q
I
just
made
a
motion,
and
so
the
public
understands
it.
Sometimes
when
items
are
continued,
there's
no
notice
of
the
public
and
so
you'd
have
to
watch
it
very
carefully.
You
I'm
sure
you're
going
to
watch
it
carefully
anyway,
whether
you're
for
against,
but
in
this
case
there's
going
to
be
a
requirement
of
the
of
the
applicant
to
notice
the
public
again.
D
E
Yes,
thank
you.
The
motion
that
you
took
for
a
remand
was
just
solely
for
item
number
one.
You
are
now
discussing
item
number
three
item.
Number
three
now
is
as
part
of
the
motion
to
continue
that
would
be.
Do
you
want
to
have
it
as
a
reset,
or
do
you
want
to
have
it
to
a
date
certain
with
it
with
part
of
the
motion,
irrespective
of
it
is
to
have
it
noticed
for.
G
Q
It
doesn't
it
can't
be.
It
can't
be
heard
tonight
anyway,
because
planning,
because
we
did
not
vote
on
the
first
item.
Correct.
G
G
Based
on
the
request
under
the
rezoning,
the
future
land
use
some
amendment
in
the
requested
density
from
the
applicant.
If
the
comp
plan
Amendment
does
not
move
forward,
then
the
rezoning
needs
to
move
needs
to
be
continued.
Q
P
Q
D
U
P
D
Q
One
more
thing
could
could
someone
from
the
Planning
Commission
just
explain:
I
know
that
that
now
we've
just
voted
that
the
applicant
has
to
notify
the
public
about
the
first
reading
for
the
zoning
and
you
said,
there's
an
automatic
notification
for
the
hearing
on
the
Planning
Commission.
But
that
is
that
for
the
city
council,
hearing
on
the
Planning
Commission
or
a
plan,
or
is
that
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
both.
Q
So
you
know
for
the
public,
you
know
the
dates
whether
you're
for
against
you
know
the
dates
now:
May
8th
and
June,
8th,
plus
the
second
hearing,
which
would
be
two
weeks
later.
But
but
you're.
You
should
be
getting
notices
on
May,
8th
for
the
May
8th
hearing
and
you
should
be
getting
two
notices
for
the
June
8th
hearing.
T
Sure
so,
councilman
one
so
typically
typically
I
know
this
is
not
a
typical
night,
but
typically
we
ask
you
to
approve
a
motion
to
set
a
plan
Amendment
on
on
your
on
your
hearings,
and
so
when
you
set
that,
then
that
puts
into
motion
the
notice.
N
T
Q
Make
a
motion
to
to
schedule
the
the
TA.
T
Q
Adoption
hearing
on
on
June
8th
at
501
to
precede
the
the
zoning
hearing.
D
P
Q
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
D
H
D
In
instructing
the
people
that
came
down
here
to
speak
on
what
needed
to
be
done
where
to
go
and
to
manage
the
the
proceedings
correctly,
thank
you
both
very
much
for
the
work
you
did
this
evening.
Our
first
hearing
excuse
me
our
first
agenda
item
right
now
is
going
to
be
agenda.
Item
number
four
file:
number
Rez,
22-110,
miss
doc.
G
G
At
that
time,
that
case
was
heard,
and
that
request
was
from
rm16
and
PD
for
of
the
same
uses,
the
single
family,
detached
and
the
semi-detached,
and
that
request
was
denied
the
applicant
actually
modified
their
plan.
They
went
under
consideration
with
the
zoning
administrator
and
they
are
able
to
re-apply,
which
is
the
application
before
you
today.
There
was
an
error
in
the
staff
report,
so
I
provided
a
new
staff
report
today
this
evening,
which
was
laying
there
I
think
it's
been
passed.
Yes,.
G
G
That
waiver
is
no
longer
required
due
to
changes
to
the
code
recently
text
amendments
which
are
recently
adopted,
and
also
they
have
changed
the
orientation
of
the
front
doors,
and
that
is
on
the
end
units.
Those
doors
now
face
South,
Albany
Avenue
and
the
last
thing
that
was
done
is
they
added
the
sidewalks
along
the
North
and
the
South
on
each
side
of
the
building
and
those
sidewalks
connect
from
each
unit
to
the
adjacent
sidewalk.
G
D
T
Jennifer
Malone
Planning
Commission
staff.
This
is
located
in
the
central
Tampa
planning
district
within
the
Soho
neighborhood
Hyde
Park
is
the
closest
public
Recreational
facility
to
a
bus
route,
serve
the
subject
site.
It's
with
any
level.
C
evacuation,
Zone
and
here
is
an
aerial
of
the
site.
So
you're
probably
familiar
with
this
because
it
came
before
you
previously
as
lashon
stated,
but
here
it
is
on
South
Albany.
T
We
have
South
Howard
Avenue
to
the
west
of
the
site
and
then
Platt
streets
in
the
north,
so
we're
all
familiar
with
the
commercial
bars
and
restaurants
along
South,
Howard,
Avenue
and
then
along
this
portion
of
South
Albany
Avenue.
There's
a
variety
of
housing
types,
A
lot
of
Townhouses
townhouse
development,
a
lot
of
single-family
attached
development.
T
and
then
along
South,
Howard,
Avenue
and
West
Platte
street
is
community
mixed
use,
35,
which
allows
for
those
commercial
uses,
and
we
see,
though,
that
feature
land
use
primarily
along
our
corridors,
so
the
comprehensive
plan
does
provide,
encourages
infill
development.
So
that
way,
we
can
have
an
adequate
amount
of
land
for
residential
development
to
provide
for
our
growing
population
and
due
to
the
it
being
in
this
area,
the
city
near
Transit,
options,
employment
and
entertainment
options.
It
would
be
suitable
for
increased
housing
choices.
T
So
we
did
the
density
analysis
and
we
found
that
the
average
existing
density
on
this
portion
of
South
Albany
Avenue
is
16.28
units
per
acre,
which
is
a
little
bit
below
the
maximum
that
can
be
considered
under
the
residential
35..
If
this
is
approved
before
you
tonight,
this
would
be
developed
at
20
dwelling
units,
an
acre
so
still
below
that
residential
35,
which
is
the
maximum
that
the
comprehensive
plan
has
planned
for
for
this
area.
T
So
our
finding
before
you
tonight
is
consistent,
which
is
different
than
how
you
saw
this
previously,
and
that's
because
the
applicant
worked
with
the
Planning
Commission
to
label
entrances
and
provide
safe
pedestrian
connection
from
South
Albany
Avenue
to
those
units
which
meet
the
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
Lu
policy
9.2.6,
which
states
that
single
family
attached
development
shall
encourage
the
orientation
of
front
doors
as
sidewalks
of
the
front
doors
of
sidewalks
and
streets,
so
the
way
that
the
front
doors
are
labeled
and
there's
a
clear,
sidewalk,
pedestrian
connection
from
South
Albany.
T
G
Thank
you
again:
Council
lashon
doc,
development
coordination,
and
this
request
before
you.
This
PD
would
allow
the
development
of
six
units,
that's
four
town
home
units
and
two
single-family
detached
units
on
the
site.
The
lot
contains
12
845
square
feet
and
I'm
going
to
put
the
site
plan
up
for
this
request
and
just
zoom
in
a
little.
So
this
is
to
orient
you.
This
is
South
Albany
Avenue
on
the
plan,
and
this
is
the
property
line
which
is
identified
in
a
dotted
line.
G
Here
are
the
two
buildings
that
have
your
two
units
each
on
each
structure,
and
then
these
are
the
single
family
detached
units,
so
access
to
the
site
is
from
Albany.
These
are
the
units
that
had
the
doors
which
were
reoriented
to
face
Albany,
and
then
this
is
the
sidewalk
that
was
placed
to
the
north
and
to
the
South
connecting
the
units.
G
G
So
this
is
the
site:
that's
located
here
identified
in
red
and
you
can
see
just
the
Orient
you
on
the
site
on
this
map.
This
is
Swan
Avenue.
This
is
the
Leon.
This
is
Albany
Avenue
and
you
can
see
that
there's
the
site
is
surrounded
with
various
PD
zonings,
there's
rm16
residential
multi-family,
which
is
the
existing,
and
then
you
have
as
you
head
towards
Howard
Avenue,
the
commercial
zoning
that
runs
along
that
corridor
and
then
I
have
pictures
of
the
site.
G
G
S
Y
Very
much
thanks
good
evening
Council,
my
name
is
Tyler
Hudson.
My
address
is
400
North
Ashley
Drive
with
me
here
this
evening
is
my
colleague,
Alex
chaler,
the
the
actual
property
owner
and
applicant
is
Ryan
Basham
who's
available.
To
answer
questions
in
our
architect.
Alex
Rios
is
here
as
well.
I
just
want
to
reinforce
a
couple
points
that
lashon
and
Jennifer
have
already
made
I
think
we're
familiar
with
where
the
site
is
it's
in
The
Courier,
City,
Oscar,
wanna,
neighborhood,
it's
just
about
two
blocks:
east
of
Howard.
It's
about
two
blocks.
Y
East
of
you
know
what
you
think
of
as
the
bar
District,
it's
in
an
area
where
there's
a
very
pervasive
development
pattern
of
multi-family
dwellings
as
well
as
Town
Homes,
which
Alex
is
going
to
talk
about
in
a
little
bit.
But
it's
functionally
to
two
lots.
It's
two
lots
that
currently
each
have
one
home
on
them.
Y
What
we're
proposing
is
to
make
each
of
those
lots
house
three
units
so
going
from
a
place
where
two
folks,
two
families
can
live
to
six
as
Jennifer
alluded
to
that's
less
than
the
nine,
which
is
the
maximum
allowable
under
the
code.
If
you
went
to
the
nine
you'd
probably
have
to
do
that
in
an
apartment,
configure
duration,
so
I
think
what
we
have
proposed
here
with
the
six
units
is
about
what
what
we
can
do
without
you
know,
by
drastically
changing
the
massing
in
the
look
of
the
the
site.
Y
Lashon
stole
the
thunder
on
this
and
did
a
much
better
job
of
going
through,
but
this
you've
seen
this
before
it
might
sound
familiar.
You
all
see
a
lot
of
these
cases.
This
was
before
you
in
April.
It
was
denied
on
a
4-3
vote.
There
was
an
inconsistency
finding
from
the
Planning
Commission.
This
was
one
where
we
talked
a
lot
about
whether
we
could
add
between
first
and
second
reading,
which
there
was
not
a
second
reading
front
doors.
There's
a
land
use
policy
under
the
comprehensive
plan
9.16.
Y
It
says
that
the
frontages
of
single-family
homes
should
face
the
street
and
that
that
makes
some
sense.
Our
project
fell
short
of
that
initially,
so
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
it
really
just
adds
to
the
frontages
for
the
units
on
Albany.
You
now
enter
from
Albany
straight
in
you.
Don't
walk
up
the
drive
aisle
with
cars
and
into
the
side
for
those
two
front
units,
so
we've
made
that
change.
Y
The
other
concern
was
that
the
town
homes
were
a
little
bit
stranded
and
that
to
get
there
you'd
again
have
to
walk
through
the
drive
aisle.
So
what
we
did
was
add
a
perimeter
sidewalk
to
connect
those
so
that
folks
will
lock
golf
off
of
Albany
in
the
sidewalk
to
a
perimeter,
sidewalk
that
connects
to
their
front
door,
but
those
front
doors
do
face,
of
course
outwards
because
they
can't
face
front
because
the
front
edge
units
are
there,
as
Alex
will
show.
Y
V
V
However,
some
of
the
the
dimensional
regulations
in
the
rm16
zoning
make
development
of
multi-family
on
some
of
these
properties
very
difficult,
especially
ones
that
permit
a
higher
land
use
like
this.
The
R35
like
medium
density
uses
and
as
you
can
see,
this
isn't
a
hardship
suffered
only
by
our
site
and
in
our
applicant,
but
of
a
lot
of
other
sites
within
the
surrounding
area
as
well.
V
Staff
did
find
this
application
consistent
across
every
single
reviewing
Department,
including
the
Planning
Commission
as
well,
and
we
are
requesting
one
waiver
in
conjunction
with
the
application,
and
this
is
touched
on
a
little
bit
by
Tyler.
But
although
we
do
have
those
front
two
units
facing
the
street,
we
are
requesting
a
waiver
for
the
remaining
four
units
on
site.
Given
that
we
don't
have
the
width
along
Albany
Avenue,
we
only
have
90
feet
of
Frontage
with
each
unit
being
roughly
32
feet.
V
We
can
only
fit
so
many
up
there
along
the
road,
but
in
order
to
accommodate
that,
we
made
a
few
different
site
improvements,
and
this
goes
with
it.
The
units
facing
the
external
there
were
some
concerns
with
the
original
rezoning
that
were
expressed
by
the
neighbors
that
this
development
quote
turned
its
shoulder
on
the
surrounding
community
and
that's
absolutely
something
that
we
didn't
want.
V
So
we
came
back
and
made
some
facade
enhancements
and
our
architect
is
here
to
speak
to
those
as
well,
if
needed,
and
but,
as
you
can
see,
the
elevations
on
the
left
were
part
of
the
original
rezoning.
The
elevations
in
the
dotted
Green
Line,
are
what
is
being
approved
before
you
tonight
and,
as
you
can
see,
this
shows
a
lot
more
of
facade
articulation
that
we
feel
like
really
really
included
the
neighboring
Lots.
V
The
second
Improvement
is
the
perimeter
sidewalk,
which
we've
mentioned,
allowing
direct
access
from
Albany
to
every
unit
along
the
northern
and
southern
boundary,
the
third
one
being
the
flipping
of
the
units
and
the
fourth
one
being
as
lashon
mentioned,
the
parking
code
has
changed,
so
we
are
no
longer
requesting
a
parking
waiver.
All
12
spaces
that
are
required
under
the
city's
code
are
provided
on
site.
That
was
also
a
concern
that
was
mentioned
with
the
original
rezoning
was
the
excessive
on-street
parking
on
Albany
and
for
fear
that
it
would
overcrowd
the
street.
V
V
The
setbacks
was
another
issue
that
was
brought
up
in
the
original
rezoning,
and
so
we
wanted
to
address
that
one
one
more
time.
What
we're
proposing
is
a
10-foot
front
setback
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
some
of
the
stricter
dimensional
regulations
in
the
rm16
zoning
category
require
25
foot
setback
from
the
property
line.
However,
that's
a
standard
requirement
and,
as
you
can
see
here,
we're
providing
roughly
26.5
feet
from
the
edge
of
Albany.
There
is
a
significant
amount
of
right-of-way
between
the
property
line
and
the
road.
V
So,
although
we're
only
providing
a
10-foot
setback
on
site,
there
is
an
effectively
26.5
foot
buffer
from
the
road
for
this
site.
Tyler
alluded
to
this
earlier.
The
fact
that
instead
of
Jennifer,
the
fact
that
this
allows
up
to
30
dwelling
units
per
acre
based
off
of
our
parcel
size,
we
could
have
nine
units
we're
proposing
six
units
which
we
feel
is
a
very
modest
proposal
and
in
and
does
fit
into
the
community.
And
the
reason
for
that
is
because
also
as
alluded
to
earlier,
there
is
a
ton
of
multi-family
development
in
the
area.
V
The
red
stars
on
the
screen
are
showing
the
town
homes
Villas
that
are
in
the
area
and
then
the
green
stars
are
showing
multi-family
developments.
So,
as
you
can
see
the
culmination
of
all
the
stars
located
on
the
screen
and
this,
the
specific
area
of
the
city
south
of
Platte
east
of
Howard
Avenue,
is
very,
very
prevalent
multi-family
development
in
the
area,
and
we
feel
that's
a
that's
a
great
precedent
for
our
request
tonight
and
with
that
I'll
conclude
the
presentation
and
we
are
available
for
any
questions.
Q
For
for
either
of
you,
it
looks
like
some
of
the
same
folks
that
were
here
before
in
the
community
are
back
and
they'll
speak
in
a
minute.
Could
you
tell
us
what
their,
what
you
know
of
their
objections
and
what
your
response
is?
I
know
you
have
rebuttal,
but
could
you
just
give
us
some
highlights
of
it
sure.
V
V
As
I
mentioned,
it
seemed
like
the
fact
that
this
was
an
isolated
development
with
the
buildings
facing
internal,
not
engaging
aside
another
big
one
being
not
engaging
Albany
Avenue,
which
is
why
we
flipped
the
units
three
and
six
to
face
the
street
so
that,
whenever
you're
walking
by
as
a
pedestrian
they
mentioned,
you
know
it's
a
very
pedestrian
heavy
Street,
there's
a
lot
of
bicyclists
when
somebody
is
effectively
walking
or
biking
in
front
of
the
site.
V
You
see
the
frontage
of
these
two
units
along
Albany,
Avenue
and
you're,
engaged
like
you,
would,
with
two
single-family
homes
being
placed
on
these
parcels
and
then
the
third
one
being
the
traffic.
There
was
multiple
mentions
of
of
concern
with
the
parking
waiver
that
it
would
cause
overflow
parking
on
Albany
Avenue,
which
has
mentioned
they
had
said,
was
already
really
crowded,
as
it
is.
So
all
the
parking
that's
required
under
the
city's
code.
All
12
spaces
are
provided
on-site
internal
to
the
development.
D
Z
Good
evening,
I
was
sworn
in.
My
name
is
Lisa
Birnbaum
and
my
husband,
Don
Laurel
and
I
live
at
405,
South
Albany
as
next-door
neighbors
to
the
two
Bungalows
to
be
demolished.
You
may
remember:
we
spoke
at
the
April
hearing.
We
didn't
expect
this
rezoning
plan
to
be
resubmitted
and
accepted
before
a
year's
time.
We're
now
here
to
explain
again
our
persistent
distress
about
such
an
unsightly
development
in
our
neighborhood.
The
developer
got
to
work
in
May.
Z
The
record
shows
just
after
the
Project's
denial
to
get
the
waiver
for
this
early
hearing,
but
his
efforts
to
improve
the
plan
were
shockingly
limited.
Just
a
couple
of
concessions,
not
true
gestures,
toward
a
suitable
appealing
design.
He
has
ignored
the
many
issues
raised
by
neighbors
and
now
a
petition
against
the
buildings
has
been
signed
by
dozens,
the
more
we
examine
the
materials,
the
more
it's
clear.
Z
My
husband
and
I
wouldn't
merely
be
living
a
few
feet
beside
a
massive
building,
but
when
sitting
every
day
on
our
screen
porch
also
behind
and
beneath
it,
there
would
also
be
a
five
foot
wall
around
the
buildings,
outsize
protrusion
toward
the
sidewalk
blocking
our
southern
view
of
the
street.
The
setback
looks
to
be
less
than
the
10
feet
stated
on
the
site
plan
and
we
don't
see
an
exception
to
the
20
or
maybe
25
foot
requirement
explained
elsewhere.
Z
No
trees
would
diminish
the
Stark
incongruous
expanse
of
concrete
to
the
right
of
our
home
and,
of
course,
residents
all
along
the
street
would
not
be
able
to
ignore
the
immense
eyesore
in
the
middle
of
the
block.
Some
living
across
the
street
would
be
looking
down
a
broad
driveway,
the
size,
the
same
width
of
the
street,
cutting
the
Block
in
half
and
ending
in
a
not
particularly
picturesque
alley.
Z
The
chance
of
meeting
the
many
walled
in
occupants
of
the
new
development
would
be
slim,
given
that
four
of
the
six
units
would
face
each
other
across
the
wide
concrete
driveway.
From
the
start,
this
Dooms
neighborly
contact
a
prized
quality
for
the
communities
in
the
Tampa
comprehensive
plan.
Small
patios
have
been
renamed
entries
in
the
latest,
drawing
though,
without
a
doubt,
little
used
for
comings
and
goings
since
they
are
located
on
the
other
side
of
the
garages.
Z
J
J
It
may
technically
conform
to
these
the
guidelines
and
the
stars,
but
it
is
too
big.
It
is
an
architectural
assault
on
the
street.
It's
bunker
versus
Bungalow,
really
it's
too
large,
and
it
requires
too
many
variances.
There
are
some
large
townhouses
on
the
street,
but
they're
set
back
from
the
street
and
they're
set
back
on
the
street
because
in
those
developments
they're
either
duplexes
or
fourplexes
they're
not
trying
to
build
six
of
these
things.
J
J
It
increases
the
impervious
area
dramatically
and
we
we
already
know
that
we
have
drainage
problems
along
along
Albany.
Nothing
has
been
addressed
about
that
and
personally
I've
got
a
lot
of
problems
with
it,
because
we've
got
two:
we've
got
some
oak
trees
that
are
right
on
the
property
line.
They
they
need
these
variances
to
push
this
thing
clear
out
to
the
property
line.
J
We've
got
we've,
you
know
so
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
be
impacted
unnecessarily,
just
because
they
want
to
build
it
bigger
and
we
are,
are
I,
think
without
any
clarity
about
the
storm
drain
situation
facing
potential
flood
hazards
in
our
own
home
I
mean,
and
also
you
know,
to
be
strictly
personal
about
it
is
going
to
destroy
our
quality
of
life.
We
lived
on
Albany
Avenue
30
years,
we've
been
in
this
house
25.
other
people
have
come
along
and
tried
to
buy
those
houses
and
live
in
them
fix
them
up.
J
The
fates
didn't
allow
that
to
happen,
but-
and
we
understand
that
we
have
to
have
development,
but
this
is
overkill.
This
is
too
much.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
You
one
of
the
women
excuse
me.
One
of
the
speakers
asked
for
clarification
on
whether
there
was
an
inconsistency.
G
Yes,
thank
you,
Council
lashon
doc,
development
coordination.
So
the
final
report
from
the
Planning
Commission
with
the
revised
site
plan
had
a
finding
of
consistent
what
a
recommendation
they
was
consistent.
The
report
that
was
sent
out
initially
did
not
include
that
latest
report
from
the
Planning
Commission,
so
it
was
resent
to
include
it.
So
what
they
may
have
seen
was
the
initial
submittal.
AA
AA
I
had
30
neighbors
sign
this
petition
all
against
this
development
and
basically
because
it's
too
much
for
the
area,
what
the
area
was
designed
a
hundred
years
ago,
and
it
has
a
streetscape
and
your
houses
are
all
in
alignment
now
you're
having
a
35-foot
story,
building
10
feet
out
of
whack
with
a
with
the
rest
of
that
street
right
in
the
middle
of
this
block,
which
is
inconsistent
with
with
the
development
and
we're
here
a
hundred
years
later,
and
we're
playing
a
a
game
that
is
like
it
doesn't
make
sense.
Plus.
AA
This
neighborhood
was
developed
a
hundred
years
ago
a
hundred
years
ago.
If
you
look
at
these
streets,
you
had
you
had
streets
houses
that
were
had
alley
access
and
garages
in
the
back.
The
other
side
of
the
street
had
had
driveways
now,
you've
taken
this
area
and
you've
you're,
putting
you're
putting
sidewalk
or
you're
putting
garages
and
and
driveways
on
both
sides
of
the
street.
This
is
a
downtown
district.
I
believe.
Is
it
not?
Doesn't
the
downtown
district
go
to
Howard
Avenue
now.
AA
And
there's
we
have
consistent
parking
on
on
the
Parkways.
We
have
consistent
block
sidewalks,
the
American
Disabilities
Act
is
enforced
in
a
historic
district.
This
is
still
a
historic
district.
It's
labeled
that
way.
The
plans
that
you
have
for
for
you
to
take
and
look
at
what's
happening
are
give
you
no
idea
of
what
is
what
is
happening
as
far
as
where
your
sidewalks
are
where,
where
the,
where
the.
AA
Where
you,
where
your
parking
is,
and
the
City
Planning
and
city
council
are
unaware
of
the
hazard
that
the
current
development
has
the
streets,
the
city
development
of
this
neighborhood
of
swan
has
been
created.
How
street
parking
problem
too
many
apartments
are
too
many
apartments,
and
not
enough
parking
plus
coated
Forest,
which
is
not
complete,
is
not
compete,
complete
sidewalks
in
these
developments.
They
they
have
no
funds
for
such
expenditures.
We
recommend
all
development
stopped
until
this
city
can
correct
a
past
development
errors.
AA
We
recommend
the
city
correct
these
missing,
sidewalks
and
infrastructure.
We
also
recommend
the
developers
and
Code
Department
be
responsible
for
these
errors
and
that
records
and
Records
kept
on
fire
on
fines
can
be
levied
so
income,
incompetent
developers
and
code
employees
are
not
allowed
to
develop
or
work
in
code
departments
and
I'm
Paige
item
17
page
one
pre-development,
post
development,
impervious
area.
AA
AA
T
This
is
an
East
Central,
Tampa
Planning
District,
although
I
will
clarify
downtown,
is,
is
included
in
that,
but
it's
not
regulatory.
So
well,
it
is,
but
it
doesn't
have
like
Land
Development
code
regulations.
Not
yeah
am
I
answering
the
question
correctly.
Yes,
so
it's
it.
D
Q
G
Think,
yes,
lashon
doc
development
coordination.
Q
Q
AB
Hi,
my
name
is
Dara
Simon
I
live
I've
lived
at
410,
South
Albany
Avenue,
for
over
20
years.
My
townhouse
is
directly
across
the
street
from
the
from
407
and
409
South
Albany
I'm
opposed
to
the
proposed
rezoning
of
407
and
409
South
Albany.
For
the
following
reasons.
The
applicant
is
demolishing
to
Historic
1920s
Bungalows
to
construct
six
townhouses.
These
Bungalows
are
located
within
the
Hyde
Park
National
Historic
District.
AB
In
addition,
the
reduction
of
the
setbacks
on
all
sides
as
well
out
of
Conformity
with
the
rest
of
the
block,
no
other
structure
on
the
street
has
such
setbacks.
The
only
reason
for
the
setbacks
is
for
the
applicant
to
maximize
the
square
footage
of
the
units
and
get
every
last
dollar
out
of
the
property.
The
proposed
driveway
that's
24
feet
wide.
If
that
gets
built,
I
will
look
down
to
24
feet
wide
driveway
to
the
back
alley
from
the
front
of
my
house.
AB
I
have
serious
concerns
about
the
state,
my
safety
and
the
safety
of
my
neighbors.
As
a
result
of
having
this
direct
access
to
the
back
alley,
I
fully
recognize
the
need
for
redevelopment
in
the
area.
The
townhouse
I
built
is
a
result
of
Redevelopment
of
a
dilapidated
house.
The
difference
is
that
the
design
of
my
townhouse
fits
with
the
architecture
of
the
street
and
contributes
to
the
charm
of
the
area.
AB
In
addition,
me
and
several
of
my
neighbors
were
back
here
in
December
and
with
no
notice
to
us,
the
applicant
asked
for
an
extension
of
the
application
in
conclusion,
I'm
asking
you
to
protect
the
character
of
our
neighborhood
and
stop
this
proposed
development.
There's
too
many
historic
Bungalows
that
are
being
torn
down
to
make
to
make
room
for
these
massive
multi-unit
structure
that
have
diminished
the
aesthetic
quality
of
the
neighborhood.
AB
D
AC
AC
My
name
is
Tamara
Hein
and
I
live
at
410
South
Albany
Avenue,
I'm,
Dara's
neighbor.
We
too
live
in
a
townhouse.
It's
a
quad
Plex
with
two
units
up
front
Spanish
style
to
match
the
neighborhood
The
Pink
House.
You
may
have
seen
in
the
picture.
I
moved
in
at
20
years
ago.
Same
time,
Dara
did
I
moved
in
for
the
gorgeous
view
of
the
Bungalows
across
the
street.
AC
AC
It
can
be
difficult.
There
are
houses
on
the
street
further
down
that
look
like
they
need
some
upkeep,
maybe
some
teardown
and
some
replacement,
one
of
the
other
houses
or
I
should
say
one
of
the
other
developments
that
you
approved
not
too
long
ago
actually
is
going
to
be
one
of
those
positive
additions
to
the
neighborhood.
It
will
bring
character
to
it
and
fit
within
the
scope
of
the
neighborhood.
We
want
to
keep
when
I
look
at
the
design
that
this
applicant
has
brought
forward.
AC
AC
That
is
why
I
am
hoping
you
will
give
some
very
strong
consideration
and
and
not
basically
rubber
stamp.
This
I'm
afraid
if
we
don't
get
the
stopped
now,
what
recourse
are
we
going
to
have
it's
really
going
to
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
and
we
know
our
neighbors.
D
E
Yes
and
just
a
quick
reminder
to
council
and
the
public
that
petitions
do
not
in
quasidential,
matters
constitute
confident
substantial
evidence.
Just
with
a
reminder
of
that.
Thank
you.
Thank.
Y
That
was
the
foresight
to
say
that,
given
where
this
location
is,
there
probably
should
be
more
than
just
one
home
per
lot
and
we'll
say
there
can
be
up
to
nine
units
on
these
two
lots
combined
and
again
we're
asking
for
six
there's
a
couple
things
I
want
to
note
the
first.
There
are
a
lot
of
concerns
or
opinions
about
design.
Design
is
not
something
that
this
Council
or
the
city
has
chosen
to
regulate
on
this
land.
This
Council
certainly
well
knows
in
other
parts
of
the
city.
Y
Design
is
heavily
regulated,
it
is
not
regulated
here.
This
is
in
the
National
Historic
District
from
a
local
perspective
that
is
not
relevant.
That
is
not
in
the
local
historic
district.
There
is
no
historical,
there's,
no
elevated
historical
protection
here
Council
can
change
that
council
did
it
recently
for
the
dolbyville
neighborhood
Council
has
not
done
that
here
and
regarding
setbacks,
as
we
showed,
and
we
put
some
evidence
into
the
record,
the
the
setbacks
that
we're
proposing
of
10
feet
is
not
far
off
from
the
1214.
Y
You
all
are
not
wearing
judicial
robes,
and
only
only
one
of
you
has
a
gavel,
but
this
is
a
situation
where
there
are
some
elevated
standards
about
what
counts
as
evidence
and
what
doesn't
their
and
think
about
Lady
Justice,
right
as
a
metaphor
for
a
Judicial
proceeding
the
scales.
On
the
one
hand,
in
support
of
this
application,
you
have
the
experts
at
the
Planning
Commission
who
have
found
that
this
application
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
That's
the
first
requirement
under
not
your
local
law,
but
under
state
statute.
Y
In
addition
to
that,
we
we
believe,
furnish
into
the
record
and
evident
a
memo
of
compliance
with
the
Land
Development
codes,
PD
purpose
requirements,
and
we
gave
the
presentation
before
you
this
evening
on
the
other
side
of
the
scale
you
have
neighbors,
who
expressed
some
very
strong
and
well-intentioned
and
absolutely
heartfelt
opinions
about
things
like
the
bulk
of
the
site.
The
design
of
the
site
potential
changes
their
quality
of
life
that
we
certainly
hope
don't
happen
if
this
were
to
get
approved,
and
those
are
all
fine
to
bring
before
you
in
public
comment.
Y
But
that's
that
is
not
substantial
or
competent
evidence
and
the
purpose
of
public
notice
isn't
to
pull
the
neighborhood.
If
that
was
the
reason
we
we
could
make
you
make
these
decisions
on
Facebook
or
or
next
door,
the
purpose
behind
competent
or
behind
the
public
notice
is
to
give
folks
notice
and
an
opportunity
to
be
heard,
but
under
the
laws
that
govern
these
types
of
decisions,
what
has
to
be
brought
forth
is
substantial
and
competent
evidence
and
with
respect
to
the
neighbors
and
with
respect
to
this
Council.
Y
That
is
not
what
was
brought
forward
in
public
comment.
There
was
some
opinion,
but
not
evidence,
I,
believe
that
when
you
weigh
the
balance
with
the
consistency
determination
from
your
staff
at
the
Planning
Commission
and
from
your
staff
of
the
development
and
growth
management,
the
presentation
we
gave
we
believe
there
are
substantial
and
competent
evidence
in
the
record
to
support
and
approval
of
this
application
and
I
do
not
believe
there
is
any
substantial
or
competent
evidence
to
support
a
denial
and
with
that
I.
G
Yes,
Council
thank
you,
lashon
doc,
development
coordination,
councilor
and
looking
at
the
plan
and
seeing
the
redesign
there
is
an
additional
waiver
that
is
required
on
this
site
plan,
which
could
be
added
between
first
and
second
reading.
If
it
is
approved
this
evening,
and
that
is
a
waiver
to
27
162
for
the
building
separation,
the
requirement
is
15
feet,
and
so
the
waiver
would
be
added
to
the
plan
in
between
first
and
second
reading
and
I
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record.
That's
one
heart
attack
what.
U
G
That,
with
the
two
doors,
I
believe
it's
at
seven,
okay,
four,
seven
six:
this
is
the
area
here.
I
can
put
it
on,
though,.
D
G
So
this
is,
this
is
unit
two
and
then
unit
three
is
here.
So
this
is
the
the
two
buildings,
but
these
are
the
entry,
the
points
of
Entry
that
are
on
each
side,
so
they're,
reducing
it
for
the
separation
between
the
two
and
then
the
same
is
going
to
apply
for
these
two
buildings
that
are
South.
The
building
separation.
D
G
Q
Could
you
just
tell
us
what
could
be
built
here
by
Wright
versus
what
the
applicants
are
requesting.
G
So
right
now
the
property
is
currently
zoned
rm16,
which
is
residential
multi-family,
so
it
would
allow
for
either
multi-family
units
for
residential.
Although
you
see
some
of
the
single
family
that's
surrounding,
but
it
has
the
multi-family
zoning
District
on
it.
G
G
It
is,
it
has
the
future
Lane
use
of
R35,
so
you
can
have
30
units
per
acre
and
there
are
20
units
per
acre,
so
I
think
there's
a
maximum
if
I
can
get
my
report
for
a
second,
please
great,
thank
you
tonight.
G
E
E
D
D
Q
I
would
I
would
move
to
deny
Rez
22-110
for
the
property
located
at
407
409
South
Albany
Avenue
to
the
failure
of
the
applicant
to
meet
the
burden
approved
to
provide
competent,
substantial
evidence
that
the
development
as
conditioned
and
shown
on
the
site
plan
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
city
code
and
that
the
applicants
failure
to
meet
its
burden,
improve
with
respect
to
the
requester
waiver.
Q
The
proposed
rezoning
does
not
comply
with
the
land
use
policy
9.3.8,
which
requires
new
residential
development
projects
to
be
minimally
disruptive
to
adjacent
areas
that
proposed
development,
as
shown
in
the
site
plan,
does
not
promote
or
encourage
development
that
is
appropriate
in
location,
character
and
compatibility
with
the
surrounding
uses.
We
heard
competent,
substantial
evidence
from
the
community
about
about
how
the
the
waivers
affect
the
the
consistency
and
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
and
would
have
a
detrimental
effect
on
the
neighborhood.
D
R
H
Thank
you
very
much.
My
motion
then,
would
be
to
approve
this
plan.
Development
PD
residential
rezoning
with
the
waivers
as
stated
This
Is
Res
22-110
I
move
an
ordinance
being
presented
for
first
reading,
consideration,
ordinance
returning
property
in
the
general
city
of
407
and
409
South,
Albany
Avenue
in
the
city
of
Tampa
Florida,
and
more
particularly
described
in
section
one
from
zoning,
District
classification,
rm16,
residential
multi-family
to
PD
plan
development,
residential
single-family,
detached
and
semi-detached,
providing
effective
date
and
I'll
State
some
findings.
In
fact,
we
saw
consensus
consistency.
H
All
the
way
through
with
with
the
reports
I
find
that
this
was
in
compliance
with
applicable
goals,
objectives
and
policies
in
the
comprehensive
plan
in
regards
to
the
Planning
Commission
staff
report.
H
And
then
the
waivers
in
compliance
with
27-139
number
four,
such
as
the
design
of
proposed
development,
is
unique
and
therefore
in
need
of
a
waiver.
The
requested
waiver
will
not
substantially
interfere
with
or
injure
the
rights
of
others
whose
property
would
be
affected
by
the
way,
and
that
includes
the
the
waivers
that
are
stated
and
is
there
a
revision
sheets
revision
sheet
as
well?
Yes,.
P
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
vote
no
on
this,
just
because
the
waiver
does
impact
the
the
feel
of
the
neighborhood
and
I
I,
just
I,
just
the
internal
Courtyard
thing
I.
Just
that
doesn't
encourage
neighborliness.
Q
Yeah
and
the
same
thing,
the
the
the
evidence
that
was
shown
in
testimony
shown
shows
that
it's
possible
to
build
multi-family
in
this
neighborhood
without
being
outside
the
character
and
and
feel
the
neighborhood
at
which
this
project
does
so
I
will
be
voting.
Those
wrong
thing,
discussion.
P
C
Q
G
G
Thank
you,
Council
LaShonda
development
coordination.
Item
number
six
is
Rez
2277.
This
is
for
the
property
located
at
310
West
Columbus
Drive,
the
applicant
is
represented
by
Steve
michelini.
This
request
is
to
rezone
the
property
from
rm16
residential
multi-family
to
PD
plan
development
for
single
family
attached
use
on
the
site
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Planning
Commission
for
their
report
and
I'll
come
back
and
get
my
report.
Thank
you.
T
Jennifer
Malone
Planning
Commission
staff.
This
is
in
the
central
Tampa
Central
Tampa
planning
district,
the
Tampa
Heights
neighborhood,
and
the
Tampa
Heights
Urban
Village
Robert
C
Gardner
Park
is
the
closest
public
Recreational
facility.
There
is
a
Transit
stop
near
the
site,
served
by
heart,
Route
15
and
is
within
evacuation.
Zone
E
I
will
now
show
an
aerial,
so
it's
located
along
West
Columbus
Drive
to
the
north.
We
have
the
boys
and
girls
club
and
then
the
Villa
Madonna
School
West
Columbus
Drive
on
this
segment.
T
There's
some
single
family
detached
and
there's
also
some
two
family
dwelling
units
here.
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
mixture
of
housing
types
and
we're
typically
residential
South
of
West
Coast
of
West
Columbus
Drive.
Although
the
future
land
use
I
apologize.
This
future
lady
uses
residential
35,
which
is
a
very
residential
future.
Ladies
category
to
the
north,
is
residential
20.
T
in
the
brown,
which
is
a
little
bit
lower.
The
blue
is
public
semi-public.
So
that's
recognizing
that
the
school
to
the
north
of
the
subject
site
and
then
the
pink
is
community
mixtures
35.
So,
as
you
see
the
pattern
at
North,
Massachusetts
and
North
ola
here
would
transition
to
more
commercial
uses,
because
that's
what
the
future
of
land
use
allows,
and
so
the
request
before
you
is
for
residential.
It's
consistent
with
the
adoptive
future
language
designation.
T
T
It
is
within
an
area
of
the
city,
that's
near
Transit
and
employment
options,
and
we
could
also
consider
this
to
be
vacant
or
underutilized,
because
there's
not
as
the
the
site
can
accommodate
more
dwelling
units
in
this
area
of
the
city
to
meet
the
need
for
housing
for
Tampa
scoring
population.
We
also
found
that
the
design
was
met
as
well
satisfying
Lu
policy
9.2.6,
with
these
sidewalks
connecting
the
front
doors
off
of
West
Columbus
Drive
does.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
It
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
always
movable
for
any
questions.
T
G
Thank
you
again:
Council
lashon
doc
development
coordination
and
this
rezoning
request
Council
to
the
PD,
is,
as
mentioned,
to
allow
for
eight
residential
single-family
attached
units
on
the
site.
The
request
would
allow
for
construction
of
two
structures
on
the
site
and
after
the
site
plan,
and
let
me
zoom
in
on
it
here.
G
So
this
is
the
site
which
is
located
on
West,
Columbus,
Drive
and
trying
to
straighten
it
up
here,
just
a
second.
So
this
is
Columbus
Drive,
and
this
is
the
entry
to
the
site,
and
these
are
the
two
buildings
that
are
proposed.
There
are
two
structures
proposed:
each
structure
would
contain
four
units.
Each
unit
would
contain
two
car
garages
which
are
internal
to
the
site,
and
then
there
are
two
parking
spaces,
one
each
on
each
side
of
the
Building
located
to
the
South.
G
This
is
the
internal
sidewalk
that
is
mentioned
that
Jennifer
mentions
that
was
provided
by
the
applicant
and
then
this
these
units,
which
are
the
end
units
unit,
one
and
unit
eight,
have
the
door
that
orients
to
Columbus
Drive
and
the
proposed
setbacks
are
to
the
north
five
feet.
The
south
is
zero
feet.
The
East
and
the
West
have
a
seven
foot
setback.
G
The
maximum
Building
height
is
proposed
at
40
feet.
So,
with
this
site
being
zoned
rm16
and
with
the
future
land
use
of
R35,
it
does
allow
for
a
total
of
10
dwelling
units
on
site
by
right
and
the
R35
land
use
category.
G
As
Jennifer
has
mentioned,
you
can
have
up
to
30
units
per
acre,
so
this
request
is
before
you
for
a
PD
with
less
units
than
what
is
a
than
what
would
be
allowed
in
that
land
use
category,
but
it
is
due
to
the
waivers
requested
on
site
and
also
the
setbacks
that
are
proposed.
G
If
the
applicant
were
to
develop
in
the
rm16
zoning
District,
they
would
have
to
meet
all
of
the
standards
required
for
rm16..
G
So
let
me
take
a
look
and
show
you
if
I
could
show
you
just
a
second,
the
zoning
map.
G
Let
me
zoom
out
just
a
little,
so
this
is
the
zoning
map
of
the
area.
This
is
the
property
that's
identified
here
in
red.
This
is
Columbus
Drive.
This
is
North
Boulevard.
This
is
Ola,
which
is
east
of
the
site,
so
you
can
see
that
this
site
is
surrounded.
There
are
a
couple
of
rm24
zoning
districts
in
the
area
other
than
that
a
large
majority
of
the
areas
armed
16
and
then
you
have,
as
you
get
along
Boulevard
a
couple
of
spots.
G
The
commercial
zonings,
along
with
residential
and
PD
zoning,
residential
multi-family
and
I,
have
pictures
of
the
area
and
of
the
site,
and
so
I'll
start
at
the
East
and
then
work
my
way
to
the
site
and
move
around.
So
this
is
east
of
the
site
on
Columbus
and
we'll
just
head
West.
This
is
also
east
of
the
site.
G
G
And
this
also
is
south
of
the
site
on
Amelia,
and
then
this
is
another
property
Bill's
all
south
of
the
site
and
the
DRC
staff
has
reviewed
the
request
and
finds
the
requests
consistent
and
site
plan
modifications
are
required
between
first
and
second
reading
and
I'm
available.
If
you
have
any
questions
any.
K
A
G
L
Good
evening,
Council
Steve
mcelini,
representing
the
petitioner
first
I'd,
like
to
point
out
that
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
the
staff
and
modifying
the
site
plan
so
that
we
would
have
a
consistent
finding
from
both
the
city
staff
and
the
Planning
Commission
staff
you
could,
with
the
R35
land
use
designation,
you
could
build
10
units
by
right,
we're
proposing
to
build
eight
units.
L
The
we
are
meeting
all
the
parking
requirements
and
one
of
the
unique
characteristics
of
this
particular
site
is
that
we're
exceeding
the
green
space
requirement.
Normally,
we
have
to
come
in
and
ask
for
a
waiver
of
that
in
order
to
meet
parking
or
for
the
building
footprint.
L
In
this
case,
we're
meeting
the
requirements
for
parking,
the
Departments
all
the
Departments
have
found
this
to
be
consistent
and,
as
I
said,
the
Planning
Commission
has
also
founded
to
be
consistent,
the
the
property
and
and
the
various
codes
that
govern
this,
involve
the
design
and
what's
allowable
by
Design
and
what's
the
purpose,
and
the
purpose
is
to
provide
zoning
districts
that
recognize
unique
conditions
that
allows
flexibility
and
tomorrow's
plans,
diversification,
integration
of
uses
and
structures,
the
ground
level
entrances
on
the
first
two
units
face:
Columbus,
Drive,
we've
added
side,
side,
yard
sidewalks
for
all
the
other
units,
so
that
they
have
direct
access.
L
The
the
codes
require
you
to
have
the
flexibility
of
land
use
that
reduces
Transportation
needs,
and
we've
done
that
by
incorporating
these
units
into
the
transit
Corridor,
which
is
Columbus
Drive.
L
The
open
and
green
space
requirements,
as
I
said,
have
been
met,
promote
the
encourage
development
where
appropriate
and
location
and
character
and
compatibility
with
the
surrounding
areas.
Again,
we
were
found
to
be
compatible
with
that,
the
surrounding
on
all
sides
of
residential
multi-family
and
in
close
proximity
to
commercial
designations,
east
and
west
of
the
property,
we're
also
promoting
more
desirable
living
and
working
environments,
which
is
badly
needed.
L
The
waivers
that
we're
requesting
involve
six
of
the
eight
units,
but
we
have
mitigated
that
by
providing
the
Side
Access
sidewalks
out
to
the
main
street.
It
is
unique
because
of
the
the
proximity
of
that
to
other
affected
areas
and
we're
trying
to
meet
that
code
as
best
we
can.
The
site
is
located
mid
block
and
one
of
the
provisions
it's
encouraged
is
to
utilize
an
alley.
If
it
weren't
on
a
mid-block,
we
probably
could
improve
the
alley
for
better
access
than
the
rear.
L
L
The
waiver
is
in
Harmony
and
with
and
serves
the
gentle
and
purpose
intent
of
the
chapter,
as
is
being
found
to
be
consistent
by
both
the
city
staff
and
the
Planning
Commission
staff,
allowing
the
waiver
result
will
result
in
substantial
Justice
being
done
as
we're
trying
to
meet
an
increasing
demand
for
housing,
and
these
are
consistent
in
design,
character,
size
and
scale
with
the
surrounding
property
owners,
as
well
as
the
area
that
is
located
in.
As
I
said,
it
was
a
major
Transit
corridor.
L
We
are
found
to
be
consistent
by
20.
Last
count
was
26
land
use
and
development
standards.
I,
don't
want
to
read
all
of
them,
but
they're
in
your
report
and
based
on
the
acreage
and
size
we
could,
as
I
said,
build
10
units
we're
proposing
eight
and
I'll
just
go
through
a
couple
of
these
goals
and
objectives
and
policies,
City
design
standards.
We
meet
four
of
those
City
goals
and
objectives
and
policies.
We
meet
two
of
those
public
realm.
We
meet
one
for
the
seven
of
those
overall
residential
development
and
Redevelopment.
L
We
meet
five
of
those
multi-family
residential
land
use
development
codes
and
goals
and
objectives.
We
made
three
of
those
low
density,
medium
development.
We
meet
two
of
those
adequate
sites
for
two
accommodate
housing.
We
meet
one
five
of
those
infrastructure
goals
and
objectives
by
utilizing
existing
infrastructure.
We
made
three
of
those
and,
in
conclusion,
as
I
said,
we've
been
found
to
be
consistent
by
both
the
Planning
Commission
City
staff.
We
found
to
be
that
this
meets
locational
criteria
with
respect
to
the
type
and
size
and
scale
of
a
development.
L
AD
Good
afternoon
Council,
my
name
is
Matt
sink
I
reside
at
410,
West,
Park
Avenue
I'm
here
tonight,
on
behalf
of
the
Tampa
Heights
civic
association,
our
president
is
unable
to
make
it
I
am
the
Southwest
quadrant.
So
this
is
my
quadrant
that
I
represent
the
association,
has
met
and
discussed
this
project
at
length,
and
they
do
there's
no
support
for
this
project.
One
of
the
biggest
hurdles
that
we
found
is
that,
while
the
applicant
may
have
worked
with
the
staff
on
design
and
things
like
that,
there
was
no
Outreach
to
the
community.
AD
There
was
no
taking
up
of
invitations
to
present.
There
was
no
talking
to
neighbors
and
the
surrounding
you
know,
stakeholders
in
regard
to
how
this
might
impact
the
community.
Additionally,
one
of
the
other
things
that
we
find
concerning
is
that
we've
worked
really
hard
to
create
walkable
Safe
Streets,
especially
across
romeville
Madonna,
and
the
boys
and
girls
club,
and
essentially
this
project
is
ushering.
24
cars
in
one
main
entry
going
in
and
out
constantly
without
utilize
utilization
of
the
alleyway.
So
one
of
the
big
things
that
we've
been
promoting
is
development
that
uses
the
alleyway.
AD
So
we
reduce
that
impact
of
safety
on
the
surrounding
Walkers
children
crossing
the
street.
That
is
a
highly
highly
used
area
for
children
on
a
regular
basis.
Additionally,
one
of
the
big
things
that
the
association
is
indiscrement
is
with
is
the
door
orientation
which
is
in
direct
conflict
of
city
code,
27,
282
9c1,
which
is
basically
saying
that
four
of
these
units
are
going
to
be
or
I'm.
Sorry.
Six
of
these
units
are
going
to
be
facing
sideways
and
not
having
the
front
door
orientation
which
doesn't
promote.
AD
You
know
connectivity
and
communication
between
neighbors
and
the
surrounding
area.
We
find
that
these
extremely
car
Centric,
the
courtyard
in
the
middle,
is
almost
as
wide
or
wider
than
Columbus.
It's
28
feet.
So,
if
you
can
imagine
that
down
the
middle
of,
it
is
basically
a
road
that
is
a
dead
end
and
there's
no
utilization
of
the
alley
to
disperse
the
traffic.
The
other
thing
that
we
are
having
a
little
bit
of
a
rub
with
is
the
eroding
of
the
fabric
of
the
community.
AD
D
AE
D
D
S
AE
Thanks,
my
name
is
Ali
rabo
and
I
live
just
a
couple
blocks
away.
I
met
your
three
year
to
North
Massachusetts
Avenue
in
Tampa,
Heights
and
yeah.
My
daughter
and
I.
We
cross
Columbus
every
day
need
to
go
to
school
there.
So
I'm
also
concerned
about
all
those
cars
coming
out
of
there,
but
yeah
also
concerned
about
the
six
units
whose
front
doors
are
going
to
be
facing
side
doors
and
not
the
street.
A
AE
Neighbors
and
knowing
our
neighbors
and
having
them
front
door
is
facing,
the
fences
is
unneighborly
kind
of
atmosphere
and
also,
as
Matt
said,
anti-walkable
and
very
car-centric
development
I
guess
it's
called
Green
space,
but
it's
really
just
a
big
Road
between
the
two
buildings,
it's
a
permeable
surface,
but
it's
going
to
be
removing
several
trees
that
could
be
preserved,
including
a
grand
tree.
AE
D
D
L
Good
evening,
Council,
typically
it's
the
fire
department
that
has
a
problem
with
access
and
sidewalks
that
are
accessing
properties
and
on
your
report.
It
shows
that
the
fire
department
had
no
objections
to
this
and
I
understand
that
the
homeowners
association
has
some
concerns.
Their
concerns
seem
to
be
oriented
toward
design
standards
which
are
not
applicable
to
this
petition.
L
What's
applicable
is
whether
or
not
the
development
is
appropriate
for
this
location
and
whether
or
not
it's
met
the
standards
and
both
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
city
staff
have
indicated
to
you
that
they
have
met
the
standards
for
this.
This
petition,
as
presented,
we
did
try
to
meet,
and
we
sent
our
engineer
to
meet
with
the
homeowner
association
this
past
week,
so
indicating
that
we
didn't
reach
out
or
haven't
had
discussions
with
them
is
inaccurate.
L
They
were
adamant
about
their
objection.
However,
that
doesn't
mean
that
we
didn't
meet
with
them.
We
did
try
to
mitigate
the
access
and
the
orientation
of
the
units.
That's
why
we
put
in
the
side,
sidewalks
and
as
you've
heard
previously,
the
technical
standards,
the
Planning
Commission
standards
and
the
city
staff
standards
are
what
govern
this
proposal.
L
We've
met
that
and
we
respectfully
request
your
approval.
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
We
have
taken
into
consideration,
location
and
we've
taken
into
consideration
that
this
should
be
an
appropriate
location
and
one
that
is
sensitive
to
the
other
standards.
Whether
or
not
there's
a
house
or
a
bungalow.
That's
part
of
this
petition
is
not
is
not
relevant.
It's
not
part
of
this
project.
D
R
You
are
I'll,
read
it
see
where
it
goes,
unless
if
somebody
else
was
going
to
say
something,
her
taxes
approached
the
microphone.
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
I'm,
sorry,
councilwoman,.
P
Go
ahead,
no
worries,
I'm,
gonna,
move
to
deny
Rez
22-77
for
the
property
located
at
310
West
Columbus
Drive,
due
to
the
failure
of
the
applicant
to
meet
its
burden,
approved
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence
that
the
development
as
conditioned
and
shown
on
the
site
plan
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
city
code
and
the
applicant's
failure
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof.
P
With
the
respect
to
the
requested
waivers,
the
failure
to
comply
with
applicable
goals,
objectives
and
policies
in
the
comprehensive
plan
such
as
while
the
proposed
rezoning
may
be
allowed
for
consideration
under
the
residential
35
future
land
use
category
the
Planning
Commission
staff
and
the
Planning
Commission
staff
concluded
that
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
the
development
pattern
anticipated
there
under
I
found
that
I
find
that
the
request
for
a
multi-family
project,
surrounded
by
single-family
homes,
results
in
a
development
that
is
not
appropriate
on
this
site
nor
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area,
in
violation
of
land
use
policy
9.3.8,
which
requires
new
residential
development
projects
to
be
minimally
disruptive
to
adjacent
areas.
P
The
proposed
development
on,
as
shown
on
the
site
plan,
does
not
promote
or
encourage
development
that
is
appropriate
in
location,
character,
compatibility
with
the
surrounding
uses
and
the
failure
to
comply
with
Section
27
139-4
subsection
4,
such
as
the
requested
waivers
necessary
to
support
the
fact
that
the
proposed
support,
rather
the
the
requested,
waivers,
necessarily
support
the
fact
that
the
proposed
development
does
not
comply
with
the
Land
Development
code.
R
Yes,
I'll
read
it.
My
problem
is
sir
I:
don't
have
the
other
supporting
language
with
me
up
here?
I
can
I
can
read
the
ordinance
if
anybody
wants
to
add
the
other
supportive
language.
R
Thank
you,
sir,
and
my
my
apologies
I
read
an
ordinance
rezoning,
the
property
at
the
general
vicinity
of
310
West
Columbus
Drive,
the
city
of
Tampa
Florida,
more
particularly
described
in
section
one
from
zoning,
District
classification,
rm16,
residential
multi-family,
PD
plan
development,
residential
single
family
attached,
providing
and
predict
effective
date.
D
P
Going
to
deny
this
one
again
again
that
there's
already
zoning
to
do
what
you
want
to
do
you
just
don't
want
to
do
it
that
way,
and
that's
the
problem
here,
that
the
the
public
is
asking
in
all
of
these
cases,
basically
that
you
just
designed
to
fit
the
neighborhood
and
that's
that's
what
that's
not
what's
happening
here,
which
is
why
it's
going
to
a
PD
and
why
they're
requesting
waivers
and
there's
a
way
to
do
it
within
the
code.
That's
why
the
code
exists.
C
E
M
And
I
voted
the
way
I
did,
but
you
make
a
good
point
councilwoman
in
the
end
and
I'm
wondering
hopefully
in
the
future
staff
will
listen
to
this
I
mean
we
have
all
these
requirements
that
are
there
and
we
have
all
these
PDS
and
I
like
to
have
a
conversation
later
on
about
that,
because
I'm,
not
understanding
if
there
is
a
code
and
there's
a
process
there,
why
are
we
having
all
these
PDS
changing
the
process
and
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
conversation,
and
we
need
to
kind
of
look
at
stopping
all
these
PDS
because
it's
it's
been
it's
getting
out
of
hand
and
it's
making
the
neighborhoods
and
constituents
upset
when
there
is
a
process
and
we're
going
around
a
process
just
do
what
we
want
to
do
versus
what
the
ordinance
and
the
code
says,
and
we
need
to
look
at
doing
and
stopping
it.
M
G
Absolutely
acknowledged,
thank
you,
councilman
Goodson,
we'll
definitely
discuss
it
with
you
and
take
a
look
at
that.
G
Thank
you
again:
Council
lashon
dock
development
coordination
and
this
item
council
is
for
the
property
located
at
904
East
Osborne
Avenue.
This
request
is
from
the
applicant
I'm
Shane
O'neill,
and
the
request
is
to
rezone
the
property
from
shcg
commercial
General
to
SHRM
residential
multi-family
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Jennifer,
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
I'll
come
back
and
get
my
report.
T
Jennifer
Malone
plenty
of
commission
staff.
This
is
an
essential
Tampa
planning
district
Southeast
Seminole
Heights
neighborhood
Seminole
Heights,
Urban
Village.
It
is
just
off
of
Nebraska
Avenue
and
there's
Transit
that
runs
along
Nebraska,
the
Metro
Rapid
or
heart
route.
400
giddens
Park
is
the
closest
public
Recreational
facility.
The
site
is
not
located
within
an
evacuation
Zone,
so
here's
the
subject
site
and
an
aerial.
As
I
said
it's
located
just
off
of
North
Nebraska
Avenue.
We
have
East
Osborne
here.
T
I
have
a
gas
station
over
here
some
new
town
homes
right
here
along
North,
Nebraska
Avenue
in
full
development
along
our
corridors
that
are
served
by
transit.
So
that's
always
nice
for
planners
to
see
so
the
pink
color
along
North,
Nebraska
Avenue
and
it
kind
of
goes
in
towards
East
Osborne
Avenue.
Is
the
community
mixtures
35
category
that
allows
for
a
mixture
of
residential
and
Commercial
uses.
T
P
Well,
sorry,
okay,
I'm.
Sorry
can
I
ask
a
question
about
that.
Yeah.
It
looks
like
it's
pink
right
now,
exactly
so
so
that
does
match
what's
around
it.
T
Yes,
it's
also
pink
to
the
South
and
the
North.
So
it's
providing.
T
T
So
the
comprehensive
plan
does
support
the
residential
info
development,
so
this
is
converting
from
commercial
to
residential.
So
it
definitely
meets
that
provision
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
it
is
near
Transit.
It's
located
only
150
feet,
east
of
a
Transit
emphasis
Corridor,
which
is
suitable
for
residential
intensification
due
to
its
wide
range
of
services
and
employment
opportunities.
T
G
Thank
you
again:
Council
lashon
doc,
development
coordination,
and,
as
mentioned
this
rezoning
request,
is
to
rezone
to
that
residential
multi-family
zoning.
Since
it
is
a
euclidean
zoning
District,
it's
all
called
standards
must
be
met
at
the
time
of
Permitting
for
the
RM
zoning
district
and
that
those
standards
have
been
provided
on
page
two
of
the
staff
report.
This
site
is
surrounded
on
all
sides
by
commercial
General
zoning,
the
shcg
zoning
district,
and
this
is
the
zoning
map.
G
This
is
the
property
that's
identified
here
in
red.
This
is
Osborne
Avenue,
and
this
is
Nebraska
that's
to
the
West,
so
you
can
see
along
the
Corridor
that
commercial
General
zoning
shcg,
which
runs
along
Nebraska,
and
then
you
can
see
the
residential
multi-family
here
for
the
to
the
east,
just
a
couple
of
lots
to
the
east,
a
little
bit
to
the
South
and
the
pocket
to
the
North,
and
then
the
residential
single
family
predominant
I'm,
further
east
and
I
have
pictures
of
the
site.
G
Located
there
this
is
actually
on
Osborne,
and
this
is
if
you're
looking
West
Nebraska
is
at
the
light
there
in
the
pictures.
This
is
west
of
the
site.
This
is
the
Mini
Mart,
so
this
is
the
south
end
and
then
the
Mini
Mart
is
there.
This
is
Nebraska
and
this
picture
the
site
is
to
the
right
in
this
photo.
G
This
is
east
of
the
site
and
this
is
South,
and
this
is
also
South,
and
this
is
looking
East
on
Osborne,
but
you
can
see
the
residential
that's
located.
South.
G
AF
AF
But
mine's
a
lot
a
lot
more
straightforward
than
the
last
couple,
as
mentioned
before,
the
the
star
here
is
our
subject:
property
we're
looking
to
go
from
the
shcg
to
SHRM.
If
you
looked
at
some
of
the
photos
that
they
showed
of
the
surrounding
area,
it's
quite
a
bit
of
precedent.
Last
year
we
constructed
an
11
and
9
13
he's
East
Osborne
Avenue,
which
are
both
attached
single
family.
AF
AF
AF
Furthermore,
in
terms
of
the
the
density
changing
and
whatnot
here
at
4701
Nebraska,
we
are
currently
constructing
a
small
mixed-use
building
with
office
below
two
apartments.
Above
so
again,
a
bunch
of
precedent
here
for
the
the
higher
density,
as
mentioned
before
briefly
the
site,
borders,
residential
and
then
butts
up
to
the
commercial
Nebraska
Mini
Mart
across
the
street.
Here
is
a
commercial
kind
of
commercial
Corridor
in
Nebraska
here
so
again
it
being
quitting
rezoning.
AF
And
again,
all
all
of
the
parameters
will
be
met
at
the
time
of
Permitting
through
building
Urban
Design
and
natural
resources.
They've
already
kind
of
glanced
this
over
and
given
us
an
unofficial
blessing,
but
we
will
fine-tune
the
design
and
get
this
in
middle
and
if
we
are
granted
this,
this
request.
G
Yes,
Council
lashon
doc
development
coordination.
I
just
would
like
to
remind
Council
that
the
request
is
for
that
RM
zoning,
the
SHRM.
So
although
the
applicant
has
provided
you
with
plans
and
has
shown
elevations,
they
are
not
obligated
to
utilize
this,
so
just
to
put
it
on
the
record.
Thank.
D
D
D
R
T
Jennifer
alone,
with
the
Planning
Commission,
this
is
in
the
central
Tampa
planning
district
Palmetto
Beach
neighborhood
DeSoto
Park
is
the
closest
public
Recreational
facility
located
it's
located
on
Palmetto
Beach,
there's
no
Transit
that
serves
Palmetto
Beach.
It
is
within
the
evacuation
Zone
a
and
the
coastal
High
Hazard
area.
So
here
is
a
aerial.
T
South
20th
Street
is
a
little
bit
of
a
dividing
line,
so
everything
mostly
to
the
east
is
residential.
There
are
some
industrial
uses
and
some
commercial
uses
to
the
east,
but
then
to
the
West.
We
have
really
heavy
industrial
uses
of
South
20th
Street,
so
it's
located
east
of
South
20th
Street
on
several
Parcels
located
along
Saxon
street
right
right
here,
but
we
do
have
a
warehouse
to
use
up
here,
but
for
the
most
part
we
have
single
family
detached
surrounding
the
site.
Some
non-residential
uses
that
do
front
sacks
and
stream.
T
T
We
have
Community
mixes
35,
which
is
the
pink
and
then
residential
10,
which
is
the
orange
color,
so
the
transitional
use
24
was
established
when
they
were
writing
the
comprehensive
plan
back
in
the
80s.
They
gave
this
designation
to
a
lot
of
areas
that
had
developed
prior
to
planning
and
zoning
and
were
kind
of
hard
to
to
nail
down
the
appropriate
land
use.
So
we've
seen
in
the
city,
some
of
them
have
either
transitioned
mostly
towards
industrial
uses
or
or
transitioning,
mostly
towards
residential
uses.
T
So
there's
a
policy
in
the
plan
that
we
should
take
into
account
the
zoning
pattern
when
we
review
these
zoning
requests
in
the
transitional
use.
24
feature
land
use
category
to
make
our
consistency
finding
so
the
Planning
Commission
staff
found
that
residential
was
appropriate
here,
because
it
was
already
Zone
residential
and
there's
a
lot
of
residential
zoning
surrounding
it
and
we're
seeing
that
that
is
the
transition
that
these
transitional
East
24
categories
kind
of
going.
T
That
way,
so
it's
a
little
bit
of
an
of
an
interesting
land
use
category,
but
that
is
how
we
approach
it.
It
is
this
does
support
again.
The
comprehensive
plan
supports
and
compatible
infill
development
on
vacant
underutilized
land,
which
we
we
feel
that
this
would
further.
There
are
front
doors
provided
with
a
clear
connection
to
the
street,
so
that
design
principle
is
met
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
T
They're
also
utilizing
the
alley,
which
is
a
of
the
coverings
of
plant,
is
very
supportive
of
and
is
providing
more
housing
for
Tampa's
growing
population,
so
overall,
consistent
with
the
plan,
and
that
in
that
transitional
use,
24
feature,
ladies
category,
so
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
AG
Any
Barnes
development
coordination.
Just
summarize
again,
this
request
is
to
rezone
from
r01
and
rm16
for
approximately
0.65
Acres
deceptive
property.
It
was
originally
comprised
of
lots
four
through
nine
block
43
of
East
Tampa
plotted
in
1925..
AG
The
site
is
surrounded
with
residential
single-family,
detached
dwellings
and
several
commercial
uses
in
the
area.
You
can
see
the
variety
of
zoning
in
the
area
as
well.
AG
The
applicant
is
providing
over
the
minimum
parking.
However,
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
remove
or
requesting
two
waivers
one
to
remove
one
non-hazardous
grand
Live
Oak
and
to
require
to
reduce
the
aisle
width
from
22
feet.
24
feet
to
22
feet.
AG
Ingress
and
Ingress
is
provided
from
Saxon
street
in
an
alley
that
runs
behind
the
property
staff
has
worked
extensively
with
the
applicant
and
development
review,
and
compliance
staff
has
found
it
consistent.
Even
with
the
two
waivers
and
I'm
just
going
to
place
a
portion
of
the
site
plan
on
the
overhead
to
show
you,
for
instance,
the
sidewalks
going
around
trees
in
some
locations.
AG
AG
This
is
the
site
adjacent
to
Western,
lot
facing
East
from
South
20th
Street.
So
and
then
this
is
property
north
of
the
subject
site
this
property,
further
east,
a
commercial,
a
restaurant,
and
then
these
this
is
one
of
the
buildings
directly
behind
behind
the
subject:
property
South,
another
property-
and
this
is
the
vacant
lot
and
a
portion
of
the
subject
property.
This
is
property
further
north
along
South,
22nd
Street.
So
some
of
the
area
is
changing
and
has
some
single
family
attached
as
well
as
multi-family
development.
X
Thank
you,
Alex
Rios,.
X
X
We
are
requesting
two
ravers
for
a
reduced
aisle
width
from
24
to
22,
as
well
as
requesting
one
grand
removal
of
one
Grand
Tree,
one
Grand
Tree.
In
light
of
these
waivers,
we
are
working.
We
have
worked
closely
with
staff
to
put
forth
a
design
that
provides
ample
parking,
as
well
as
preserve
many
existing
trees.
X
With
that,
we
are
pleased
with
staff's
findings
that
the
project
is
consistent
across
all
departments
and
with
this
with
the
city
of
Tampa
Land
Development
regulations.
With
that
all
I'll
conclude.
Thank
you.
P
X
We
weren't
able
to
use
the
alloy
all
the
way
through
there
was
a
Grand
Tree
towards
the
end.
There
may
have
been
other
concerns
with
that,
but
that
was
that
was
we
weren't
able
to
drive
all
the
way
through
the
alleyway.
D
X
M
Also
that
defines
and
reasons
of
the
playing
commission
and
City
staff
reports
proposed
rezones
because
with
the
housing
policy
1.3.1
and
1.3.4,
which
encourages
new
housing
on
vacate
eligibilized
land
to
ensure
that
the
adequate
supply
of
housing
is
available
to
meet
the
needs
of
Campus
residents
and
future
populations.
D
Q
D
P
I
have
a
quick
question
before
we
go
on
just
because
we're
kind
of
already
open
this
discussion
about
plan
development
tonight
and
just
something
that
applicant
said
about
choosing
plan
development,
because
there
were
so
many
waivers
possible,
but
it
sounds
like
the
waivers
were
pretty
things
that
still
could
come
in
front
of
us
and
and
be
okayed
and
again.
P
I
would
really
love
to
open
that
conversation,
because,
if
he's
trying
to
save
trees
and
move
move,
Frontage
I
mean
those
are
the
types
of
things
we
should
be
encouraging
without
bringing
it
to
a
PD,
so
I
just
I.
Was
it
just
alarmed
me
to
hear
that
he
had
to
go
to
a
PD
because
of
these
things
so
I
know
we're
working
on
land
use
reform,
but
I.
Just
I
I
felt
I
really
needed
to
say
that
so
I
I
really
appreciate
the
work
that
you
all
do
and
I
know
all
of
that.
P
D
A
G
Thank
you
again:
Council
lashon
doc,
development,
coordination
and
Council.
This
item
is
for
the
property
located
at
1210
East
Columbus
Drive.
The
request
is
to
rezone
the
property
from
yc2
Ybor
City
Residential
to
yc9
84
City
plan
development,
and
this
is
to
allow
for
business
professional
office
on
site
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Jennifer
for
her
report
and
I'll
come
back
and
get
my
report.
Thank
you.
T
T
There's
a
Transit
stop
about
250
feet
to
the
east
of
the
site,
served
by
heart,
Route
15,
and
it
is
within
a
level
E,
evacuation
Zone.
So
there's
it's
in
the
residential
20
future
land
use
category
and
they're
asking
for
a
non-residential
use.
So
in
this
case
the
site
typically
has
to
meet
locational
criteria
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
show
this
policy
5.1.7.
T
The
last
piece
of
this
policy
says:
reuse
projects
are
exempt
from
the
locational
criteria
for
neighborhoods
serving
and
residential
office
uses,
which
is
what
this
applicant
is
requesting.
This
is
something
I
think
it
was
built
in
the
early
1900s.
So
it's
considered
a
Reeves
project.
It's
something
that
the
plan
supports.
There's
also
a
statement
here
in
the
plan
as
well.
That's
in
our
staff
report
that
anything
in
the
Ybor
City
Historic
District,
is
exempt
from
the
locational
criteria.
So
that's
to
support
the
mix
of
uses
that
Ebor
has
and
to
continue
allowing
those.
T
So
that
is
why
there's
a
non-residential
use
before
you
in
a
residential
land
use
category.
It's
because
the
plan
is
supporting
that
anywhere
specifically,
so
here
it
is,
it
is
in
on
East,
Columbus
Drive,
just
east
of
North
12th
Street,
there's
a
fire
station
actually
here
at
the
corner,
and
this
portion
of
East
Columbus
drives
pretty
much
residential
uses.
T
The
future
land
use
is
residential
20,
which
is
mostly
the
the
pattern
here
and
then
to
the
north
is
residential
10,
which
is
typically
single
family
detached
residential
20
allows
limited
non-residential
uses
like
is
before
you
today,
and
some
higher
density
residential
uses
So.
The
plan
is
very
supportive
of
this
type
of
Redevelopment.
We
also
found
this
is
on
a
Transit
emphasis
quarter,
which
is
again
suitable
for
intensification
and
allowing
those
non-residential
uses.
T
We
have
found
that
that
the
rezoning
would
allow
for
better,
better
utilization
of
the
land
and
it's
consistent
with
the
intensity
anticipated
under
the
residential
20
future.
Ladies
designation
also,
this
rezoning
has
created
a
pedestrian-oriented
development
by
providing
sidewalks
and
really
keeping
with
that
Urban
feel
of
the
neighborhood.
That
concludes
my
presentation
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
T
G
Thank
you
again:
Council
lashon
doc
development
coordination
and
this
rezone
request
would
allow
for
a
business
professional
office
and
it
would
contain
1898
square
feet.
This
is
the
site
plan
for
the
property.
Let
me
zoom
in
on
it
a
little.
G
So
this
is
the
site
located.
This
is
Columbus
Drive.
This
is
the
property
boundary
which
is
dotted
that
dotted
line
on
site,
and
this
is
the
existing
structure
which
is
on
site
and
then
there's
an
existing
accessory
structure.
That's
there
and
you'll
see
in
the
pictures
that
I'll
show
momentarily
and
I'll
talk
about
this
ribbon
driver
that
exists
on
the
site,
but
the
structure
that
is
on
site
will
remain
as
mentioned.
This
does
allow
for
adaptive,
reuse
of
this
structure
on
site
and
is
in
keeping
with
the
character.
G
That's
in
the
surrounding
area.
The
proposed
maximum
Building
height
is
35
feet.
This
site
is
located
within
the
East
Tampa
Urban
Village,
the
central
Tampa
planning
district
in
the
Ebor
City
local
historic
district,
the
DLC,
the
Barrio
Latino
Commission,
heard
this
request,
and
this
was
on
October
25th
and
there
was
a
vote
to
recommend
approval
of
this
request.
So,
on
page
three
of
the
staff
report,
you
will
find
the
historic
preservations
comments
and
they
are
related
to
that.
That
motion
from
the
BLC.
G
And
directly,
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
the
vehicular
access
to
the
site.
One
thing
to
note
is
that
there
is
a
waiver
on
this
site
and
that
is
to
reduce
the
parking
to
zero.
So
if
you
are
going
to
provide
parking
on
site
at
least
one
of
your
I
should
say,
code
required
parking.
If
you're
meeting
the
code
standards,
you
have
to
provide
one
Ada
space.
G
So
if
you're
going
to
provide
two
parking
spaces
at
least
one
has
to
be
an
ADA
space
on
this
site,
there
was
not
enough
room
to
provide
that
ADA
space
and
to
be
able
to
provide
any
other
parking
spaces.
So
the
option
was
to
reduce
it
to
the
parking
required
to
zero,
and
that
is
to
keep
the
structure
the
way
it
is
and
to
keep
the
site
the
way
it
is
so
it
was
supported
by
the
BLC
and
by
staff,
and
this
is
an
aerial
of
the
site.
This
is
the
zoning
map.
G
Let
me
Zoom
back
out
for
a
second,
and
so
this
is
the
site.
This
is
Columbus
Drive.
This
is
12th
Street,
and
this
is
the
site.
That's
identified
here
in
red
and
you'll,
see
along
the
the
corridor
for
Columbus
Drive,
the
yc2
zoning
District.
G
These
are
elevations
of
the
site
photos
of
it.
The
upper
right.
This
is
the
north
elevation,
the
rear
of
the
building.
This
is
the
front
of
the
building,
and
this
is
a
view
of
the
side.
This
is
the
west
elevation
and
then
that
is
the
the
East
Elevation,
the
other
side
of
the
structure,
and
then
here's
site
photos.
Let
me
zoom
out
a
little
bit.
G
G
That's
another
view,
and
you
can
see
the
structure
that
is
next
door,
the
residential.
G
This
is
a
view
if
you're
looking
East
on
Columbus
we'll
swing
around
to
the
south
of
the
site
and
that's
looking
East.
This
is
west
of
the
site
and
then
this
is
further
west
of
the
site.
That
is
commercial.
That's
located
at
the
corner
of
12th
Street.
There
are
site
plan
modifications
required
between
first
and
second
reading.
Drc
staff
has
found
the
request
consistent
and
I'm
available.
If
you
have
any
questions.
AH
A
small
architectural
firm
I
am
in
agreement
with
with
all
the
city
in
the
barnier,
Latino
requirements
and
waivers
stating
to
maintain
the
the
existing
boundaries
and
allow
for
in
existing
new
fence
to
be
located
on
the
western
boundary
and
also
installation
of
new
ribbons
that
were
demolished
due
to
the
adjacent
construction
of
the
house.
Next
door
and
the
ribbons
will
be
in
conforming
with
the
three
two
three
standard
requirement
for
Evo
City
ribbons
for
driveways.
AH
Additional
parking
would
be
accessible
through
the
on-street
parking,
that
was
ins
that
was
striped
during
the
street
beautification
project
last
year,
which
recently
was
completed
and
allowed
for
parallel
parking,
along
with
within
the
beautification
project.
AH
Again,
here's
some
existing
pictures
of
the
existing
conditions
of
the
North
and
then
to
the
South
elevation
and
then
also
to
the
East
and
into
the
West,
and
then
I
have
one
picture
of
the
existing
condition
right
now,
where
the
new
ribbons
will
be
installed
due
to
the
demolition
of
in
construction
of
the
adjacent
residence
to
two
and
a
half
story
building
to
the
West.
So
the
new
ribbons
will
be
installed
in
the
same
location
that
they
were
prior
excavation
in
the
construction
of
the
existing
of
the
now
existing
residents.
AH
J
D
P
S
before
I
start
I
just
want
to
say
I
love
this
house
so.
P
You're
saving
it
I
got
to
see
it
on
the
BME
bar
home
tour.
A.
A
P
Years
ago,
so
thank
you.
P
File
number
Rez,
22-111
ordinance
being
presented
for
first
reading,
consideration
and
ordinance
rezoning
property
in
the
general
vicinity
of
1210
East
Columbus
Drive
in
the
city
of
Tampa
Florida,
and
more
particularly
described
in
section
one
from
zoning,
District
classification,
yc2,
Ybor,
City,
Historic,
District
to
yc9
Ebor,
City,
Historic,
District
business
professional
office,
providing
an
effective
date
and
including
that
the
the
the
zoning
is
in
compliance
with
applicable
goals,
objectives
and
policies,
and
the
comprehensive
plan
such
as
the
resulting
will
not
alter
the
neighborhood's
character
consistent
with
land
use
policies,
1.2.10,
9.3.1
and
15.2.4,
and
in
compliance
with
Land
Development
code,
section
27-136.
D
K
H
D
We're
going
the
long
way
around
this,
we
have
a
motion
made
by
councilwoman
her
tax
seconded
by
councilmember
Miranda
Dare
I.
Ask
any
further
discussion:
roll
call
vote,
Carlson.
K
AH
AG
Any
Barnes
development
coordination
this
case
before
you
is
to
request
to
rezone
from
r60
to
rs50
for
property
located
4107
East,
regnus,
Avenue
I'll
turn
it
over
to
the
Planning
Commission.
T
T
Just
to
be
clear,
it
didn't
affect
our
analysis.
We
were
just
put
some
incorrect
street
names
in
there,
but
the
analysis
Remains,
the
Same.
D
T
T
Thank
you.
This
is
located
in
the
University
planning
district
in
the
temple
Cresta
neighborhood.
There
is
Transit
located
nearby
the
subject
site
Temple
Crest
Park
is
the
closest
public
Recreational
facility
and
it
is
not
within
an
evacuation.
Zone
I
will
show
an
aerial.
T
So
this
is
the
subject
site
outlined
here.
It
is
east
of
North,
40th
Street,
and
so
when
we
did
their
density
analysis,
that
is
mentioned
in
the
staff
analysis,
where
we
took
a
look
at
the
average
existing
density
surrounding
the
subject
site.
Since
it's
on
the
corner,
we
looked
from
on
ragness
from
Greenwood
all
the
way
to
Tangerine,
which
is
off
of
the
aerial
and
then
along
orange
View
Avenue,
as
well
from
Bird
Street,
all
the
way
to
seaward,
which
is
a
little
bit
off
of
the
aerial.
T
T
So
that's
what
the
residential
10
on
the
future
land
use
map
is
is
representing
that
the
area
is
planned
for
10
billion,
it's
an
acre,
and
then
we
have
the
community
mixed
use,
35
along
North
40th
Street,
which
is
where
those
commercial
uses
are
yes,
so
one
portion
one
street
was
developed
at
57
of
the
density
another
at
55
of
the
density.
So
this
analysis
demonstrates
that
this
area
of
the
city
can
be
considered
under
developed
with
respect
to
the
density
anticipated
along
these
segments.
T
This
request
supports
Lu
policy
2.1.2,
which
seeks
to
use
Land
Resources
more
effect
more
efficiently
by
encouraging
infill
development
on
other
utilized
sites,
and
we
found
that
this
supports
many
policies
in
the
comprehensive
plan
encouraging
new
housing
on
vacant
and
underutilized
land
for
a
to
make
sure
that
we
have
an
adequate
supply
for
Tampa's
growing
population,
and
we
found
that
this
would
seek
to
maintain
the
stability
of
existing
areas
while
expanding
opportunities
for
housing
choices
in
those
single-family
areas,
again
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
D
U
AG
Sorry
alrighty
again,
this
is
Teresa
from
rs60
to
rs50
for
4107
East
regnus
Avenue.
The
subject
site
is
approximately
13
000
square
feet
located
on
the
corner
of
East
bragness
Avenue
in
North
Orange,
View
Avenue.
So
the
property
is
two
flatted
lots
and
I'm
going
to
show
you
this
plaque.
AG
So
let
me
zoom
out
a
bit.
Oh,
so
this
plait
was
done
or
plotted
and
recorded
in
1925
at
the
top
is
the
subject:
property,
Lots,
26
and
27
of
block
26..
So
I
just
wanted
to
show
you
how
it
was
plotted
overall
in
1925
that
you
can
see,
some
Lots
were
plotted
at
60
feet
wide
and
others
were
plotted
at
50
feet
wide,
so
the
site
or
let
me
show
you
because
the
site
is
zoned,
so
part
of
the
site
is
zoned
or
I'm.
Sorry,
okay!
AG
So
on
your
left,
I
kind
of
zoomed
in
to
give
you
a
zoning
overview,
so
you
could
kind
of
see
what
it
looked
like.
The
the
salmon
color,
which
this
property
is
zoned,
is
the
rs60
and
then
to
the
left
is
some
CG.
So
you
can
see,
although
some
of
the
lots
are
plotted
at
50
feet
and
60
feet,
they
are
all
zoned,
RS
60.,
so
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
plot
and
then
the
zoning
as
well
continuing
on
property.
AG
Let
me
show
you
the
property
and
surrounding
zoning,
it's
harder
to
see
on
this
map
here,
but
you
can
see
that
CG
Zone
portion
and
then
the
rs60
Zone
portion
to
the
east,
so
property
located
directly
north
south
east
and
west
of
the
subject
site
is
Zone,
rs60
and
developed
with
single
family
detached
uses.
After
evaluating
the
survey
that
was
provided
by
the
applicant,
it
appears
that
the
if
rezoned
the
subject
property
could
be
divided
into
two
50-foot
wide
Lots.
AG
Approximately
the
request
to
rezone
the
property
to
rs50
is
inconsistent
based
on
the
existing
development
pattern
of
the
overall
study
area.
So
I'm
going
to
show
you
the
map
of
the
overall
study
area,
taking
into
consideration.
AG
AG
I'm
sorry
64
were
developed
with
a
60
foot
or
greater
and
114
or
36
were
developed
with
59.99
feet
or
less
in
width.
However,
the
subject
block
and
the
block
face
of
North
Orange
View
Avenue,
so
this
area
here
the
board
were
developed
with
59
majority
were
developed
with
59.99
feet
or
less
based
upon
that.
The
current
zoning
shown.
AG
As
you
can
see
better
on
this,
this
map,
this
would
be
considered
a
spot
zoning,
even
though
the
locks
were
plotted,
50
feet
wide
wide,
most
of
them
in
this
area
and
I'm
going
to
show
you
some
pictures
of
the
oral.
AG
AG
South
of
the
site
and
north
of
the
site
across
East
bragner
Southland
So,
based
upon
that
the
zoning
it's
considered
rezoning
to
rs50,
would
be
considered
a
spot
rezoning
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
I
hope
that
cleared
up
everything.
AI
AI
AI
S
AI
I
do
have
a
PowerPoint
for
you
please.
This
is
Rez
22-119.
We
are
rezoning
from
rs60
to
rs50
for
0.3
Acres,
which
would
allow
two
single-family
homes
were
located
close
to
the
river
south
of
580.
Looking
a
little
closer
we're
on
East,
ragnes
or
east
ragnos
is
running
east
west
of
North
40th,
Street
and
East
River
Hills
is
to
the
South
a
little
closer.
You
can
see
the
site
aligned
here
by
the
property
appraiser
is
at
the
corner
of
Visa
Agnes
and
North
Orange
View
Avenue.
AI
AI
So
in
political
terms,
if
we
are
a
member
for
years
ago
or
many
years
ago,
John
Kerry
made
the
famous
statement.
I
voted
for
it
after
I
voted
against
it
same
thing.
If
you
read
the
city
staff
report,
they
note
that
the
request
for
zoning
is
inconsistent
with
the
existing
development
pattern
of
the
overall
area,
but
is
consistent
with
the
block
and
the
block
face.
AI
AI
That's
reflection
of
the
size
of
the
lots
and
the
zoning
requested
that
is
consistent
and
the
reason
for
it
goes
a
step
or
two
further.
In
our
opinion,
all
the
Departments
are
finding
consistent,
except
for
development
or
for
your
zoning
staff.
For
the
reasons
why
listed
another
consideration
or
guide
post
for
you
is
that
the
area
and
this
particular
site
as
future
Lane
is
category,
is
r10.
Three
units
would
be
recognized
under
the
comp
plan
in
terms
of
density.
AI
The
result
of
this
resulting
would
only
be
two
and
because
the
area-
because
this
is
a
small
request-
basically
meeting
the
density
in
the
area.
There
really
is
no
impact
on
infrastructure,
schools,
Parks,
water
or
anything
of
those
of
that
nature.
Now
we
do
some
really
good
support
for
the
request
from
very
closely
located
neighbors.
We
have
four
letters
from
you,
which
are
the
two
Property
Owners
to
the
rear.
We
were
able
to
get
a
hold
of
one
towards
the
front.
Can
you
get
a
hold
the
other
folk
and
then
across
the
street?
AI
So
just
about
all
the
way
around?
We
have
a
support
documented
from
the
neighbors
and
we
also
did
receive
so
you
can
give
that
to
that
gentleman
over
there.
He
doesn't
vote
so
you
can
treat
him
rudely,
the
others
you
got
to
treat
the
others.
You
gotta
treat
real
nice
gotta
treat
the
others
real
nice.
They
all
get
a
vote.
AI
This
is
from
the
temple
Crest
civic
association,
and
they
are
also
in
the
request,
so
swad
actually
was
able
to
bring
that
up
and
get
that
today.
So,
in
summary,
the
zoning
staff
recognition
is
a
denial
non-denial,
Planning
Commission
supports
it
completely
notes
it's
consistent
as
better
utilization.
We
meet
the
original
plat,
exactly
nine
City
departments
are
consistent,
Planning
Commission
tells
you
it's
in
line.
Future
land
use
category
meets
it
and
exceeds
it,
and
we
have
very
good
documentation
of
supporting
owners.
AI
The
last
thing
I'll
show
you
is:
the
property
has
been
in
very
bad
shape,
since
SWAT
has
had
she's
been
trying
to
get
through
the
not
negative,
but
trying
to
go
through
the
bureaucracy,
so
she
can
take
down.
What's
there
build
new,
make
it
real
nice,
so
she's
she's,
not
under
code
citation
but
she's
been
trying
to
move
forward.
AI
AI
There
you
go
so
so
what
has
been
trying
to
work
through
the
bureaucracy?
She
went
through
a
couple
administrative
exercises,
which
is
why
we're
here
today
to
get
this
done
so
she's
been
trying
to
move
the
project
forward
to
renovate
and
improve
the
site
completely.
This
would
be
completely
removed
and
renovated.
So
there's
a
economic
and
beautification
element
to
it
as
well.
I'll
put
this
in
a
record,
we'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
for
you.
Thank
you.
S
D
H
Compliance
with
applicable
goals,
objectives
and
policies
in
the
comprehensive
plan
is
noted
in
the
Planning
Commission
staff
report,
such
as
the
density
proposed
by
the
development,
does
not
exceed
the
density
anticipated
under
residential
10
future
land
use
and
category
and
seek
to
use
Land
Resources
more
efficiently
by
encouraging
infield
development
on
underutilized
sites
as
encouraged
by
land
use
policy
2.1.2.
Also,
compliance
with
Land
Development
code
in
the
city
staff
report
regarding
compliance
with
General
standards
proposed
development
proposal
promotes
or
encourages
development
that
is
appropriate
location
character
and
compatibility
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
H
Although
64
percent
of
the
Lots
included
within
the
area
of
analysis
are
developed
with
a
width
of
60
feet
or
greater,
this
percentage
shifts
as
you
get
closer
to
the
partial
in
question.
For
example,
the
subject
block
contains
22
zoning
of
which
16
have
been
developed,
with
a
width
of
59.99
feet
or
less,
and
the
block
on
North
Orange
View
Avenue
contains
19
zoning,
lots
of
which
15
have
been
developed,
with
a
width
of
59.99
feet
or
less
also.
H
D
C
M
D
D
C
D
M
D
D
P
H
H
Bear
with
me
I
have
seven
motions.
T
T
H
Thank
you,
so
I
have
six
motions
and
I
will
read
them
slowly.
So
the
record
is
clear
motion
two
I'm
kidding
emotion,
I,
request
that
by
the
Planning
Commission
to
send
an
adoption
hearing
for
tacpa
22-12
tacpa
22-25
tacpa
22-27
on
February
23rd
2023
at
501
pm
and
direct
the
legal
department
to
provide
the
city
clerk
with
the
form
of
notice
for
advertising
the
public
hearings.
H
D
We
have
Bush
made
by
councilman
Amanda
Scott
for
a
second
by
councilwoman,
hurt
all
in
favor.
H
H
H
H
H
A
H
E
Yes,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I
was
going
to
submit
to
council
for
inclusion
on
next
week's
agenda
a
resolution
amending
the
rules
of
procedure
governing
certain
things
that
actually
came
up
tonight
and
I
realized
through
that
discussion
tonight
that
I'd
overlooked
that
section
27-150
that
dealt
with
missed
notices
is
inconsistent
with
other
sections
of
of
the
code
that
deal
with
misnotice.
E
D
I
said
every
one
of
memo
asking
for
a
resolution
to
be
written
up
for
to
support
the
Tampa
Bay
Regional
planning
commission's
support
on
on
clean
energy.
We.
K
Let
me
let
me
chairman
of
the
second
councilman.
Yes,
sir,
this
is
a
very
serious
thing
and
I
know
you
hear
about
it
everywhere
on
TV,
but
you
know
the
temperature
in
Tampa
alone
from
last
year,
this
year's
room
two
percent
two
two
degrees,
and
it
can't
continue
this
way.
I
mean
we're
killing
ourselves,
not
only
in
the
United
States
all
over
the
world,
Look
at
California,
from
drought
to
floods.
K
All
over
the
whole
world
is
in
the
turmoil,
I
mean
where
it
hasn't
snowed
it
so
so
much
people
can't
even
go
to
work,
and
it's
just
what's
happening
is
just
an
atrocity
and
we're
just
killing
our
own
selves.
Think.
D
E
So
I
will
I
will
have
it
to
council
before
the
meeting
Tuesday
then.
A
H
Will
get
it
to
you
in
advance?
Thank
you
very
much.
So
thank
you.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
from
councilmember
Miranda,
all
in
favor,
aye
aye
and,
let's
not
forget,
we
remember
the
Reverend
Dr
Martin
Luther.
H
Just
on
Monday
but
every
day
and
his
everything
that
he
did
for
society
and
and
so
much
more
so
we
observed
that
day
and
his
contributions
as
memory
mood
to
receive
and
Paul.
D
Have
a
motion
to
receive
a
file
made
by
councilman
mascott
consecuted
by
councilman
Goods,
all
in
favor,
say
aye.
If
I
hear
no
objection
or
a
journey.