Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Reconfiguration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City hearing on 58 Albemarle (FDN 2587) ends with record left open; no decision made
Summary
A City of Tampa quasi‑judicial hearing over a petition to reconfigure 58 Albemarle on Davis Islands (FDN 2587) concluded without a decision. City staff said the proposed reorientation conflicted with historical lot patterns under city code 27‑11 and 27‑161; petitioners argued the proposal meets RS‑50 dimensional standards. The hearing officer left
A quasi‑judicial hearing in the City of Tampa over a petition for review (FDN 2587) of a proposed lot reconfiguration at 58 Albemarle on Davis Islands concluded with no final decision; the hearing officer left the record open and asked both sides to submit proposed recommended orders by September 12.
City staff, represented by Eric Cotton, development coordination manager and zoning administrator, told the hearing that the property is zoned RS‑50 (single‑family residential) and that the minimum lot size in that district is 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage measured at the 20‑foot setback. Cotton said staff applies city code section 27‑11 and looks at development within a 1,320‑foot radius to determine whether a proposed lot reconfiguration is consistent with the neighborhood’s historical parcel orientation. He testified the city’s determination was that the petitioners’ proposed reorientation was not consistent with the development pattern in that radius and that the zoning administrator’s denial should be affirmed.
The petitioners — property owners Edward (Ed) Moore and Angie Effinger — were represented by land‑use attorney Truett Gardner (Gardner Burr Hudson). Gardner and project architect Robert Hall (Grow Architecture) said the owners seek to reorient two platted lots so the resulting parcels would be more “square” and easier to develop than the existing long, narrow lots. The petitioners’ presentation described Parcel A as about 7,700 square feet and Parcel B about 5,500 square feet; petitioners’ counsel and architect said both proposed parcels would meet RS‑50 dimensional minima. Architect Robert Hall said the reorientation would allow design that respects setbacks and streetscape character while avoiding long, narrow “subway‑car” houses.
Staff and petitioners disputed the central legal question: whether the proposed configuration is “patently inconsistent” with the historical lot orientation required by code section 27‑11. Gardner argued the island’s irregular, curvilinear plan and nearby examples of corner properties with differing house orientations show the proposal is consistent with historical development and therefore permissible. The city attorney, Kamaria Pettis (representative, City of Tampa Legal Department), asked the hearing officer to deny the petition and “affirm the decision of the zoning administrator,” saying the petitioners’ requested reorientation would ask the city to waive or ignore criteria in code sections 27‑11 and 27‑161.
Several neighbors and nearby property owners spoke in favor of the petitioners. Speakers included Theresa Mena, Patricia Geiger, Paulina Tan, Keith Geiger and Asma Alzogbi; commenters described damage to houses on Davis Islands during recent hurricanes, the presence of torn‑down lots nearby and support for two smaller, context‑sensitive homes rather than one large house or long narrow houses that commenters said would be less compatible with the block. Theresa Mena, a next‑door neighbor, said the petitioners’ plan would reduce traffic on Albemarle and improve the streetscape; Patricia Geiger and others said proposed houses would be more attractive and consistent with the block’s character.
No formal decision or vote was recorded at the hearing. The hearing officer instructed both sides to file proposed recommended orders by September 12 and said he would review the stipulated exhibits and applicable code provisions before issuing a recommended order under the city code timetable.
Discussion vs. decision
- Discussion: City staff explained the measurement rules (20‑foot setback, frontage measured at that setback), the 1,320‑foot radius used under section 27‑11 and cited historical platting as the basis for denying the reconfiguration. Petitioners argued the proposed reorientation fits local historic patterns and meets RS‑50 dimensional standards. Neighbors offered testimony supporting the petitioners. - Direction/assignment: The hearing officer directed both sides to submit proposed recommended orders by September 12. - Formal action: No final action was taken at the hearing; the zoning administrator’s denial stands pending the hearing officer’s recommended order.
What happens next
The hearing officer will review the record, exhibits stipulated into evidence and the cited code sections (27‑11 and 27‑161) and issue a recommended order within the city‑code timeframe after considering the parties’ proposed orders.
