►
From YouTube: Tampa City Council 06132019 part 2
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).
C
You
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
with
you
this
evening.
My
name
is
Barbara
Bachmann
I'm
a
resident
at
3,000
West,
Hawthorne
Road,
which
is
a
property
that
directly
is
behind
the
proposed
project.
My
husband
and
I
had
bought
our
first
house
on
Hawthorne
rent
in
1984,
so
I've
been
a
resident
there
for
35
years,
Bob
Humphreys,
my
late
husband
and
I
built
the
house
at
3,000,
Hawthorne
Road,
because
we
love
the
canopies
of
the
trees.
C
Hawthorne
is
a
very
unique
street
because
the
canopy
of
the
trees
go
to
the
curb,
so
there's
no
sidewalks,
there's
a
few
sidewalks
on
newer
homes
where
people
have
put
them
just
in
front
of
their
sidewalks
or
in
front
of
their
houses.
But
the
majority
of
the
pedestrian
traffic
on
the
street,
which
is
a
large
number
of
people
with
strollers
parents
walking
their
children.
Kids
on
bikes
are
accessing
Bayshore
through
the
on
the
street.
C
One
of
my
concerns
in
one
of
my
largest
concerns
as
a
physician
in
the
community
is
that
is
the
lack
of
safety
that
this
can
present
with
this
one
of
the
most
narrow
streets
in
South
Tampa.
With
no
sidewalks,
and
also
the
lack
of
parking
requirement,
I
think
they've
calculated
one
point:
two
cars
per
unit
and
their
current
recommendations.
We
know
this
is
going
to
be
a
rental
unit.
This
is
going
to
be
young
professionals.
There's
not
going
to
be
one
point:
two
cars
to
each
of
these
units.
C
There's
probably
going
to
be
two
there's,
probably
going
to
be
more
there's
gonna,
be
people
that
are
having
parties
and
having
guests
over,
because
that's
the
nature
of
what
this
unit
is
going
to
provide.
Where
is
that
parking
going
to
be
it's
going
to
be
around
the
corner
on
Hawthorn
up
and
down
either
the
2020
900,
the
3000,
the
3100
block
of
Hawthorne,
all
of
which
are
narrow
streets
with
no
sidewalks
with
heavy
pedestrian
traffic.
I
encourage
each
of
you
to
go
behind
yogurt
ecology
and
make
that
turn
onto
that
alleyway.
C
C
I
think
the
salient
fact
of
this
project
is
this
is
too
big
for
too
little
a
piece
of
land
and
I
would
agree
that
to
have
all
these
waivers
and
all
these
things
that
have
to
be
done
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
implies
that
this
is
not
the
right
development
for
this
space
and
I
really
appeal
to
the
to
the
Commission
to
look
at
this
as
being
an
inappropriate
use.
The
term
disruptive
to
neighborhood
is
used
frequently
in
these
previous
zoning
requirements.
C
D
Hi,
my
name
is
Andres
Reda,
Olivia
3400
me
and
my
wife
have
lived
there
since
2003.
We
have
a
small
child
she's
a
teenager.
Now
the
traffic
is
a
problem
on
Hawthorne,
my
neighbor
Barbara
said
they.
There
hasn't
been
much
talk
about
the
parking
waiver,
but
there's
gonna
be
80
units
and
the
question
is
where
they're
gonna
part
there's
no
on
street
parking
on
Gandy
Hawthorne
Road
is
very
narrow.
You're
gonna
have
a
narrow
alley.
You
know,
there's
gonna
be
at
least
two
cars
per
unit.
D
D
You
know
they
constantly
are
asking
for
waivers
regarding
landscape
Duane.
You
know
the
scale
and
the
mass
of
this
project
is
it's
huge.
You
know
we're
gonna
have
balconies
in
our
backyard.
This
project
is
directly
to
the
south
of
me
on
the
property,
the
Grand
Oaks.
You
know
this
is
the
canopy.
That's
gonna
be
irreplaceable.
They're
asking
to
pay
into
the
fund,
which
you
know
doesn't
benefit
our
neighborhood,
which
is
also
trees
and
canopy,
drive
down
to
Hawthorne
Road
and
now,
when
we
met
with
the
developer,
they
constantly.
D
D
In
the
use
of
the
alley
as
a
ride
away,
you
know
no
one
knows
I,
don't
think
from
the
drawings
we've
seen
I
mean
how
many
parking
house,
the
second-floor
parking
deck
accessed
accessed,
to
mean
from
the
plans.
It
looks
like
it's
gonna,
be
from
the
alley.
You're
gonna
have
seventy
trips
up
and
down
that
every
morning
you
know
Hawthorne
stacks
up
their
transportation.
Consultants
mentioned
four
to
six
pm,
but
look
at
seven
to
nine
when
we're
all
taking
our
kids
at
school,
going
to
work,
MacDill
packs
backs
up.
You
know,
you
know
that.
D
That's
a
concern,
you
know
they
didn't
they
didn't.
Look
at
that.
You
know.
Another
concern,
for
me
is
the
rooftop
deck.
You
know
what
kind
of
no
ways
what
kind
of
restrictions
are
you
guys
gonna
have
on
this
space?
They're
gonna
be
up
there
all
night,
making
noise.
You
know
we
all
have
children,
you
know
school,
you
know,
I,
think
with
it
with
a
type
of
property
and
the
potential
tenants.
D
B
The
things
that
I
was
going
to
point
out
I
have
just
posed
more
questions,
so
I
have
more
questions
than
answers
or
or
thoughts
in
that
they
said
they
came
to
our
meeting
and
total
certain
things
and
tonight
I
hear
other
things,
and
so
I
really
want
to
know.
What's
really
happening.
I
don't
feel
that
we
have
the
truth
because
they
told
us
one
thing
when
we
met
with
them
and
another
tonight.
B
E
F
A
B
A
Sir
I
get
it
okay,
rebuttal,
oh
I'm,
sorry
go
ahead.
New
council.
G
Dashon
dot,
Planning
and
Development.
There
are
a
couple
of
items
that
I'd
like
to
mention
and
put
on
the
record
just
based
on
testimony.
That's
been
provided,
so
one
is
that
this
application
was
submitted
and
the
site
plan
and
application
has
been
reviewed
under
the
old
tricot.
It
was
not
reviewed
under
the
new
tree
code.
The
other
item
of
concern
that
I
just
like
to
clarify
the
redesign
proposed
of
the
alley.
The
redesigning
of
the
alley
was
reviewed
by
one
department
transportation.
It's
not
been
reviewed
by
any
other
department,
not
solid
waste.
G
No
other
department
has
had
a
chance
to
review
it.
So
I'd
like
to
get
that
on
the
record.
The
other
item
is
the
loading
space
to
the
north
of
the
site.
So
if
it
is
councils
direction
to
have
the
loading
space
place
back
on
the
site,
I'd
like
that,
we
have
transportation
staff
here,
John's
got
us
here
and
he
can
provide
testimony
as
to
why
the
loading
space
is
asked
to
be
removed.
The
beginning
of
the
site.
E
H
Scott
transition
planning
this
site
since
it's
a
residential
multi-family,
only
requires
one
for
a
hundred
thousand
square
foot
of
loading
spaces.
So,
since
it's
less
than
a
hundred
thousand
they're
technically,
we
quote
not
required
to
have
a
loading
space.
That's
why
we
had
to
take
that
off
the
site
plan
and
that
one
that
they
were
showing
on
the
alley
didn't
meet.
Our
technical
requirements
is
the
reason
why
we
didn't
haven't
put
that
on,
but
they
still
have
to
address
the
move-in
and
move-out,
and
that
is
something
they'll
have
to
do
and
I
think.
H
B
E
H
G
Kennefa
LaShawn
dock
planning
and
development,
if
I
may
so,
the
applicant
had
a
loading
space
identified
on
the
site
plan.
It
did
not
meet
transportation,
technical
standards
by
size
and
maneuvering,
so
they
were
requested
to
remove
it
off
the
site
plan.
If
the
request
tonight
is
to
put
the
loading
space
back
on,
they
have
to
show
how
that
standard
can
be
met
at
last,
the
middle
it
was.
G
E
G
I
No
I
I,
don't
have
an
exactly
I
mean
I.
Think
what
I
heard
stop
saying
is
that
the
concern
of
this
building
requiring
it
doesn't
technically
require
a
loading
space.
However,
these
there's
an
acknowledgement
that
the
issue
you
raised
could
have
an
impact
on
adjoining
properties
if
it
wasn't
somehow
shown
that
they
were
addressing
it
in
some
way,
but
they're
not
required
to
show
a
loading
space,
but
maybe
they
could
explain
how
they
expect
those
situations
in
their
rebuttal.
I
They
could
address
how
they
expect
those
situations
to
be
addressed
with
the
site
plan
that
they
have
and
see.
If
that
addresses
that
concern,
Rebecca
hurt
legal
department,
I
do
have
one
other
clarification
that
I
just
wanted
to
make.
There's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
alley
and
resubmitting
a
configuration
and
whether
or
not
that
needed
to
be
reviewed
by
additional
departments.
The
revision
sheet
that
staff
submitted
to
you
has
a
statement
that
all
activity
in
the
right
away
will
have
to
go
through
normal,
permitting
process.
That's
how
we
permit
things
in
the
right
away.
I
I
The
the
tree
table
that
has
been
submitted
to
you
for
a
review
does
not
show
the
alley
trees
being
removed.
So
I'm
not
testifying.
That's
in
the
record
I'm
just
reiterating
that
for
the
developer
to
remove
those
trees,
they
would
have
to
be
shown
on
the
tree
table.
So
those
trees
are
already
required
to
be
saved.
I
I
do
want
to
clarify
that
they
are
right
away,
trees
and,
while
the
developer
under
this
site
plan,
as
shown,
does
not
have
the
ability
to
remove
them,
there's
not
a
guarantee
that,
at
some
point,
natural
resources
or
whoever's
allowed
to
under
our
new
tree
code
remove
them.
They
could
potentially
be
removed
in
the
future.
But
this
site
plan
in
and
of
itself
does
not
allowed
the
developer
to
remove
the
trees.
F
J
F
A
H
I
Curt
legal
department:
it
is
my
understanding
that
when
the
applicant
came
in,
he
was
under
the
old
tree
code,
so
it
was
reviewed
under
the
old
tree
code.
I
make
that
I
brought
that
up
or
miss
doc
clarified
that,
because
there
was
some
discussion
from
the
petitioners
about
how
the
new
code
would
apply.
Well,
they
didn't
ask
to
have
the
new
code
apply.
They
could
probably
at
this
point
say:
hey
I'd
rather
have
the
new
code
applied.
It
would
require
a
continuance
and
we
would
review
it
under
the
new
code.
I
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
for
the
record
that
this
was
reviewed
under
the
old
code.
Now,
if
you're
asking
whether
or
not
there's
any
substitute
difference,
they're
most
likely
would
not
be
in
the
form
of
they
still
are
going
to
have
to
ask
for
these
tree
waivers,
there's
a
potential
that
the
mitigation,
which
is
a
large
part
of
what
the
changes
between
the
old
new,
the
old
tree
code
and
the
new
tree
code
could
change,
and
it
it
was
also
testified
to
earlier
that
at
the
permitting
process.
I
Some
of
these
decisions
are
made
at
the
permitting
process
like
if
they
have
to
replace
trees.
We
have
very
stringent
things
that
had
to
be
on
your
premise
and
on
your
property,
and
now
we
allow
some
leeway
in
that,
but
because
that's
determined
at
the
permanent
process,
which
is
in
the
future,
they
could
probably
take
advantage
of
that.
But
I.
I
It's
just
important
to
clarify
for
the
record
that
arguments
based
upon
the
new
code,
allowing
certain
trees
to
come
out
and
certain
trees
not
to
come
out,
isn't
really
reflective
of
what
happened
here,
because
it
was
reviewed
under
the
old
tree
code
and
to
review
it
under
the
new
tree
code.
They
could
have
done
that
because
it's
in
place
now,
but
it
would
require
a
continuance
to
evaluate
it
under
that,
and
it
wasn't
all.
I
B
J
J
Thanks
again,
Council
appreciate
it
concerning
this
loading
area:
here's
a
site
plan
before
you,
it
says
ten
by
thirty
loading,
birth.
Okay,
and
if
you
look
at
your
waiver
sheet,
we
requested
a
waiver
based
on
staff's
recommendation
from
the
loading
birth
and
our
waiver
was
to
go
from
12
by
30
to
10
by
30.
So
we're
committed
to
this
loading
birth
and
the
only
difference
between
code
is
two
feet:
10
by
12
by
30
versus
10,
by
30.
Okay,
so
we
have
the
loading
area,
that's
resolved.
Second,.
K
H
Jonathan
Scotch
meditation
planning
the
that
lowering
space
didn't
meet
any
of
our
technical
requirements,
even
though
it's
the
only
boat
to
be
less
whatever
I
mean
it
did,
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
get
in
and
get
out
of
it
hold
the
doors
open
and
all
that
stuff.
It's
it's
just
it's
more
than
just
the
size
of
it.
One
reason
we
had
to
take
it
off
but,
like
typically
a
loading
space
would
be
12
by
60
would
be
the
first
morning
then
they're
12
by
30
be
allowed.
H
A
J
Feet:
okay:
second
issue:
there
was
a
suggestion
by
miss
Mandel
that
things
have
changed:
cetera,
here's
a
site
plan
before
you
see
this
box
here.
These
are
the
trees
behind
the
severe
property
and
mr.
key,
who
testified
a
little
while
ago
about
his
view
and
see
that
box
around
those
trees
in
the
alley-
and
you
heard
testimony
from
your
staff,
we
can't
remove
those
anyhow,
but
if
you
look
at
the
site
plan
that
box
says
trees
to
be
saved,
subject
to
transportation
decision
on
that.
So.
J
J
This
issue
about
the
density
of
the
project
or
intensity
once
you
commit
to
mixed-use
and
Planning
Commission
makes
the
determination
that
you
fulfill
that
obligation,
because
there
are
two
different
uses
under
the
city's
use
schedule.
It
says
on
page
two:
your
staff
report,
your
committee,
the
site
would
be
eligible
for
a
1.5
f
AR
by
right,
not
discretionary.
Our
FA
R
is
1
point
2
6,
so
we
qualify
there.
J
Here's
mr.
keys
property.
Ironically,
we
use
this
as
an
example
and
Adams
presentation.
He
didn't
have
chance
to
really
get
through
it
too
much.
Here's
a
view,
mr.
Keyes
property.
Looking
toward
the
project
you
can
see,
the
foliage
are
the
trees
that
he
has
in
his
backyard,
and
you
can
see
you
can
see
this
little
keyhole.
Mr.
key,
all
this
vegetation
and
what
we
did-
and
this
is
a
condition
here.
J
We
have
to
put
screening
in
anyhow,
but
we
we
agreed
that
we
had
put
screening
that
was
twice
the
code
over
twice
the
code
requirement
for
these
red
cedars.
So
what
we've
done
is
identify,
for
example,
mr.
Keyes
property.
These
red
cedars
would
be
planted
in
there
20
feet,
tall
and
65
gallons
at
time
of
planting
and.
J
And
then
it
goes
without
saying
once
again,
the
cg
and
the
implications
have
developed
in
this
property
cg
everyone's
kind
of
the
same
challenges
with
the
trees.
I
want
counsel
to
know
if
you
develop
at
cg,
like
I
said
you
could
put
theoretically
90,000
square
feet
here
and
multi-story
and
the
height
20
feet
from
their
property
would
be
45
feet.
Okay,
there's
no
tearing,
there's
no
sensitivity,
there's
no
buffering
things
like
that.
All
they'd
have
to
have.
J
Is
the
ten
foot
buffer
with
some
vegetation
and
there's
already
a
wall
there
and
that's
the
end
of
that
story?
Okay,
so
I
think
we've
really
gone
above
beyond
to
be
sensitive
to
this
issue
of
view
in
terms
of
tree
removal.
A
lot
of
these
trees
in
Joe
is
trying
to
get
impress
upon.
This
is
that
there
are
there's
26
of
the
57
palms
or
26th
of
257
trees
or
palms.
Okay.
In
a
lot
of
these
trees,
these
trailers
and
pads
and
things
have
grown
on
them
and
compact
it
upon
them.
J
So
it'd
be
a
real
challenge,
even
just
to
a
limb
forget
about
taking
the
mobile
homes
out.
Okay,
just
for
the
survivability
of
these
trees,
once
we
take
all
that
stuff
out
and
we're
ready,
willing
and
able
to
plant
as
many
trees
as
we
can
on
the
property.
Now
in
terms
of
transportation,
that's
been
an
going
issue
money,
it's
Mike,
Yates
again
our
transportation
engineer.
B
Hello,
Michael
gates,
I,
want
to
address
a
couple
of
things
that
got
brought
up.
First
is
the
trip
generation
for
the
projects?
As
you
can
see,
the
project
will
only
generate
twenty
nine
a.m.
peak
hour
trip
ends
and
38
p.m.
big
hour
trip
ends
so
a
very
low
trip
generator.
The
second
is
the
site
circulation.
There's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
use
of
Hawthorne
for
the
project
traffic.
B
What
we're
proposing
is
a
right
end
right
out
access
on
Gandy
Boulevard
and
then
the
existing
Zion
access
would
be
improved,
but
that
would
be
a
full
access
to
Gandhi
Boulevard
and
then
we
would
use
the
access
to
MacDill
for
inbound
traffic.
Only
so
this
driveway
to
the
alley
to
the
back
would
be
inbound
traffic
and
then
the
outbound
traffic
would
only
be
able
to
make
it
right
out.
In
our
site
plan,
we've
put
a
traffic
separator
in
there
to
force
everyone
to
the
east.
We've
ran
intersection
analysis.
B
J
Yeah,
you
know
this
suggestion
that
you
hear
again.
Most
of
these
units
are
one-bedroom
units,
but
you
have
the
same
parking
requirement
for
one
and
two-bedroom
under
the
zoning
code,
so
we
feel
we
have
sufficient
parking.
Also,
in
this
issue
the
waivers
a
lot
of
times
these
numbers
get
kicked
around
I
think
we've
whittled
it
down
at
this
point
to
9
waivers,
and
let
me
point
out
to
you
counsel
that
waivers
6
7
&
8.
J
These
relates
solely
to
decorative
walls
around
the
projects
or
a
lack
of
a
wall
next
to
yoga
ecology
on
the
west.
It
already
has
a
wall,
so
we
asked
for
a
waiver.
Why
have
two
masonry
walls
so
once
you
deduct
the
wall
waivers
you're
down
to
six
and
we
have
the
four
grand
trees?
We
spoke
about
the
50%
tree
retention
and
then
in
tandem
with
any
one
of
these
percentages.
J
If
you
have
to
make
a
contribution,
so
that
constitutes
another
waiver,
then
we
have
waiver
in
terms
of
the
green
space
where
per
apartment,
it's
supposed
to
be
350
and
we
got
it
down
to
287
plus
in
combination
with
that.
You'd
have
to
pay
it
in
lieu
for
the
balance
eighty
square
feet
that
you
couldn't
provide
on-site.
So
it's
not
a
lot
of
waivers
in
each
one
of
these
waivers
when
you
pay
in
there's
this
kind
of
duplicative,
so
there's
six
way,
words
associated
with
the
project,
so
I
think
we've
done
everything
we
can.
J
We've
had
multiple
meetings
over
the
last
several
months
with
the
neighbors
we
have
a
I
haven't
mentioned
it,
and
hopefully,
you've
had
the
opportunity
to
read
all
these
letters.
I've
been
filtering
to
your
office.
We
have
the
Hawthorn
pond,
condo
association.
You
heard
one
gentleman
testify
that
they're
in
support
multiple
businesses
up
and
down
Gandy
and
a
lot
of
residents
have
sent
in
letters
of
support
too.
So
it's
just
kind
of
a
one-way
street,
and
also
quite
honestly,
some
of
these
residents
who
testified
on
Hawthorn.
J
E
J
Can't
you
can't,
because
what
they
do
is
they
apply
RM
24
standards
and
when
you
do
the
math
in
terms
of
number
of
units
you
get
somewhere
in
the
range
of
like
it,
don't
hold
me
to
it:
okay,
like
35
to
50
you
something
like
that,
and
you
don't
have
the
ability
to
get
any
waivers
or
any
kind
of
design
modifications.
You
know
you're
kind
of
pigeon-holed
into
the
dimensional
requirements
of
the
CG,
so
we
couldn't
get
the
density
or
intensity,
understand
G,
but.
E
L
E
L
The
CG,
your
hotel,
RM
24
standards,
but
also
I
think
as
missmiss
doc,
would
confirm.
You
are
held
to
the
comprehensive
plans
density
with
respect
to
multifamily
units.
So
if
you,
if
you
can
dimensionally
put
them
in
it's
35
units
per
acre,
CMU
35,
so
1.7
six
times,
35
would
be
not
70.
That
would
be
2.0.
Is
that
right,
David.
M
L
I
that
that
is
the
maximum
one
could
apply
for,
but
remember
you
would
have
to
meet
all
the
requirements
that
we
are
here
being
able
to
seek
adjustments
from
waivers
and
so
on,
and
we've
already
pointed
out,
for
example,
mr.
Dean,
further
that
the
trees
that
are
there
right
now,
which
we
would
have
to
maintain
as
is,
would
absolutely
prohibit
it.
So
we
could
not
actually.
E
Build
you
made
a
presumption.
There
is
an
alternative
method,
which
is
the
variance
Review
Board.
If
I'm
just
saying,
if,
if
you
had
the
CG,
what
you
do
you
have
the
CG
today
or
your
client
does.
If
you
have
the
CG
and
you
want
to
remove
more
than
50%
of
the
trees,
then
you
go
to
the
VR,
be
correct.
E
L
You
can
you
can
certainly
do
that,
but
with
respect
to
things
like
you
know
the
additional
parking
and
all
of
those,
it's
not
just
one
waiver
with
respect
to
trees.
There
are
many
many
things
that
we
are
here:
providing
a
single,
comprehensive,
cohesive
package
to
get
approval
for,
and
so
my
response
to
you
is:
isn't
this
a
much
better
process
to
look
at
this
holistically.
G
Lashawn
dog,
Planning
and
Development
Council
mr.
Bentley,
provided
a
zoning
condition.
Did
you
submit
this
survey
to
commitment
to
provide
the
screening
along
the
north?
If
that
is
a
desire
of
the
applicant
and
to
provide
that
as
screening
for
the
residents
that
are
located
to
the
north,
we
would
need
to
have
this
in
addition
to
the
site
plan
revision
sheet
that
will
submit
it
to
you
in
the
record.
This.
G
K
J
Mr.
Carlson,
for
example,
that
condition
that
there's
already
an
implied
code
requirement.
We
provide
planning
like
a
red
cedar.
The
code
gives
an
example,
but
it
says
it
only
has
to
be
35
gallons
at
time
of
planning
and
there's
no
minimum
height.
So
what
we
do
is
that
we
want
to
take
it
up
a
notch
to
ensure
that
there's
some
mitigation
of
the
view,
so
we've
agreed
to
65
gallon
at
time
with
planning
and
20
feet,
and
but
it
was
already
required.
We
just
amped
it
up.
You
know.
F
J
On
there's
been
so
much
information,
is
it
accordian
traffic
engineer
whether
you
have
80
units
or
50
at
the
PMP
I?
Think
there's
a
23
trip
difference,
so
it's
pretty.
It's
insignificant.
You
wouldn't
know
the
difference
in
terms
of
traffic
impact
between
80
or
50
units
from
a
traffic
standpoint.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir
I.
B
B
If
it's
I
know
a
lot
of
people
or
say
or
if
it
just
five
hundred
square
feet
of
mixed-use,
but
if
it's
in
the
law,
I
I
was
hoping,
you
guys
were
able
to
interpret
their
law
right
way
versus
if
you
have,
if
we
have
a
right
to
build
on
certain
things
by
the
law,
I
am
just
hoping
you
look
into
that,
and
not
just
thinking
just
go
with
emotion
with
some
some
of
the
neighbors.
Thank
you
I
very
much
appreciate
thank.
G
E
G
E
M
Shouldn't
that
be
a
mix
justice
under
your
community
under
your
mixed-use
categories,
especially
the
community
commercial
and
the
community,
mixed-use
35,
there's
a
provision
that,
along
these
mixed
use,
court
within
the
mixed
use
categories.
Developments
that
include
two
uses
from
two
different
land
use
tables
within
the
LDC
can
be
considered
for
a
bump
up.
That
came
as
a
plan
amendment
about
three
years
ago
to
the
previous
council.
The
the
city
staff
in
cooperation
with
Planning
Commission
staff,
was
looking
at
the
encouragement
of
mixed-use
before
there
was
no
requirement
at
all.
M
There
still
is
not
a
requirement
for
mixed
reviews,
but
before
that
there
was
no
incentive
or
anything
to
have
mixed
use
on
these
identified
quarters.
It
was
city
staff
and
Planning
Commission
staff
that
came
up
with
to
encourage
a
mixture
of
uses
on
these
quarters
to
come
up
with
this
incentive.
Basically,
all
the
categories
were
capped.
M
If
any
development
was
capped
at
a
1fa
are,
and
then
you
could
bonus
your
way
up
to
a
two
if
they
are,
if
you
meet
the
requirements
to
contain
a
mixture
of
uses
in
your
structure,
you
get
that
bump
up
to
a
1.5
by
right,
and
then
you
can
still
buy
up
to
the
two
FA
are
through
the
bonus
provisions,
the
lane
development
code.
So
if
the
thinking
is
to
that
this
is
the
type
development
pattern
that
the
comp
plan
encourages
on
these
particular
quarters
a
mixture
of
uses.
M
I
Clean
of
apartment
and
what
David
said
is
completely
correct.
That
gives
them
an
entitlement
to
justify
up
to
a
maximum
of
that.
It
changes
the
maximum,
but
they're
still
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
27
136,
which
is
the
purpose
which
will
find
them
of
a
PD
site
plan,
which
is
found
on
page
8
of
your
staff
report,
which
is
where
City
Council
can
still
find
that
what
is
being
requested.
You
don't
have
to
allow
the
maximum
if
they
don't
otherwise
meet
27
136
that
changes
that
comprehensive
plan
provision
changes
the
maximum
that
is
allowed.
I
They
also
still
have
to
meet
27
139
for
waivers
for
every
waiver
that
is
requested,
and
that's
in
your
staff
report
on
page
10,
so
I
hope
that
clarified
that
changes
the
maximum
that's
loud,
but
it
does
not
mean
that
they
still
don't
have
to
meet
all
the
other
provisions
that
are
required
for
a
site
clean
zone.
Mister
thank.
H
H
I
Curt
legal
department-
and
that
goes
to
the
heart
of
the
question
of
where
we
are
with
the
evidence
that
has
been
submitted.
Who
is
the
burden
of
where
we
are
in
the
burden
shipping
process?
The
applicant
has
the
burden
to
demonstrate
that
they
are
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
land
development
code,
section
lien
development
code
if
they
have
not
submitted
enough
information
to
demonstrate
that
to
you
and
you
can
figure
out
what
code
and
you
can
identify
the
code
provisions
that
you
feel
you
don't
have
enough
information
to
me.
I
That's
grounds
for
denial.
If
the
applicant
has
met
that
and
you
would
like
additional
information-
that's
not
grounds
for
denial,
because
once
the
applicant
has
met
their
burden,
the
burden
shifts
to
whoever
isn't
objecting
to
it,
be
its
staff
or
or
be
it
the
the
community
to
present
evidence
to
you.
So
if
the
applicant
has
met
their
burden
and
there's
not
enough
evidence
for
you
to
deny
it,
you
don't
have
a
basis
to
deny
it.
But
if
what
you're
saying
is
you
don't
have
enough
information?
I
The
applicant
has
not
provided
you
enough
information
to
determine
whether
or
not
they're,
in
compliance
with
the
code
and
you're,
basically
saying
that
the
applicant
has
not
met
their
burden.
So
that's
where
the
it's
really
important
to
figure
out
where
the
gap
is,
is
the
gap
like
I'd
like
more
information,
because
maybe
there's
a
problem
out
there
that
no
one's
presented
to
me,
but
the
applicant
has
met
their
burden.
Then
the
applicants
met
their
burden.
K
I
The
applicant
has
the
ability
to
say
I'd,
like
a
continuance,
to
provide
you
with
more
information
if
they
feel
that's
appropriate.
But
if
the
applicant
is
like
I
have
I
have
met
my
record
and
I'd
like
a
vote
up
or
down,
then
they're
entitled
to
a
vote
up
or
down
determination
of
bet,
whether
or
not
they
met
their
burden
and
remember.
The
applicant
does
have
the
burden
initially
to
demonstrate
compliance.
H
A
J
J
Yeah,
that's
fine!
Thank
you
very
much.
Yes.
Okay.
In
terms
of
the
information
counseling
Goodes,
you
indicated
that
there
is
a
supplemental
report
to
be
filed
that
was
filed
two
weeks
ago
and
that's
the
only
thing
in
the
staff
report
that
says
they
haven't
weighed
in
on
completely
the
intent
of
that
report.
It
was
a
tree
limb.
An
ALICE
pruning
report
was
to
confirm
what
the
findings
were
between
the
staff
and
our
arborist
out
in
the
field
we
supplied
that
two
weeks
ago.
J
If
you
look
at
your
staff
report,
it
says
our
obligation
was
to
supply
it
between
first
and
second
reading,
the
implication
being
that
the
staff
would
have
plenty
of
time.
I
also
like
to
point
out
to
counsel
that
there's
really
no
substantial,
confident
evidence
that
you've
heard
tonight,
you
haven't
heard
any
expert
testimony
from
the
other
side
of
the
fence
and
Miss
Mandel's
of
involvement.
It's
just
purely
legal
arguments,
she's
not
confident
to
testify
concerning
compatibility
traffic
things
like
that.
So
again,
thank
you
very
much
appreciate
it.
Thank
you,
sir.
Okay.
A
Yeah
do
I
respect
the
motion
the
closes
coming
soon.
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
close
by
council
minutes,
not
go
hey
seconds
of
my
councilman
Goods,
all
in
favor
any
opposed.
Okay.
Now,
traditionally,
the
chair
always
ask
somebody
to
read
on
matters
where
there's
been
a
lot
of
this
view.
I
typically
ask
what
is
the
pleasure
of
council
just
to
allow
folks
to
proceed
as
they
wish
so
I
will
hereby
say
what
is
the
pleasure
of
comes
councilman.
A
A
E
E
One
of
the
reasons,
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
that
I
feel
comfortable
in
moving
to
deny
is
based
upon
the
fact
that
this
property
has
an
existing
zoning
on
it
of
CG
commercial
general,
which,
by
the
testimony
of
our
land,
use
staff
as
concurred
to
by
the
testimony
of
mr.
Carnegie.
The
petitioners
land
use
expert
indicated
how
many
units
fifty
fifty
two
units
under
the
CG
and-
and
there
was
no
objection
on
that
number.
E
So
I
believe
that
right
now
there
exists
a
reasonable
use
for
that
property
and
I
say
that
with
great
emphasis
for
the
for
the
record,
and
that's
not
my
conclusion.
That's
the
conclusion
of
experts
who
testified
in
front
of
us
today,
I
think
that's
extremely
important
because,
as
Miss
Curt
reminds
us
regularly,
mr.
Shelby
reminds
us
regularly
when
we're
denying
a
petition,
we
have
to
make
sure
that
there's
still
reasonable
use
remaining
on
the
property
and
that
reasonable
use
is
already
there
in
the
form
of
the
CG.
So
what
they?
E
Specifically,
our
natural
resources
staff
indicates
that
the
petition
is
inconsistent
and
I'll,
just
if,
if
allowed
by
mr.
Shelby,
without
going
every
without
rereading.
All
of
these
specifically
I'll
incorporate
the
staff
report
by
reference.
I'll
summarize
the
end
of
the
Natural
Resources
staff
report
by
indicating
that
the
project
is
inconsistent
because
of
the
multiple
waivers
requested,
including
section
13
45.
The
removal
of
non-hazardous
grant
trees
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
was
four
of
them
or
eight
of
them,
but
that
it
was
many
of
them.
E
The
reduction
in
multifamily
green
space
and
an
increase
of
the
request
for
an
increase
of
the
fifty
percent
tree
retention
somewhere
between
91
and
94
percent.
So
the
that's
extremely
important,
and
the
petitioner
and
his
legal
staff,
as
well
as
his
planning
staff,
recognized
that
with
the
CG
use,
they
could
go
to
try
and
get
those
trees
removed
through
the
Barents
Review
Board
process.
So
it's
not
like
we're
just
shutting
them
out
completely.
E
They
have
an
existing
zoning
that
allows
52
units
and
they
have
an
alternative
process
through
the
Barents
Review
Board
to
get
those
trees
removed.
In
addition,
I'll
move
to
deny
on
the
basis
of
the
transportation
report,
the
transportation
staff
indicates
that
148
parking
spaces
are
required
and
only
138
are
provided
in
the
site
plan,
which
is
a
7%
reduction,
as
testified
by
various
folks
and
also
just
logic.
That
project
is
on
D
and
E.
There's
no
on
street
parking
on
D
and
E.
E
If,
if
there's
overflow
I
think
the
next
adjacent
Street,
which
is
Hawthorn,
has
reason
to
be
concerned
that
people
might
Park
on
Hawthorne
and
then
walk
around
and
and
that's
problematic.
Personally,
I
did
Drive
this
property.
Yesterday,
mr.
Miranda
suggested
that
that's
always
a
good
idea,
especially
on
controversial
project,
so
I
went
and
drove
it
and
I
circled
around
that
alley.
Three
different
times
pretty
soon
the
workers
were
kind
of
looking
at
me.
E
What
was
I
doing
there,
but
but
I
was
became
very
familiar
with
the
alley
and
with
the
concerns
of
the
Hawthorne
folks,
just
by
driving
the
site.
Additionally,
there
was
a
concern
raised
by
transportation
staff
about
the
loading
zone
staff
indicates.
We
can't
require
loading
space,
but
the
petitioner
really
doesn't
show
where
a
reasonable
loading
area
would
be.
That
would
not
negatively
impact
the
Hawthorne
neighbors
personally
I
raised
a
concern
about
the
dumpster
and
the
noise
from
the
dumpster.
E
E
Well,
miss
Mandel
and
her
correspondence
to
us
speaks
to
the
massing
and
scale
of
the
development
which
I
agree
with
I.
Think
the
massing
they'd
like
to
do
have
80
units,
but
by
right
today
they
can
do
52
units.
Perhaps
the
8080
unit
structure
is
just
too
large
and
too
massive
for
the
property
and
I
believe
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
that
we
heard
testimony
in
opposition
to
this
the
density
of
the
project
as
too
dense.
For
for
this
1.7,
approximately
1.7
acres,
there's
no
there's.
No.
E
There
hasn't
wasn't
any
great
justification
at
all
for
the
parking
waiver,
the
roof
amenity
mr.
Bentley
adjusted
and
testified
to
it.
But
mr.
Bentley's,
not
a
land-use
expert,
he's
a
great
lawyer,
but
not
a
land-use
expert,
so
I
didn't
I,
didn't
really
hear
much
in
the
way
of
testimony
that
that
roof
amenity
was
actually
going
to
be
moved
or
was
moved.
A
F
F
The
question
then,
is
looking
at
section
136
and
looking
at
the
subsections
that
the
staff
report
numbers
one
through
seven,
if
any
other
person
wishes
to
add
anything
as
to
whether
the
competence,
substantial
evidence
supports
or
rejects
the
requirements
of
approving
of
PD.
Also
to
refer
you
again
to
miss
Kurtz
reminder
that
there
are
also
rate
waivers
requested
that
subsection
27
139
sub
4.
That
criteria
is
in
your
staff
report,
but
that
was
not
referencing.
The
motion
and
and
I
just
want
to
bring
that
to
councils
attention.
If
it
wishes
to
do
so
and.
E
Chair,
let
me
answer.
Let
me,
let
me
add,
on
a
little
bit
and
I
appreciate
that
mr.
Shelby,
you
make
a
good
point
as
related
to
section
27
139
paren
4,
which
speaks
to
waivers,
and
it
gives
us
some
guidance
as
to
waivers
it
says
the
following
of
the
criteria
for
consideration
of
a
waiver
through
the
site
plan
controls
not
rezoning
and
I'll
jump
to
B,
which
says
the
waiver,
if
allowed,
will
not
substantially
interfere
with
or
injure
the
rights
of
others
whose
property
would
have
be
affected
by
allowance
of
the
waiver
and
I.
E
Think
we've
heard
competent,
substantial
evidence
to
the
contrary
that
if
we
allowed
these
nine
waivers,
especially
the
ones
I
mentioned
that
they
would
substantially
interfere
with
and
injure
the
rights
of
others
whose
property
would
be
affected
by
allowance
of
the
waiver.
I
would
also
argue
see
that
the
waiver
is
not
in
harmony.
The
waivers
are
various
waivers
are
not
in
harmony
with
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
the
chapter.
The
blame
development
regulations
and
the
Tampa
Comprehensive
Plan,
and
and
that
I
do
believe
that
allowing
the
various
waivers
would
do
substantial
injustice.
E
M
M
G
M
Good
evening,
council
members,
david,
hey,
what's
your
planning
commission
staff?
I
have
been
sworn.
We
end
this
evening
in
the
central
Tampa
planning
districts.
More
specifically
the
Tampa
Heights
urban
village.
There
is
transit
within
a
hundred
feet
of
the
subject
site
on
West
Columbus
Drive,
that's
West,
kombis
Drive
is
served
by
heart.
The
15
closest
public
recreation
facility
is
Plymouth
playground,
which
is
located
approximately
950
feet
to
the
north
of
the
subject
site
and
the
site
is
not
located
within
an
evacuation
zone
on
to
the
aerial.
M
Here's
the
subject
site
this
is
Ola.
We
have
warned
to
the
south.
This
is
the
DW
waters
center
to
the
south
east
and
then
you've
got
the
villa
Madonna
to
the
south.
West
you've
got
Graham
Elementary
to
the
northwest,
and
then
you
can
see
there's
a
mixture
of
duplexes
and
single-family
detached
mostly
single-family,
detached
on
to
the
north
of
the
subject
site
on
to
the
future
land
use
map,
the
subject,
site
and
properties
surrounding
it.
In
that
tan
color,
all
the
residential
tend.
M
As
you
go
further
south,
it
starts
getting
a
little
more,
a
little
more
dense
and
character
with
the
residential
20.
The
blue
represents
the
public
quasi-public
with
those
uses
I
mentioned
previously,
and
then
down
on
Columbus.
You
have
the
a
mixed-use
35
in
the
pink
you've
got
community
commercial
on
a
35
running
up
and
down
Florida
Avenue
represented
by
the
red,
and
then
it
actually
goes
into
residential
35,
south
of
Columbus
garage.
M
Residential
develop
parcels
adjacent
to
north
olá
Avenue
between
it's
weird
street
name:
West,
West,
Street
and
West
Glade
Street
I
checked
with
Jimmy
Cook.
That's
the
right
name,
excluding
the
subjects.
I
have
an
existing
density
of
8.2
units
per
acre.
The
opposed
rezoning
would
allow
consideration
of
two
single-family
detached
dwelling
units
on
the
subject
site,
but
their
overall
density
of
5.9
dwelling
units
per
acre,
which
is
consistent
with
that
residential
ten
future
land
use
category.
M
The
reposed
PD
will
be
of
similar
form,
height
and
scale
of
the
surrounding
residential
uses,
and
the
proposal
will
not
alter
the
character
or
the
existing
development
pattern
found
within
this
portion
of
the
Tampa
Heights
neighborhood
and
based
on
those
considerations.
The
Planning
Commission
of
staff
recommends
to
you
this
evening
that
this
rezoning
this
plan
development
excuse
me
be
found
consistent
with
the
imagined
2040
Kappa
Comprehensive
Plan.
Thank
you.
G
Push
on
dark
planning
and
development
and
council.
This
property
is
currently
zoned,
ours,
50,
residential
single-family.
The
request
is
to
a
PD
plan
development
for
single-family
residential
detached
use,
so
this
would
allow
for
the
two
single-family
detached
residential
lots.
This
subject
site
is
a
part
of
the
plat
of
CR
Pittman
subdivision
its
Lots
three
and
four.
So
these
lives.
G
This
is
conforming
map,
and
so
this
is
Ola
Avenue.
This
is
Warren
keys.
Avenue
is
here.
This
is
the
site,
that's
highlighted
here
in
the
stripes,
and
so
this
site
is
located
currently
in
the
RS
50
zone,
and
you
see
there's
a
couple
of
RM
designations,
one
to
the
north
and
then
south
of
the
site
in
this
particular
map.
G
So
the
Lots
three
and
four
they're
planted
as
followed
like
three-
is
45
feet
wide
and
like
Forrest
planted
at
44
feet
wide.
Both
Lots
were
planted
at
a
hundred
and
sixty
seven
feet
of
depth,
so
they're
deep,
they
just
don't
have
the
width.
This
request
would
create
the
two
buildable
single-family
residential
lots
with
a
lot
area
for
like
three
at
seven
thousand
five
hundred
and
fifteen
square
feet
in
lot
for
at
7348
square
feet.
G
The
minimum
lot
width
for
rs.50
is
50
feet,
so
this
would
allow
them
to
develop
at
that
minimum
width
under
the
our
city
standard,
which
is
less
than
our
spins.
This
is
the
zoning
map,
and
this
is
the
site
located
here
with
the
green
stripe.
So
this
is
Ola
Avenue.
This
is
Warren,
so
this
site
is
located
in
the
northwest
corner
of
OLDA
in
Warren.
Intersection
is
surrounded
with
residential
uses
to
the
north
and
to
the
east
to
the
south
is
vacant,
but
it
is
residential
and
West
is
also
residential.
G
G
Single-Family
residential
north
east
on
Ola
this
will
be
the
view
directly
across
from
the
site.
This
is
east
of
the
site.
So
that's
the
side
view
of
this
structure,
which
is
at
the
corner
of
all
them
walls,
one
and
then
this
is
the
view
looking
east
on
Waring
and
then,
as
we
get
go
around,
we
have
the
south
east
view.
G
That's
to
the
south
east
swing
back
around
to
the
south,
and
then
this
is
west
of
the
site.
So
this
is
on
the
opposite
street,
which
is
on
the
DRC
staff
has
reviewed
the
application
finds
to
request
consistent
with
applicable
land
development
regulations.
In
the
event,
City
Council
approves
this
application
site
plan.
Modifications
are
required
between
first
and
second
reading,
and
those
revisions
are
provided
in
the
staff
report.
On
page
nine.
G
E
B
H
H
A
D
F
K
President's
order
that
prohibits
people
from
u.s.
citizens
from
traveling
to
Cuba,
which
will
hurt
the
the
resolution
talks
about
how
that
would
hurt
the
the
port
and
Airport
and
in
Tampa,
which
will
cost
jobs,
and
it
hurts
capitalism
and
entrepreneurs
in
Cuba
and
and
and
hurts
the
economic
freedom
of
cute,
the
Cuban
people.
But,
more
importantly,
it
takes
away
their
rights
and
freedoms
of
Americans.
And
so
we
objected.
Yes,.
A
And
I
agree
with
every
word.
You
said,
sir
I
just
wanted
to
I've
always
believed
that
openness
with
Cuba
is
not
only
about
dollars
and
cents.
It's
also
about
the
promotion
of
our
best
historic
values,
which
you
alluded
to
with
regards
economic
freedom,
but
also
with
regards
to
civil
liberties
and
the
how
openness,
I
really
do
believe.
1134
p.m.
at
night
can
promote
that
I
firmly
believe
I
wrote
in
in
again
a
friendly.
A
Yet
if
you
wish
to
revise
that's
a
hundred
percent
fine,
sir,
after
before
the
section
on
private
sector
business,
whereas
such
connections
would
promote
not
only
economic
development,
but
promotion
of
our
best
historic
values
of
freedom
and
liberty
in
Cuba
is.
Is
that
something
that
you're
comfortable
totally
I
appreciate
it,
sir
I'm?
And
then
just
out
of
curiosity
of
where
do
we
find
this
700,000
independent
businesses.
A
F
A
F
I
ask
the
question:
logistically:
do
you
want
this
brought
back
at
the
workshop
with
the
changes
or
because
otherwise,
because
I.
F
F
E
F
F
B
A
A
H
Chairman
won't
believe
at
the
time
I'm
sorry
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
give
the
combination
of
mr.
Levi
Fleming
a
dedicated
community
advocate
in
district
5
I'll
visit.
This
combination,
mr.
Fleming,
at
a
regular
session
council
meeting
on
June
27th.
Second.
A
J
A
H
A
Now,
but
before
we
do
that,
and
that
certainly
is
a
valued
s
just
to
let
you
all
know
I
was
going
to
briefly
say
this-
that
on
the
20th,
let
me,
if
y'all
take
a
look
at
because
I'll
be
honest
with
you
is
a
new
chair,
I,
never
really
paid
attention
to
things
like
this,
and
I
certainly
want
to
have
this
gentleman
here.
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
wonderful
thing!
Councilman
I.
A
Oh
I
never
replace
he
and
I
agree.
In
other
words,
what
I
would
ask
is
we
have
excluding
police
officers
a
month,
one
two,
three
four
five
six,
including
that
presentations
plus
then
the
front
porch
of
ordinance
plus
then
affordable
housing,
and
then
we
have
to
be
done
by
1:30.
That's
not
good!
That
10-minute
says
I
didn't
do
anything,
but
what
I
would
ask?
Is
everyone
just
and
look
I
do
lots
of
commendations.
So
that's
it's
just
that.
Unfortunately-
and
this
is
my
errors-
the
chair-
we
have
a
lot
that
day.
A
A
A
L
A
Dig
folder
very
nice
hope
you
have
motion
my
counseling
didn't
filter
by
goodbye
councilman
Citro,
all
in
favor
any
opposed
okay,
councilman
Maniscalco.
Do
we
have
a
second
in
his
motion?
Second,
okay.
We
have
motion
by
Councilman
Scout
Co,
a
second
by
Councilman
Citra,
all
in
favor
any
opposed
anything
else.
Okay,
councilman
Citroen.
B
H
B
A
K
K
Set
up
after
you
left
last
time.
Mr.
chair,
we
set
up
a
conversation
about
scooters,
but
I
think
we
scheduled
it
on
the
last
day
of
this
month
when
I'm
out
of
town
and
I
also,
you
know,
we've
been
handing
feedback
to
the
scooter
companies
and
they
said
they're
working
closely
with
staff
to
try
to
rectify
some
of
the
problems
based
on
the
feedback,
and
it
would
be
better
if
we
could
schedule
it
in
August
or
September
to
give
them
more
time
to
the
to
resolve
the
issues.
A
K
J
A
F
B
E
I
just
wanted
to
I've
asked
staff
this
already,
but
maybe
just
codify
it
here
that
when
the
mayor
makes
her
presentation,
of
course,
she's
welcome
to
leave
if
she
wishes.
That's
her
prerogative,
but
but
just
a
request
from
counsel
that
senior
staff
remain
to
answer
any
questions.
Apparently,
there's
been
some
confusion
on
that
and
the.
E
If
we,
if,
if
that's
a
body,
we
could
make
that
request,
formalize
that
request
to
add
to
that
motion
of
9
a.m.
respectfully
requests
that
the
mayor
leave
her
senior
staff
behind
to
answer
questions.
Okay,.