Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Thursday, November 18, 2010
6:00 p.m. Session

The following represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which
should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital letters and any variation thereto
may be a result of third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

18:05:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to

18:05:38 order.

18:05:38 Good evening.

18:05:43 We will have roll call at this time.

18:05:50 [Roll Call Taken]

18:05:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A memo from Councilwoman Capin, due to

18:05:58 conflict, I will be arriving late to our 6 p.m. evening

18:05:59 session.

18:06:03 That is from Councilmember Capin.

18:06:08 Also, we need to take our first resolution.

18:06:09 >> Yes, Mr. Chairman.

18:06:12 In front of you, you have a walk-on request for a

18:06:17 resolution to set public hearings for brownfield

18:06:18 designation.

18:06:20 You don't have to read them.

18:06:23 Just move the resolution.

18:06:27 This is being done to accommodate an expedited timeline

18:06:30 to get this in by the end of the year so the petitioner

18:06:32 can take advantage of funding that is available that has

18:06:34 to be done by year's end is my understanding, the

18:06:38 appropriate motion if Council will please consider to

18:06:40 move the resolution.

18:06:42 >> So moved.

18:06:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:06:46 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:06:48 Opposed?

18:06:49 Thank you.

18:07:00 Councilman Miranda at this time.

18:07:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, honorable members of

18:07:08 the City Council, you know, once a year we do this

18:07:09 Water-Wise Award.

18:07:14 And it is my pleasure to be able to do this year to see

18:07:16 what beauty can do and save water and save the

18:07:19 environment and make your house look just as pretty for

18:07:22 much less money on a monthly basis.

18:07:29 That means that this man, Brad Baird, Water Department

18:07:32 Director, is only $15 million in the hole, but I commend

18:07:35 you for that because it is good folks like that you

18:07:38 bring the attitude, saving the environment, having a

18:07:40 nice-looking home and I think there are photographs that

18:07:43 we are going to show here to the -- the before and after

18:07:52 which is just a remarkable change.

18:07:55 It is not that remarkable.

18:07:55 [Laughter]

18:07:59 That's before.

18:08:05 Look at that.

18:08:15 >> And this is the front -- I might have them backward.

18:08:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So Nanette and Rick, on behalf of

18:08:23 the City of Tampa, the Water Department, and the Mayor

18:08:26 and good citizens, we are very proud to honor you with

18:08:28 this commendation with what you have done to your home

18:08:31 to make it better not only for yourself but for the

18:08:33 whole neighborhood and for the city.

18:08:35 And, in fact, today I think there was a little warning

18:08:40 issued by S.W.F.W.M.D. regarding the drought that is

18:08:44 just starting again.

18:08:47 Every plight, every ten years we have large droughts and

18:08:50 good folks like that you help the city live through

18:08:51 those droughts.

18:08:55 Last year we were -- through the drought season went

18:08:58 from 95 million gallons during watering days to under

18:08:59 60.

18:09:01 So I applaud all of the audience for doing what they had

18:09:05 to do to help the city have enough water for all its

18:09:05 citizens.

18:09:09 I am really proud to honor both of you and give you this

18:09:12 Water-Wise award.

18:09:13 Brad.

18:09:33 [Applause]

18:09:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you so much again.

18:09:35 >> Thank you.

18:09:42 [Applause]

18:09:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Congratulations.

18:09:52 Thank you very much.

18:09:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:09:55 Let's review the agenda.

18:09:57 Let's clean up the agenda.

18:10:01 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Good evening, Council, Abbye Feeley,

18:10:01 Land Development Coordination.

18:10:06 I would like to quickly go through your agenda for this

18:10:09 evening Miss Cole will speak to item Number 2.

18:10:12 Item Number 4 cannot be heard, the affidavit was not

18:10:17 filed, so we have administratively rescheduled that to

18:10:18 December 9.

18:10:24 Item Number 6 and 7, Mr. Truett Gardner is here and

18:10:27 requesting is continuance also for the evening of

18:10:29 December 9 at 6 p.m.

18:10:31 >> If we can have a motion to open those two.

18:10:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open 6 and 7.

18:10:35 >> Second.

18:10:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:10:39 A motion to continue item 6 and 7.

18:10:42 Anyone from the public wish to speak on these items?

18:10:45 Anyone from the public wish to address Council on item 6

18:10:53 and 7?

18:10:54 >> Truett Gardner.

18:10:58 We were informed two days ago we can't go forward with

18:10:59 the current site plan.

18:11:02 We need to go back and clean it up and hopeful to go in

18:11:05 front of you tonight, but we respectfully request

18:11:06 December 9.

18:11:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:11:08 >> So moved.

18:11:09 >> Second.

18:11:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:11:14 In all favor signify by saying aye.

18:11:15 Opposed?

18:11:16 >> 6 p.m.?

18:11:18 Yes, thank you.

18:11:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Council, the last item on your agenda,

18:11:22 Item Number 9, which was the commercial communication

18:11:25 tower up in new Tampa.

18:11:29 When that was continued from October 14, we received

18:11:32 correspondence from Lauralee Westine that she would not

18:11:36 be in town tonight and request a continuance until

18:11:37 December 9.

18:11:39 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.

18:11:40 >> Second.

18:11:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Hear from the public.

18:11:44 Anyone from the public wish to address Council on the

18:11:46 continuance?

18:11:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me open Number 9 -- just for the

18:11:51 record -- that is a very big continuance.

18:11:54 If I may, Mr. Chairman, so we don't fumble one of them

18:11:58 away, but -- mill just cleaning up the business.

18:12:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Number 9 a continuance.

18:12:03 Anyone wish to address Council on Item 9?

18:12:06 Motion to continue.

18:12:07 >> So moved.

18:12:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

18:12:09 >> Second.

18:12:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:12:14 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman.

18:12:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

18:12:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I don't know if this is the proper

18:12:20 time to talk about this, but where that tower was

18:12:21 positioned --

18:12:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No.

18:12:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You can't?

18:12:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are continuing it.

18:12:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We will wait for the next time.

18:12:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: December 9 at 6:00.

18:12:32 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Council that would leave going forward

18:12:35 this evening items number 3, 5 and 8.

18:12:43 And Miss Cole is going to speak to item 2.

18:12:46 >> Was there a vote on that continuance motion?

18:12:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

18:12:51 The one we just did?

18:12:51 9?

18:12:52 Yes.

18:12:55 It was moved and seconded.

18:12:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: December 9.

18:12:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: December 9.

18:13:01 >> You feel comfortable with or want another vote.

18:13:03 >> Mr. Chairman I did not hear the vote.

18:13:06 I believe Mr. Caetano interrupted before the vote.

18:13:08 Could we have another vote on that.

18:13:09 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.

18:13:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A motion by Councilwoman Miller and

18:13:17 seconded by Stokes.

18:13:20 All in favor say aye.

18:13:21 >> Thank you.

18:13:24 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.

18:13:28 Item number 2 was the subject of a comprehensive plan

18:13:31 amendment which you approved I want to say two, three

18:13:35 weeks ago during the course of that comprehensive plan

18:13:38 amendment, the Legal Department informed City Council

18:13:40 this item would need to move forward as a plan

18:13:41 development rezoning.

18:13:45 It is sitting in front of you as a Euclidian rezoning

18:13:46 application.

18:13:49 After discussions with the applicant, we are asking for

18:13:53 to you remove that item from your agenda to allow staff

18:13:58 to schedule that item when appropriate, and after any

18:14:01 types of modifications that need to be made are made.

18:14:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to that effect please.

18:14:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

18:14:05 >> Second.

18:14:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion by Councilman Miranda.

18:14:11 Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

18:14:14 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:14:15 Opposed?

18:14:18 Okay.

18:14:22 >> Mr. Chairman, did you want to swear in the witnesses

18:14:28 nor evening's meeting before we proceed?

18:14:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, if you were hear tonight speak to

18:14:32 Council, if you will be testifying, please stand at this

18:14:38 time to be sworn.

18:14:45 [Swearing in of Witnesses]

18:14:47 >> Mr. Chairman, I ask that all written communication

18:14:50 relative to tonight's hearing that has been available to

18:14:52 public inspection at City Council's office be received

18:14:54 and filed into the record at this time, please.

18:14:55 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.

18:14:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

18:14:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:14:59 All in favor.

18:15:00 Opposed?

18:15:02 >> If you are going to be speaking tonight, please

18:15:05 remember if you have not signed in, that you do so at

18:15:08 the sign-in sheet before you leave tonight to make sure

18:15:10 that your name is available to the Clerk.

18:15:11 Thank you.

18:15:13 And I am putting this sign to remind you that you should

18:15:15 be sworn in.

18:15:16 Thank you.

18:15:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:15:31 >> Mr. Chairman, can I address Council for a second?

18:15:33 >> Yes Vincent Marchetti for the record representing

18:15:34 ikea.

18:15:37 We would like to request that we wait a few minutes for

18:15:40 the application to come up until we have a full Council.

18:15:42 This has been going back and forth and a lot of people

18:15:45 presenting testimony for and against, and I think it

18:15:49 would be fair and equitable to all sides to have a full

18:15:55 Council since Miss Capin will be here in a few minutes.

18:15:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, well -- we have one case that is

18:16:02 probably going to go kind of fast, the other two cases

18:16:04 are kind of lengthy in my opinion.

18:16:09 So the one case is the -- the Number 5, I believe it is.

18:16:10 We can take that up.

18:16:14 Okay.

18:16:16 >> Move to open item 5.

18:16:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Open the rest of them.

18:16:19 >> The rest of them continued.

18:16:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The rest are continued?

18:16:23 Okay.

18:16:24 Is that a second?

18:16:27 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:16:28 Opposed?

18:16:29 Okay.

18:16:33 >> Good even, Council, Abbye Feeley, Land Development

18:16:33 Coordination.

18:16:35 I have been sworn.

18:16:42 Item number 5 is Z10-37 at N. 53rd Street and the

18:16:49 request is from a RM-16 to general zoning district.

18:16:53 Euclidian and no site plans noon and variances or

18:16:56 waivers can be granted under this request.

18:17:06 I can go ahead and show you the map of the area.

18:17:09 Martin Luther King to the north, Hillsborough to the

18:17:09 west.

18:17:17 Right at the Hillsborough county line.

18:17:19 Here is picture of the subject property.

18:17:22 It is currently vacant.

18:17:25 This is the property immediately to the east.

18:17:29 It is also vacant.

18:17:38 This is right near the distribution center.

18:17:40 There are some shops along MLK.

18:17:48 This is looking south on the property.

18:17:54 And I have a few of the adjacent -- just looking

18:17:58 southbound 53rd.

18:18:06 And I have -- this is the residential, and to the south.

18:18:11 And there is residential across the street as well on

18:18:16 53rd immediately south of the other vacant property.

18:18:20 Commercial general requests require minimum lot size of

18:18:24 10,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75 feet, the

18:18:30 property does meet this requirement and has a 10,711

18:18:31 square feet.

18:18:34 The site is currently vacant, surrounded by a mix of

18:18:37 Commercial uses.

18:18:41 And as previously stated, no waivers can be requested.

18:18:44 Based on the application, the request before you this

18:18:47 evening is for the Euclidian district to construct a

18:18:49 place of religious assembly.

18:18:57 Staff found the request consistent and is available for

18:19:00 any questions.

18:19:09 >>TONY GARCIA: Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

18:19:11 Already started as the stepchild.

18:19:12 She didn't mean it.

18:19:16 She already gave me the mea culpa which I really

18:19:17 appreciate it.

18:19:21 The site is located within -- planning districts for the

18:19:23 City of Tampa located within your central planning

18:19:27 district which offers the most opportunity for growth.

18:19:29 Let me show you very quickly generally where the

18:19:30 location is.

18:19:35 It will be right here, right off the city boundaries.

18:19:37 And here is the Future Land Use Map that shows just east

18:19:43 of 50th street on Dr. MLK Jr. Boulevard which is an

18:19:45 arterial road.

18:19:48 The land use category is community mixed use 35 which

18:19:51 does allow up to general Commercial uses which is the

18:19:53 request here, a Euclidian district.

18:19:55 The request even though it will be adjacent to some

18:19:58 residential uses the request will have much more

18:20:03 stringent requirements of residential to the south and

18:20:04 to the west of the site.

18:20:06 There are a variety of smaller scale Commercial uses

18:20:11 along this particular segment of southern -- of southern

18:20:13 Martin Luther King, and to give you some context, you

18:20:17 can see the Pepin Distributors to the north and you can

18:20:20 see that there are some small Commercial businesses

18:20:24 peppered along the southern face of MLK, the request has

18:20:30 already been stated to you by Miss Feeley.

18:20:32 Planning staff found it consistent with the

18:20:33 comprehensive plan.

18:20:33 Thank you.

18:20:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, sir.

18:20:45 Do you need to add anything else?

18:20:46 Petitioner.

18:20:47 Petitioner.

18:20:47 Hello.

18:20:53 Come on down.

18:20:57 >> Councilmen, I am Eunice Butts.

18:20:59 I have been sworn in.

18:21:02 The commander of American Legion Commander for the 15th

18:21:05 district department of Florida.

18:21:12 We, the members of American legion Post 167, are here to

18:21:14 support our membership and advise that you we have not

18:21:19 built on the property owned by 5355 Dr. Martin Luther

18:21:20 King, Jr. Boulevard, it does not mean that we have

18:21:27 abandoned the plan that was in motion submitted in 2003.

18:21:32 To date, we have employed an architect to render a

18:21:41 drawing of proposed buildings that will occupy the site.

18:21:46 >>JULIA COLE: Ma'am, you need to --

18:21:57 [Inaudible]

18:21:59 >> Ken Midriff.

18:22:00 I am the petitioner on this one.

18:22:04 I work for Midriff Construction.

18:22:05 I have been sworn in.

18:22:10 I have worked for new beginnings church, and we were

18:22:17 asking for the rezoning for religious, Commercial

18:22:25 general which is the land use is for.

18:22:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Will you speak into the mic.

18:22:30 >> Thank you.

18:22:34 New beginnings church, and we are the petitioner, the

18:22:37 future land use is CG and that is what we are

18:22:38 requesting.

18:22:43 And we would just ask you grant the request.

18:22:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess I am a little confused now.

18:22:47 You are the petitioner, is that right?

18:22:50 And the lady who just got up and spoke --

18:23:01 >> Just unfortunately jumped up in front of me.

18:23:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:23:04 >> She is not officially with our project.

18:23:06 She unfortunately was --

18:23:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:23:10 If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer

18:23:11 them.

18:23:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by Council?

18:23:13 Okay.

18:23:19 Thank you.

18:23:21 Now those who want to speak with regard to this project

18:23:26 may come forward at this time.

18:23:30 Do we have people in opposition?

18:23:32 Are you in opposition?

18:23:34 >> We are in opposition.

18:23:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, those who are proponents.

18:23:39 Any proponents that are here?

18:23:41 Do you have any proponents?

18:23:43 Anyone here in support?

18:23:44 Okay.

18:23:45 >> Proponents.

18:23:48 Would you explain what that is to me?

18:23:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Those in favor of it.

18:23:54 Those who are in support of the project moving forward.

18:23:54 >> Oh.

18:23:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I was going to have them line up on two

18:23:59 different sides.

18:24:03 Okay then -- what I was going to ask, those in

18:24:05 opposition line up to the right, and those in support of

18:24:12 it line up to my left.

18:24:14 Go ahead, ma'am.

18:24:18 >> You want me to start from the beginning or continue.

18:24:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, ma'am.

18:24:21 Whatever you are comfortable with.

18:24:25 >> It doesn't matter.

18:24:29 American Legion post 167 are here to represent our

18:24:31 membership and to advise you that although we have not

18:24:37 built on the property owned at 5355 Dr. Martin Luther

18:24:40 King, Jr. Boulevard, this does not mean that we have

18:24:43 abandoned the plans set forth in motion submitted in

18:24:44 2003.

18:24:47 To date, we have employed an architect to render a

18:24:53 drawing of proposed buildings that will occupy the site,

18:24:57 obtain all the required specifications from the city to

18:25:02 ensure that the time the building is erected, all codes

18:25:07 would have been complied with to include erecting a

18:25:12 fence, digging a retention pond, installing a fire

18:25:16 hydrant on the property in the diagram you saw just now.

18:25:20 We are the ones that paid for that and brought it up to

18:25:22 code.

18:25:25 There is no intent to permit this property to remain a

18:25:30 nonuse status any longer than is necessary.

18:25:33 Of course, the one problem the membership has

18:25:38 encountered is obtaining the capital to complete the

18:25:40 construction of the new facility.

18:25:44 However, we are working on that through fund raising

18:25:46 efforts.

18:25:50 However, as you will note, the economic downturn has

18:25:54 severely impacted this effort.

18:25:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before you continue so -- I think we

18:25:57 are a little confused.

18:25:59 Do you own the property?

18:26:01 >> We own the property.

18:26:06 Audience number --

18:26:09 >>GWEN MILLER: The church wants to build on your

18:26:10 property?

18:26:14 >> They want to build on the property next to ours, but

18:26:17 -- there is a variance that we should be 1,000 feet away

18:26:22 from a church and 1,000 feet away from a school.

18:26:25 So, therefore, it was very hard to locate the property

18:26:33 and once we did, we came to City Council.

18:26:35 You are confused?

18:26:37 >>GWEN MILLER: No, I am not.

18:26:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:26:40 Hold up one second, ma'am.

18:26:42 We are trying to get clarity before you move forward.

18:26:44 Miss Feeley.

18:26:45 You want to --

18:26:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Sure, it is my understanding -- Abbye

18:26:50 Feeley, Land Development Coordination.

18:26:54 It is my understanding that this area is in the

18:26:57 Commercial general which they would be allowed to do.

18:27:01 Their club there -- I guess 1,000 feet she must be

18:27:04 referring to is related to alcoholic beverage permit

18:27:18 that they would be seeking or -- appears that -- they

18:27:20 sought back in 2003.

18:27:30 Since they have never held a permit or license for that

18:27:32 we would have to see under an old wet zoning.

18:27:35 As you know if you don't file within a period of 180

18:27:37 days, that property goes dry.

18:27:40 I don't believe they have ever acted continue to since

18:27:47 there is no structure there would be to build.

18:27:49 Their opposition if you change this to Commercial

18:27:51 general there could be a potential when you come back

18:27:53 you will need that 1,000-foot waiver.

18:27:57 That is my understanding what is kind of unfolding now.

18:28:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That becomes a legal issue for us

18:28:08 because we can not base on a future -- let's let staff

18:28:09 answer on that.

18:28:11 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.

18:28:14 A Euclidian zoning request to cg and I hear the

18:28:16 opposition is relating to the potential future request

18:28:22 to serve -- to have an alcohol license on their

18:28:23 property.

18:28:26 It would be wholly inappropriate to base a decision to

18:28:29 rezone this property on a future potential application

18:28:31 so I would very much caution you against making a

18:28:37 decision on that basis!

18:28:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you under stand what the attorney

18:28:40 just said to us.

18:28:44 We can't make a decision based on your future tint.

18:28:46 >> On future tint.

18:28:50 Okay because we spent three fourths of our money already

18:28:59 into that -- into that property comply with this City of

18:28:59 Tampa.

18:29:02 >> We have to look to see whether this existing approval

18:29:04 is still valid.

18:29:08 I don't want.

18:29:09 I doubt that it is.

18:29:13 But no matter what, there would be an obligation to come

18:29:16 forward to seek that review and whether or not the

18:29:18 property goes to CG would not be determined.

18:29:23 It would be whether or not to ultimately construct a

18:29:25 church on the property which they may or may not too.

18:29:26 That is the problem.

18:29:30 It is so speculative that it is something they can't

18:29:30 consider.

18:29:33 This isn't a permit for a church it is a permit to go to

18:29:36 the CG zoning.

18:29:37 >> Would that change our zoning?

18:29:41 Our zoning would remain the same?

18:29:43 >>JULIA COLE: Absolutely.

18:29:45 >> Irregardless.

18:29:48 >> We were very concerned about that and we would like

18:29:50 to do everything appropriate -- the proper and the

18:29:54 correct way, and we have invested so much in charity and

18:30:00 children and youth programs in this community until you

18:30:03 don't recognize we are the second best in the State of

18:30:09 Florida representing the City of Tampa.

18:30:11 So we are trying to do what's right.

18:30:13 You are our leaders and you guide us.

18:30:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, ma'am.

18:30:17 I hear that.

18:30:20 You are basically going to be okay is what I hear the

18:30:20 attorneys say.

18:30:23 They have to go back and review everything.

18:30:26 Is that right, Miss Feeley?

18:30:28 Go back and review everything but the zoning request by

18:30:29 the petitioner is for CG.

18:30:55 So it may not have any implication anyway.

18:30:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess Miss Cole, have a legal

18:31:02 standpoint how would we proceed at this point.

18:31:06 >>JULIA COLE: If the subject on the opposition side are

18:31:10 related to the alcohol issue, they have a right to make

18:31:12 their statements but you can't really consider them.

18:31:14 So if they would go ahead and waive moving forward with

18:31:18 that, you can go ahead and hear from the person in

18:31:19 support.

18:31:22 And Miss Feeley is going to make sure that she gets with

18:31:26 these folks to see what their options are moving

18:31:26 forward.

18:31:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you understand that, ma'am?

18:31:30 Is that okay?

18:31:31 >> That's okay.

18:31:33 Anything that --

18:31:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Miss butts, is that okay.

18:31:40 >> If you can remind Council and inform the public that

18:31:43 this is on for a first reading.

18:31:46 If this should go forward, it will still have to come

18:31:48 back for a second reading and adoption of a public

18:31:49 hearing.

18:31:50 Between the first and second reading you will have an

18:31:54 opportunity to speak to Miss Feeley and get your

18:31:55 questions answered.

18:31:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They will kind of guide you and work

18:32:00 with you through this whole, you know, process to help

18:32:02 you understand what is going on.

18:32:05 Okay.

18:32:06 I am sorry?

18:32:09 >> And in the end, the information I was sharing with

18:32:13 you is that we are number one in the State of Florida in

18:32:15 the Americanism program which takes all of your

18:32:17 children, all of your children and youth, we are second

18:32:19 place in the State of Florida.

18:32:22 And we have been working diligently with that community,

18:32:27 because we found that there is a need, a very, very good

18:32:28 need for it.

18:32:30 >> Thank you very much and thank you for the work you

18:32:31 are doing for our young people.

18:32:33 Thank you very much.

18:32:33 >> Thank you.

18:32:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Sir, you want to come -- are you the

18:32:37 pastor?

18:32:41 >> I am the pastor.

18:32:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: State your name and address.

18:32:45 >> Pastor David Paul Carson with the new beginnings

18:32:48 missionary Baptist Church.

18:32:53 At the time that they bought the land, we bought the

18:32:56 land adjacent to it prior.

18:33:00 So we have -- we have always had the intention to build

18:33:03 a church there, always.

18:33:08 We did understand that they would use alcohol on their

18:33:12 lot, but the lot is fairly big, so it is dependent on

18:33:16 where they are going to -- I don't know a lot about

18:33:16 building.

18:33:20 My contractor knows, but I don't.

18:33:26 But we have big intentions to build out there for the

18:33:29 same reason or higher to support that neighborhood.

18:33:33 And we have purchased the lot prior to their purchase of

18:33:36 their lot.

18:33:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What do you intend to build?

18:33:40 >> A church.

18:33:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, when, date.

18:33:43 What is the date?

18:33:46 >> Well, we are trying to get this zoned correctly, and

18:33:50 then we are hoping to with the church building next

18:33:51 year.

18:33:56 So we can get all the plans and go through whatever

18:33:59 designs or city approval we need.

18:34:03 We are hoping to build the first of next year.

18:34:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:34:08 Anyone else?

18:34:13 Anyone else?

18:34:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

18:34:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

18:34:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A second?

18:34:21 Moved and seconded.

18:34:25 All in favor signify by saying aye.

18:34:27 Councilman Miranda.

18:34:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: To rezone a property 3820 N. 53rd

18:34:32 Street in the City of Tampa Florida particularly

18:34:35 described from zoning district rm-16, residential

18:34:39 multifamily to CG Commercial general providing an

18:34:40 effective date.

18:34:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

18:34:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

18:34:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

18:34:47 Seconded by Councilman Caetano.

18:34:51 All in favor signify by aye.

18:34:52 Opposed.

18:34:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Nay.

18:34:59 >> Capin missing at vote.

18:35:00 Second reading --

18:35:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: you hear when the second reading.

18:35:12 >> December -- yes, second reading of the adoption

18:35:16 hearing is December 2 at 9:30 A.M.

18:35:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

18:35:38 Thank you very much.

18:35:40 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Mr. Chairman, where would you like to

18:36:03 go on the agenda from here?

18:36:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Marchetti, we are going to go --

18:36:10 Mr. Marchetti.

18:36:13 Hold up Mr. -- you don't want us -- you want to wait

18:36:14 until last?

18:36:17 >> We would like to wait.

18:36:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You might be here until 11:00 then.

18:36:23 >> We would like to weight.

18:36:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, fine.

18:36:51 >> Mr. Chairman I believe you are going to number 8.

18:36:54 Mr. Chairman, for the record, members of Council, if any

18:36:57 member of the Council have had verbal communication with

18:36:59 any petitioner or his or her representative or any

18:37:01 member of the public in connection with this hearing,

18:37:03 that member of Council should prior to action disclose

18:37:05 the following, the person or persons, group or entity

18:37:09 which whom the verbal communication occurred and the

18:37:11 substance of that verbal communication and finally

18:37:13 again, please be reminded that you are required to be

18:37:14 sworn.

18:37:16 If you have not, please inform the Clerk when you get up

18:37:17 to speak.

18:37:25 Thank you.

18:37:28 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.

18:37:35 As you recall, the Vance Blanchard case is not in front

18:37:38 of you as a regular general zoning application but comes

18:37:41 to you as a Special Magistrate decision and some other

18:37:44 procedural issues that came up in other proceedings and

18:37:49 at that time that we asked for this case to be set, we

18:37:51 said it would be set for a full Council.

18:37:55 I do understand that Miss Capin is coming to the hearing

18:37:59 and where the case is procedurally and the advice I have

18:38:00 given previously of having a full Council, you really

18:38:04 need to have a full Council legally for the Blanchard

18:38:05 case.

18:38:09 So the ikea case, that is a case that is in front of you

18:38:10 as a general rezoning.

18:38:12 You have a rule of procedure relating to that, and

18:38:15 whatever the pleasure of Council is on that case, but we

18:38:18 had continued the Blanchard case several times in order

18:38:20 to have a full Council due to some of the procedural

18:38:40 issues that had arisen in that case.

18:38:43 >> Mr. Chairman would you like me to refresh Council's

18:38:46 recognize election with regard to rules of procedure?

18:38:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

18:38:48 >> This is rule 6c.

18:38:51 It at a quasi judicial public hearing, only four members

18:38:54 of Council are available to take action, any petitioner

18:38:56 will have the right to continue the matter until there

18:38:58 are a minimum of five members.

18:39:03 If there is less, than a full City Council, then a

18:39:06 petitioner may request to continue a matter but it will

18:39:14 not be as a matter of right.

18:39:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Not a matter of right as long as you

18:39:17 have five members.

18:39:22 >> Mr. Chairman, can I just ask -- maybe Miss Capin's

18:39:25 aide can tell us -- we will go forward tonight for sure,

18:39:28 I don't want to hold anyone up here, but we are just

18:39:30 curious how long it might be.

18:39:41 Are.

18:39:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have no idea.

18:39:47 All I have is a memo she will be late because of a prior

18:39:47 commitment.

18:39:48 >> That's fine.

18:39:59 We will proceed here.

18:40:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Are you ready to move forward?

18:40:03 I don't want to be up and down.

18:40:05 I want to make sure.

18:40:07 >> Because we are moving continue to item number 3, I

18:40:12 want to renew my reminder of the disclosure of any

18:40:15 ex-parte communication with anyone regarding this

18:40:18 hearing to please disclose that prior to your vote.

18:40:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I need to disclose on November 2, I had

18:40:26 a meeting with Mr. Vincent Marchetti in my office

18:40:30 related to this issue.

18:40:33 Out of 14 years, I never had a problem with zoning

18:40:35 issue.

18:40:38 My policy is I never meet with anybody when there is a

18:40:40 matter of zoning that is on the agenda.

18:40:44 This is the first time in the history of my career as an

18:40:47 elected official.

18:40:50 I was informed this was not coming up on our agenda, so

18:40:54 Council, I need to disclose that on November 2, Mr.

18:40:59 Marchetti was in my office relative to this issue.

18:41:04 >>GWEN MILLER: I talked to Mr. Marchetti also of

18:41:09 efforts to put signs by f dot.

18:41:10 That is the only thing I talked about.

18:41:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The same is here Mr. Vin Marchetti.

18:41:18 He was in my office some time this week, I forget what

18:41:22 day it was and mainly the D.O.T. signage on the

18:41:22 interstate.

18:41:27 And that was the topic of conversation, not the zoning.

18:41:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That is the subject of the matter I

18:41:33 understand is the D.O.T. sign, and part of that issue,

18:41:36 and I was just -- I was advised by our attorney that we

18:41:37 had to disclose that.

18:41:43 That is what we are all doing, I think.

18:41:46 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to disclose that with the

18:41:51 -- with the great research of my aide and myself we knew

18:41:53 this was going to be on the agenda, so we declined to

18:41:59 have a meeting with Mr. Marchetti.

18:42:05 [Applause]

18:42:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Looks like we are all going to

18:42:08 confession here.

18:42:13 I met with Mr. Marchetti on -- I guess they wanted a

18:42:23 sign on the highway, ikea lane or something like that.

18:42:26 >> Can I address -- for the record I want to disclose as

18:42:29 well I met with I guess six out of seven of the

18:42:33 Councilmembers solely on the purpose of the off-site

18:42:36 sign requirements that were received from D.O.T. in the

18:42:39 City of Tampa, not to do anything with the PD

18:42:41 application before the Council this evening.

18:42:43 Thank you.

18:42:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, my understanding that we had to

18:42:46 disclose that.

18:42:49 That was my understanding because always raise a

18:42:51 question when a person comes in is this a zoning issue

18:42:52 and I was told, no.

18:42:56 So all those who are clapping, you know we take people

18:42:57 at their word when they come in.

18:43:00 You ask a question and they tell us, we can only take

18:43:01 them at their word.

18:43:02 Okay.

18:43:05 >> Mr. Chairman, if I can just really quickly to address

18:43:05 this.

18:43:09 I understand Mr. Marchetti's position; however, in order

18:43:13 to protect whatever City Council's decision ultimately

18:43:17 is, in order to rebut any sort of presumption that might

18:43:21 be made had this been disclosed afterwards, I believe in

18:43:24 abundance of caution, it would be appropriate for City

18:43:27 Council to as you have done to disclose this prior to

18:43:31 the discussion so that people will be on notice and have

18:43:34 the opportunity to address any concerns that might have

18:43:36 been raised as a result of this.

18:43:40 I understand Mr. Marchetti's position; however, it is my

18:43:44 opinion that in order to air on the side of caution, one

18:43:49 could make an argument that this could be related in

18:43:53 some fashion in that it involves the same piece of or

18:43:55 parcel of property and issues with regard to signage.

18:44:00 That being said, I believe that if everybody has made

18:44:04 this disclosure, it will be appropriate to move on.

18:44:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We can do that, but I just have a real

18:44:08 concern at this point.

18:44:11 I want legal to understand I have a real concern what is

18:44:22 going -- taking place this evening relative to this.

18:44:32 Okay.

18:44:35 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Good evening, Council, Abbye Feeley,

18:44:36 Land Development Coordination.

18:44:44 Case z10-29 is located at 1103 North 22nd Street.

18:44:46 I am going to briefly go over the request prior to Mr.

18:44:47 Garcia making his presentation.

18:44:50 The request is to rezone the property from PD, furniture

18:44:55 store, accessory, day care, restaurant, warehouse to PD,

18:44:58 furniture store with accessory, day care and warehouse

18:45:00 in order to request a sign variance.

18:45:02 The site was originally rezoned from industrial general

18:45:07 to PD in 2007 for the Tampa ikea store.

18:45:09 Under the original rezoning request, the property

18:45:12 received a 400% sign waiver.

18:45:14 The current request seeks to replace the existing

18:45:18 navigational sign which is triangular sign 35 feet in

18:45:23 height with three 300-square-foot facings for a total of

18:45:29 900 square feet with a 125-foot triangular sign with

18:45:35 three facings at 602 square feet apiece for a total of

18:45:46 1806.56 square feet.

18:45:48 >>TONY GARCIA: Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

18:45:51 I have been sworn.

18:45:54 This particular project also happens to be within the

18:45:58 boundaries of the central planning district on your

18:46:00 vision map.

18:46:02 Much more specifically, it is going to be approximately

18:46:05 in this location, which is just south of Adamo Drive

18:46:12 between 22nd Street and 26th Street.

18:46:16 It is also on the vision map as you can see Nestled in

18:46:20 between two neighborhoods, historic Ybor City to the

18:46:24 north and to the south of Palmetto beach.

18:46:27 That can be a little more clearly depicted once it gets

18:46:31 past the Future Land Use Map over here.

18:46:32 The land use category over here.

18:46:35 General mixed use 24 which allows residential as well as

18:46:37 industrial types of uses.

18:46:39 It is one of those interim types of transitional

18:46:43 categories, but you also have community Commercial 35

18:46:46 here, community mixed use 35.

18:46:47 This is community mixed use 35.

18:46:49 This is heavy industrial.

18:46:53 And this is all Residential 10, which is reflected by

18:46:56 Palmetto Beach residential neighborhood.

18:47:00 Looking at the aerial, one can see the traditional

18:47:05 neighborhoods of Ybor City and of Palmetto Beach.

18:47:07 You can see the gridded streets, and you can see this is

18:47:11 primarily single-family detached neighborhood.

18:47:14 These have both been here for quite a few decades now

18:47:18 and truly representative of the working-class that helps

18:47:22 -- that not only work in the area -- not only lived in

18:47:25 the area but worked in Ybor City back in the early 1920s

18:47:29 all the way up to present time, the Crosstown Expressway

18:47:32 is just to the south of the site.

18:47:38 The applicant site, as I have said before, is located in

18:47:41 the central Tampa district which has the distinction of

18:47:43 being one of the most historic districts and

18:47:45 redevelopment areas in the entire city.

18:47:47 While there are many redevelopment opportunities in the

18:47:50 district, new and redeveloped properties must still

18:47:53 adhere to the urban design guidelines outlined within

18:47:58 the comprehensive plan and also be sensitive the strict

18:47:59 character of the adjacent neighborhood.

18:48:02 As I said before, the site is surrounded by several

18:48:07 residential neighborhoods of historical significance and

18:48:10 fronts the historic corridor Adamo Drive which was and

18:48:13 is considered a significant gateway into the downtown

18:48:13 core.

18:48:16 The request is to allow consideration of erecting a sign

18:48:20 of significant size that could potentially be viewed

18:48:22 from the interstate from what the applicant has

18:48:23 requested.

18:48:27 The sign would be approximately 125-feet sign -- 125

18:48:30 feet in height, and would be far and away the highest

18:48:35 structure of -- of that point within the redevelopment

18:48:41 corridor of Adamo Drive between -- between 2nd and all

18:48:44 the way down to 26th street which is your redevelopment

18:48:47 corridor of Adamo Drive and when it gets farther past

18:48:50 that not considered a redevelopment corridor according

18:48:52 to the comprehensive plan.

18:48:54 At 125 feet, it would be taller than any structure by 30

18:48:58 feet in historic Ybor City and no structure even close

18:49:02 to that size or sign close to that size south of the

18:49:03 Crosstown.

18:49:07 A sign of this magnitude would definitely not be

18:49:11 contributed to the aesthetic character or historic

18:49:15 character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are

18:49:20 ensconsed around this property which is ikea.

18:49:23 They have been a good neighbor and good Commercial

18:49:26 benefit to the City of Tampa but at the same time, this

18:49:31 particular project needs to be considered as -- that was

18:49:34 there before the establishment of the ikea project.

18:49:38 Planning Commission staff based on those requests finds

18:49:39 the plan inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

18:49:48 Thank you.

18:49:50 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thank you, Tony.

18:49:53 Council, typically when a PD request comes before you,

18:50:00 we utilize 27321 the nonPD criteria talk about impacts

18:50:02 on adjacent neighborhoods, et cetera.

18:50:06 But when you are going for signage within a PD request,

18:50:09 the criteria on which this is reviewed are the variance

18:50:18 criteria, the five hardship criteria spelled out in

18:50:22 17.5.75 which season application of the variance power.

18:50:28 I would like to direct you to those pages within your

18:50:31 staff report so you can read those criteria while I am

18:50:34 going over my visual presentation of the site, and then

18:50:47 we will come back to that in my presentation.

18:50:51 Here is an aerial of the site.

18:50:52 2010 aerial.

18:50:54 It does show the site developed as Tony said.

18:50:57 I think we are all familiar with the orientation of the

18:51:00 site and where it is locate along Adamo Drive to the

18:51:03 north, 22nd to the west, 26th to the east, and the

18:51:06 Crosstown.

18:51:10 Point of reference -- and I did provide the map in my

18:51:15 staff report -- is that the line for this lines the

18:51:20 center line of Adamo Drive, therefore, the historic

18:51:26 district is southern boundary through Adamo.

18:51:28 Here is the zoning atlas.

18:51:30 Shows surrounding properties.

18:51:35 Show the PD, surrounding properties of IH, IG, that line

18:51:44 there then starts the Ybor district, YC 6, YC 7, YC 4.

18:51:46 The highest construction could be 60 feet in height, and

18:51:50 the highest structure in the YC is 45 feet with the

18:51:53 exception of the HCC district which could allow to up to

18:51:54 60.

18:52:00 As Tony stated, this sign as proposed is greater than 30

18:52:03 feet higher than the highest structure currently in Ybor

18:52:09 City, which is 70 -- approximately 75 feet to the top of

18:52:12 the structure and 83 feet to the top of the

18:52:21 architectural feature of that structure.

18:52:31 Some pictures of the site.

18:52:35 The view looking east.

18:52:39 The view of the 22nd Street entrance.

18:52:42 Here is a view looking south at the current navigational

18:52:46 sign which is 35 feet in height.

18:52:50 The view looking to the southeast.

18:52:55 The view from the intersection of 22nd and Adamo looking

18:53:01 north into the district.

18:53:12 Staff did find the request before you inconsistent and I

18:53:15 would like to go through my findings at this time.

18:53:18 I would like to refer to the five criteria the standard

18:53:21 for review this evening from City Council, the first of

18:53:23 those criteria is that the alleged hardships and

18:53:25 practical difficulties are unique and singular with

18:53:30 respect to the property or with respect to a structure

18:53:35 or building thereon and not those suffered in common

18:53:37 with other properties, structures or buildings similarly

18:53:38 located.

18:53:42 As you know, and you will even discuss this morning,

18:53:45 variances are granted on physical aspects of a property

18:53:49 or structure, not on a specific use or a specific user.

18:53:52 The property is not unique and singular in respect to

18:53:56 its configuration and geography when comparing it with

18:54:02 similarly situated properties in the City of Tampa.

18:54:05 Comparable properties, Walters Crossings, Westshore

18:54:08 Plaza, Busch Gardens and International Plaza.

18:54:12 Each are developed with square footage equal or greater

18:54:13 than the subject property.

18:54:15 In the case of Busch gardens and International Plaza

18:54:18 which both have limited visibility from the interstate

18:54:22 system, the associated free-standing signs stand less

18:54:24 than 25 feet in height, and I would like to show you

18:54:27 some pictures.

18:54:35 At the entrance of International.

18:54:44 Coming down Boy Scout.

18:54:47 These two are free-standing signs.

18:54:50 They are far more oriented as a monument sign versus a

18:54:55 pole sign which is being proposed this evening.

18:54:59 Busch Gardens does not have a full sign either.

18:55:08 It is clearly less than 25 feet in height.

18:55:12 Council, a couple of months prior to the original ikea

18:55:15 rezoning, there is a major overhaul of the city's sign

18:55:15 code.

18:55:19 At that time Council adopted standards for signage

18:55:22 within the city, and I would just like to go over what

18:55:23 the baseline of those standards are.

18:55:26 The maximum height for a free-standing sign is 20 feet

18:55:28 in height.

18:55:32 What is being proposed tonight is six times what Council

18:55:35 said was the appropriate baseline for height for

18:55:38 free-standing signage within the City of Tampa at 125

18:55:43 feet.

18:55:46 If this project were to come in and meet code, it would

18:55:52 qualify for 14 50-square-foot signs or

18:55:55 seven 100-square-foot signs if they were to combine the

18:55:58 signage which is permissible by code; however, they

18:56:01 would be limited to 20 feet in height.

18:56:06 The request before you for this sign just in and of

18:56:11 itself is 1806 square feet.

18:56:13 The second criteria before you tonight is that the

18:56:17 hardship or practical difficulty does not result from

18:56:20 the actions of the applicant.

18:56:24 Self-created hardship or practical difficulty should not

18:56:25 justify a variance.

18:56:27 The site is currently developed with a

18:56:32 356,000-square-foot ikea furniture store.

18:56:35 Under the original request as I mentioned, there was a

18:56:41 400% signage waiver, and the current sign, the current

18:56:44 pylon sign set back nine feet from the northern property

18:56:50 line and -- feet in height and contains 300 feet of area

18:56:52 in front of the phasing.

18:56:55 What I would like to do -- and I brought one extra copy

18:56:58 -- show you some of the additional signage that has

18:57:01 already been approved on this site as what is being

18:57:03 proposed tonight is in addition to that signage and

18:57:06 would not remove anything that is currently on the site

18:57:09 today with the exception of the triangular navigational

18:57:15 sign at the intersection.

18:57:24 As stated in my staff report, there are signs, other

18:57:29 advertisement signs located within the parking area.

18:57:40 There are additional entrance and exit signs, flag

18:57:44 signs.

18:57:46 And extremely large building signs, including a banner

18:58:02 that is changed out for different times of the year.

18:58:09 This is what is being presented tonight.

18:58:12 In relation to the practical hardship that this criteria

18:58:16 speaks to, the site characteristics including the store

18:58:20 area, the parking, the landscaping, the setbacks, and

18:58:23 the access are all currently operating on the site as

18:58:26 approved by City Council in 2007.

18:58:29 Nothing has changed or been altered to the use or the

18:58:31 structure that would warrant the additional variance

18:58:34 that is before you tonight.

18:58:37 The third request is that if the variance is granted, it

18:58:40 will not substantially interfere with or injury the

18:58:44 rights of others whose property will be effected by

18:58:45 allowance of the variance.

18:58:48 It is staff findings that if this request if granted

18:58:51 would far exceed the height and area of any other

18:58:54 approved or existing sign within the city limits of

18:58:56 Tampa.

18:58:59 Once constructed, the sign will visually impact Adamo

18:59:03 Drive, a designated gateway corridor of the city.

18:59:07 May be additional adverse effects to adjacent property

18:59:10 owners, the view corridors of Adamo Drive and roadways

18:59:12 within close proximity of the site, as well as the

18:59:15 overall aesthetics of the city.

18:59:17 Council, I believe that the most difficult parameter

18:59:21 before you this evening is that it is very difficult to

18:59:24 visualize what impact this will have, because we don't

18:59:27 really have any point of reference within the city at

18:59:29 this time.

18:59:32 Over the last few weeks that I have been preparing for

18:59:35 this case, I have been driving around the city trying to

18:59:37 show you something that will put into perspective what

18:59:40 is before you tonight, and I have had a really hard

18:59:41 time.

18:59:47 What I find I go back to are cell towers which many of

18:59:51 us is obvious because many of them peak up above our

18:59:53 urban canopy.

18:59:56 You drive down the Crosstown, you see these cell towers

18:59:57 looming.

19:00:01 When you put it in relation to this, this has 1800

19:00:04 square feet of copy at the top, three full Billboards on

19:00:05 top of the 125 feet.

19:00:10 It is not a monopole just standing there, an illuminated

19:00:13 Billboard at 125 feet.

19:00:15 Billboards are typically 60 feet in height.

19:00:19 This is two times that.

19:00:30 When I was out at the site, I took this picture.

19:00:36 I said to myself, wow, in the context of things, how

19:00:39 tall do you think these signs are?

19:00:41 How tall do you think that entrance is?

19:00:45 To me I would think of a standard entrance to a

19:00:50 restaurant two or three feet down by the ground.

19:00:54 That's me next to the entrance sign.

19:00:58 The entrance sign itself close to 8 feet in height.

19:01:03 Seven feet -- I had on heels that day, but seven feet

19:01:03 somewhere in there.

19:01:07 Not the most appealing picture of me.

19:01:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Abby, can I ask you a question.

19:01:10 Why is that sign that high.

19:01:12 The possibility because you have a lot of trucks going

19:01:15 through there and when you are behind a truck, you are

19:01:18 not going to see that sign.

19:01:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I am not exactly sure.

19:01:23 I can show you the sign from the roadway but this is

19:01:26 part of the signage package that was presented as a

19:01:27 variance.

19:01:28 >> I am looking at the information.

19:01:31 Did you give us these pamphlet as soon as.

19:01:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Those were supplemental information

19:01:35 provided by the petitioner.

19:01:36 Those are not mine.

19:01:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I am looking at a red sign.

19:01:40 It looks probably 125 feet tall.

19:01:44 It looks like a McDonald's sign.

19:01:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: No, we don't --

19:01:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You didn't see that?

19:01:51 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I am familiar with the sign you are

19:01:53 referring to, it is not 125 feet.

19:01:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: How tall is it?

19:01:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The one adjacent to the interstate?

19:02:02 I believe it is 70 feet.

19:02:07 This is the current navigational sign.

19:02:09 And if you can't see that little dot down there at the

19:02:13 bottom, that is me again.

19:02:20 Don't have my heels on.

19:02:23 I have to tell you, when you walk around the city and

19:02:25 try to guesstimate how tall is something, how -- I mean

19:02:28 -- this is the only way that I could really show you in

19:02:29 perspective.

19:02:33 There is me again a little closer -- what this proposal

19:02:41 would be.

19:02:44 And can we zoom all the way out on this and hope that it

19:02:47 will show you -- this is the same picture I just showed

19:02:48 you close up.

19:02:51 Here is me approximately 5'8" and a half and the

19:02:59 existing sign, 35 feet.

19:03:04 Same shot, just a lot more sky.

19:03:09 Here is the same shot with growing Abbyes.

19:03:12 I don't think you can -- I zoom in there but one, two,

19:03:16 three, four, five, six -- six of me to the top of the

19:03:17 first sign.

19:03:20 I am not -- I am really not trying to be funny.

19:03:25 I am just trying to put into perspective what this is.

19:03:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Wonder who is holding you up?

19:03:28 [Laughter]

19:03:32 >>ABBYE FEELEY: 20 Abbyes to the top of that sign.

19:03:35 That is the proposed new sign area.

19:03:39 And what I did was I had our urban designer do this.

19:03:41 This is to scale.

19:03:44 As you can see she left the original ikea sign so you

19:03:45 can see what it is.

19:03:49 Here is the current sign at 35, double at 70, one more

19:03:55 and then to the top of the new sign.

19:04:10 The last thing I had her do if I can find it real quick

19:04:17 -- I will find it in just a second.

19:04:21 It's hard, because when you look at this, it doesn't put

19:04:29 into context where we are in relation to the sign.

19:04:32 This is Walters Crossing.

19:04:39 Under their PD, they got signage at 48 feet.

19:04:40 When you are driving along the interstate and you are

19:04:43 elevated, that seems like -- wow, is that really 50

19:04:45 feet.

19:04:46 Here was the last one we did.

19:04:51 That was that same sign, the 20 Abbye sign and that has

19:04:54 put us against the Tampa skyline.

19:04:58 I took this picture yesterday afternoon shooting in, and

19:05:01 here is the current sign in its proportion and the

19:05:10 proposed sign.

19:05:14 Under the criteria of the practical hardship, this is --

19:05:16 I am sorry under the criteria this will not

19:05:20 substantially interfere with or injury the right of

19:05:21 others and individual properties.

19:05:24 My finding with the surrounding properties and

19:05:28 entitlements of height, the zoning districts allow for

19:05:31 maximum zoning height of 60 feet.

19:05:34 Therefore, the proposed sign will be two times higher

19:05:39 than allowable height of structures within vicinity of

19:05:39 the subjected property.

19:05:44 Maximum height in Ybor City, the YC on your zoning atlas

19:05:48 is 45 feet with the exception the HCC district.

19:05:53 The fourth variance criteria that the variance is in

19:05:56 harmony with and serves the general intents and purposes

19:05:59 of this chapter in the adopted comprehensive plan.

19:06:01 As you just heard Mr. Garcia state, the Planning

19:06:03 Commission has found this request inconsistent with the

19:06:05 Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

19:06:08 He provided you with policies in your comprehensive plan

19:06:09 in his staff report.

19:06:14 The one policy I would like to discuss briefly is this

19:06:17 -- well, I have two in my -- in my staff report here.

19:06:21 Someone policy 16.1.9 that talks about redevelopment.

19:06:24 It says that the city should promote redevelopment

19:06:28 pattern and streetscape improvement that transform the

19:06:31 visual and physical character of these corridors by the

19:06:33 following methods: Put buildings closer to the

19:06:35 sidewalk.

19:06:38 Introduce tower buildings consistent with the underlying

19:06:39 plan.

19:06:41 Consider putting parking in the rear.

19:06:44 Attractive current and rear facade.

19:06:47 Several others and toward the bottom, reduce visual

19:06:52 clutter fine through a consistent find program.

19:06:55 Furthermore, the historic resources element talks to the

19:06:58 protection and preservation of Tampa's historical,

19:07:01 architectural resources and the policy states, that it

19:07:04 should protect the character of the historic district by

19:07:07 adopting Land Development regulations within the

19:07:10 designated boundaries and the district to ensure that

19:07:13 new developments do not adversely affect the integrity

19:07:16 of a historic district.

19:07:18 Council I would say to you tonight that the Land

19:07:21 Development regulation that implements this policy is

19:07:23 the sign code, chapter 20.5.

19:07:26 And as I previously discussed, in that code, which was

19:07:30 recently amended by this body, the maximum height per

19:07:33 sign in the City of Tampa is 20 feet.

19:07:37 What is being requested before you tonight is six times

19:07:40 what we have acknowledged as the appropriate height for

19:07:42 signs.

19:07:45 The last is that allowing the variance will result in

19:07:47 substantial justice being done considering both the

19:07:51 public benefits intended to be secured by this chapter

19:07:54 and the original hardships due to failure of the board

19:07:56 to grant a variance.

19:07:58 The criteria is the consideration of both the public

19:08:01 benefit and the individual hardship associated with the

19:08:03 allowance of the variance.

19:08:06 Through the adoption of the recent update to the sign

19:08:09 code, appropriate level of signage including height,

19:08:11 area and number was adopted by City Council.

19:08:14 The current request exceeds this standard, resulting in

19:08:23 a substantial injustice being done to the City of Tampa.

19:08:26 If I can just finish.

19:08:29 I believe I spoke to you about what would be permitted

19:08:34 on this site would be as I stated 15 double-faced

19:08:40 50-square -- I am sorry 14 double-spaced 50-square-foot

19:08:46 signs or 7 100 square-foot signs if these were combined.

19:08:48 Therefore, City Council under your standard of review

19:08:52 for this request, the application does not satisfy the

19:08:56 criteria in consideration, is in direct conflict with

19:08:58 the comprehensive plan as expressed by Mr. Garcia and

19:09:01 myself and patently inconsistent with the city's sign

19:09:06 code as amended by this body to protect the aesthetics

19:09:09 and promote signs in harmony with character of the City

19:09:12 of Tampa.

19:09:16 I am available for any questions.

19:09:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?

19:09:26 Petitioner?

19:09:27 >> Thank you, Council.

19:09:31 Mr. Chairman, can I have about 20 minutes versus the 15

19:09:32 in the code.

19:09:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's see how far we go first.

19:09:36 >> Sure.

19:09:40 Let me first tell you that Rick is handing out a package

19:09:41 of material for your consideration this evening.

19:09:44 I want to go through it in a couple of minutes.

19:09:50 Again, Vincent Marchetti for the record, 625 east Twigg

19:09:53 Street representing ikea.

19:09:56 With me this evening -- with me this evening is Michael

19:10:01 mirror, a real estate manager for IKEA.

19:10:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Give the Clerk a copy please.

19:10:11 >> With me is Michael Maier, Real Estate Manager for

19:10:15 Ikea and Rick Johnson, who just handed the documents out

19:10:16 who is the planner for the project.

19:10:21 As you know, our request is, of course, as Abbye,

19:10:24 well-documented there to increase the height of our

19:10:27 navigation sign to the ikea sign with 125 feet with a

19:10:31 corresponding sign face to be reflective of the 125-foot

19:10:34 height.

19:10:38 As you review the powerpoint presentation to provide to

19:10:42 you, I would ask when you are reviewing that think of

19:10:46 Land Development staff's assertions that our request if

19:10:50 approved would, quote, encourage visual blight.

19:10:54 The fact that staff states this subjective

19:10:59 determination, presumably because as they state the

19:11:01 proposed height of the sign is six times what the code

19:11:06 allows, and also the sign face is three times more than

19:11:10 the allowable sign area is not only completely taken out

19:11:14 of context, but it is also done without any real

19:11:17 understanding or appreciation of the issue at hand.

19:11:21 And by the way, we spent a multitude of hours and

19:11:24 meetings, et cetera, with staff and administration

19:11:30 explaining the issue that Ikea has on this site.

19:11:34 The document handed out to you, I want to go through

19:11:34 with you.

19:11:39 The first tab consists of a chronology of meetings and

19:11:42 also phone conversations that occurred regarding the

19:11:45 off-site signage issues we had due to lack of

19:11:46 visibility.

19:11:48 By the way going back for a minute to the -- to the

19:11:53 ex-parte communication issues, again, the discussions I

19:11:57 have had with Councilmembers strictly on the off-site

19:11:59 issues we have had and tried to address with D.O.T. and

19:12:01 others to no avail.

19:12:04 Not about the PD request.

19:12:07 >> Mr. Marchetti, is that not relevant to tonight's

19:12:09 discussion?

19:12:10 >> Absolutely not.

19:12:16 Tab Number 2, there is a letter to and response from

19:12:19 FDOT -- sorry tab Number 1, note there are 14 meetings

19:12:21 we have held on this matter.

19:12:26 Tab Number 2, there is a letter to a FDOT response from

19:12:33 my -- my letter requesting off-site signage on I-4, 21st

19:12:40 street, other signage off-site off the location.

19:12:43 We have exerted in our mind good faith and try to get

19:12:47 the community engaged in assisting us with off-site

19:12:52 signage for the Ikea store and hopefully not coming

19:12:53 outside this Council.

19:12:58 The 29th letter from DOT soundly defeated every one of

19:12:59 our requests.

19:13:05 They said we could not have I-4 signage -- Abbye's

19:13:08 reference to a couple of users, Busch gardens is one.

19:13:12 She mentioned Westshore and International Mall.

19:13:16 International mall has signage off of 275.

19:13:22 Busch gardens signage off of I-275 and I-75.

19:13:26 Westshore you can see from 275.

19:13:28 Our store is half a mile off the road here.

19:13:30 Tab Number 3 is communication tower, Tampa code section

19:13:35 27-134.1 dealing with Commercial communication tower

19:13:37 regulations.

19:13:40 Tab Number 3 will show you this PD district that we are

19:13:43 in, which is a really intense district and take

19:13:48 365-square-foot building and you would have to be in my

19:13:53 opinion either CI, OP1 or IG, IH.

19:13:55 More likely IH and IG.

19:13:59 Ih is located immediately to the east.

19:14:04 In that case a 140-foot to 200-foot communication tower

19:14:06 on our property by way of a special hearing master

19:14:08 process.

19:14:12 Tab Number 4 -- I think some people referred to it as

19:14:14 the expressway -- the Crosstown.

19:14:20 Tab Number 4 is an E-Mail from the Expressway Authority

19:14:21 indicating the height of the Crosstown.

19:14:25 The Crosstown 70 feet at the lower level.

19:14:27 The ramp through this presentation is going to be at 90

19:14:28 feet.

19:14:32 And then the other ramp, s ramp is 90 feet.

19:14:34 That is the connector.

19:14:37 The Tab Number 5 has a couple of signs.

19:14:40 Abbye referred to no sign even close to what we are

19:14:41 discussing here.

19:14:44 Well actually off of I-4, as you are approaching Ybor

19:14:48 City, you have the McDonald's sign, that is in Tab

19:14:48 Number 5.

19:14:52 You have a copy of the Burger King sign, and then you

19:14:57 have the U-Haul tower sign as well, all located off of

19:15:00 i-4, the businesses are on i-4.

19:15:04 And all these signs I believe are at least 70 to 90 or

19:15:06 85 feet in height.

19:15:10 Tab Number 6, albeit in the Hillsborough County

19:15:15 jurisdiction, Tab Number 6 is a Days Inn,

19:15:20 125-foot-height sign located just at the location of

19:15:21 Fletcher and 275.

19:15:23 Not at the city limits, very close to them.

19:15:28 That days inn was just approved May 2010.

19:15:35 125-foot sign for a days inn located off 275.

19:15:37 Tab Number 7 are some letters of support.

19:15:42 And by the way, the chronology indicates our continual

19:15:45 efforts for course of 10 months trying to deal with

19:15:49 various associations within Ybor City.

19:15:52 Tab Number 7 contains a letter -- the first letter is

19:15:53 Columbia restaurant.

19:15:56 Columbia restaurant -- surprising because some of the

19:15:59 meetings we have attended indicated that ikea hasn't

19:16:02 provided any support to Ybor City, no business has

19:16:04 generated, et cetera.

19:16:09 Columbia restaurant indicates and owner Mr. Gunsmore

19:16:13 states within the letter that Ikea has been a tremendous

19:16:17 community Partner and thrilled when Ikea opened the

19:16:19 doors down the street and they say they have added staff

19:16:23 for their Sunday lunch hours because of Ikea's presence

19:16:27 in Ybor City or outside of Ybor City.

19:16:30 We have other letters of support.

19:16:30 Furniture row.

19:16:34 Furniture row owns the property immediately to the east

19:16:35 of the Ikea site.

19:16:38 They are in the furniture business.

19:16:41 Furniture row has a letter supporting Ikea's request for

19:16:44 -- and they will be a competitor some day.

19:16:47 We have a couple other letters of support.

19:16:50 Tab Number 8 is Mike's powerpoint that he is going to

19:17:34 provide now.

19:17:37 >> If your name could be put on the record.

19:17:37 >> Hour.

19:17:41 Good evening, my name is Michael Maier, a real estate

19:17:45 manager with Ikea.

19:17:48 >> Have you been sworn in, sir?

19:17:49 >> Yes, I have.

19:17:57 >> Okay, thank you.

19:18:01 I want to start off the presentation this evening with a

19:18:04 little bit of history of what the site at 22nd and Adamo

19:18:09 looked like in 2006 before Ikea opened its doors in

19:18:10 2009.

19:18:14 30 acres as Abbye mentioned.

19:18:17 In 2006 contained more than 500,000 square feet of

19:18:21 largely abandoned building, buildings with asbestos,

19:18:25 lead paint and petroleum contaminants.

19:18:27 It was largely say can of the and abandoned with

19:18:31 one-half mile of street signs with no activity.

19:18:37 The 2007 staff report -- staff report that came out

19:18:41 talked about this parcel at the time of 2007 for Ikea.

19:18:43 I am going to read excerpt from the Planning Commission

19:18:46 report.

19:18:48 Adamo Drive and existing uses along this corridor

19:18:52 leading to the urban core show no transition from

19:18:54 unincorporated Hillsborough County into downtown Tampa.

19:18:56 There is no physical evidence that commuters are

19:18:59 entering the City of Tampa and its major activity

19:19:00 centers.

19:19:02 It is obvious this section of Adamo Drive currently has

19:19:06 no clear identity or sense of place.

19:19:08 This glaring reality supports the need for this segment

19:19:11 of Adamo to be given the opportunity for new

19:19:12 development.

19:19:15 This was the state of affairs in 2007 before Ikea came

19:19:18 to the city.

19:19:20 We applied for our PD in 2007.

19:19:24 The Planning Commission staff report continued once Ikea

19:19:31 -- once the prospect of Ikea on this site was available.

19:19:36 According to the Planning Commission report in 2007, the

19:19:39 presence of a highly visible Ikea project at this

19:19:42 location will definitely serve as a recognition to

19:19:45 travelers that they have arrived in the city and further

19:19:48 validates Tampa's decision as a major metropolitan area

19:19:50 nationally creating another destination for people to

19:19:52 visit along the West Coast of Florida.

19:19:54 This was from the Planning Commission staff report in

19:19:59 2007 talking about the decrepit conditions of 22nd and

19:20:03 Adamo before Ikea and what an opportunity to have an

19:20:04 Ikea at this site.

19:20:05 What happened?

19:20:08 Ikea applied for a PD zoning in 2007 and considered by

19:20:10 this City Council.

19:20:11 What was considered at that time was the historic

19:20:15 redevelopment of an underutilized vacant brownfield site

19:20:19 with half million square feet, more than one-half mile

19:20:22 of front age that was vacant, dead.

19:20:25 A major redevelopment corridor.

19:20:28 That was under consideration by City Council in 2007.

19:20:29 What happened?

19:20:33 400 full and part-time jobs, major capital investment on

19:20:37 this site, 356,000-square-foot retail building spanning

19:20:41 an entire city block, reactivating, regenerating and

19:20:44 putting activity to Adamo Drive corridor.

19:20:47 Two major entrances along Adamo Drive and 22nd Street

19:20:52 and reenforcing the gateway corridor of Adamo Drive.

19:20:54 Our application looks exactly what you see here on the

19:20:58 screen right now in is an excerpt from our application

19:21:00 and shows the building elevations and building signage.

19:21:03 Abbye said a lot of signs and she is correct.

19:21:05 Especially on pap they are looks like it is over the top

19:21:08 and overwhelming and signs everywhere, but the signage

19:21:12 represents just under 10% of the total building area.

19:21:14 350,000-square-foot building.

19:21:16 You have to take it under context and scale.

19:21:20 Standing outside today -- I encourage you all to do

19:21:22 this, it is very context in scale.

19:21:23 It is not over the top.

19:21:28 On paper may look over the top, but if you scan spanning

19:21:32 a city block, 30 acres, it looks in scale and in context

19:21:37 from additional photos.

19:21:42 In addition to the building signs, we asked for site

19:21:45 signs, and Abbye did a great job.

19:21:47 95 signs in 2007.

19:21:51 You look on this paper in 2007, it looks like there are

19:21:53 signs everywhere, over the top, out of control.

19:21:56 And in fact the 400% increase that Abbye documented in

19:21:58 her presentation was correct.

19:22:03 We were seeking a variance for 400% increase in design.

19:22:05 This is a 30-acre development.

19:22:07 1300 parking spaces.

19:22:14 Street frontage on Adamo Drive and 26nd.

19:22:16 Stand on that site today and here is what you see.

19:22:20 Of this, 94 signs or 95 signs on the site, we have

19:22:23 parking lot light pole markers, 28 of them.

19:22:25 1600 parking spaces.

19:22:27 You have to let customers know where to park, the

19:22:28 yellow, green or red.

19:22:32 It says customer courtesy, what any retailer would do

19:22:34 anywhere.

19:22:35 Customer information panels throughout.

19:22:38 Again 1500 spark spaces.

19:22:40 2 is of these panels throughout.

19:22:43 It describes how to shop in Ikea.

19:22:44 A concept style of retailer.

19:22:47 People need to understand how to shop, what to do,

19:22:50 things like that and these communications are spread

19:22:51 throughout our site.

19:22:57 Shopping shop corrals.

19:22:58 We need a place to return them.

19:23:01 There are a dozen of these throughout 1500 parking

19:23:04 spaces.

19:23:05 Flags.

19:23:08 We have two major entrances, one along 22nd Street and

19:23:09 one along Adamo Drive.

19:23:12 We are energizing and activating these streets.

19:23:13 Flags are appropriate.

19:23:16 They count toward our signage but look in context.

19:23:19 Totally appropriate within scale and when you stand on

19:23:22 the site, a very warm, open, and inviting type of

19:23:22 environment.

19:23:26 Not every the top.

19:23:27 We have finding signs.

19:23:30 Customers want to know how to get to Adamo Drive or the

19:23:32 Crosstown or interstate 4.

19:23:36 Guess what, we told them through signs, 6 feet or 8

19:23:40 feet, part of our signage program that was adopted.

19:23:42 It is important to understand you look on paper and read

19:23:44 the staff report, 400%.

19:23:46 Planning Commission says this parcel needs a major

19:23:47 activity.

19:23:50 Ikea would be just the right parcel.

19:23:52 So set to scale and set to context and the development

19:23:55 that occurs there.

19:23:57 What was that precedent-setting development?

19:23:58 We talked about that.

19:24:02 The Ikea opened up, the largest single retail building

19:24:02 in the State of Florida.

19:24:05 What did the City Council approve in 2007?

19:24:08 City Council approved a redevelopment of entire city

19:24:13 block, 30 acre, a building that would anchor the Adamo

19:24:17 Drive gateway corridor and standards, leed energy and

19:24:20 design, a building that would obtain city and straight

19:24:25 brownfield designation with 700 trees and activating

19:24:28 street frontage with a pedestrian environment that was

19:24:30 not present in 2007.

19:24:32 So where is the Ikea?

19:24:34 Everyone is familiar with the location, the Ybor City

19:24:36 just to the north.

19:24:39 The Palmetto neighborhood to the south.

19:24:43 But a closer look reveals we are isolated.

19:24:44 We are not part of Ybor.

19:24:47 We are not part of Palmetto.

19:24:50 We have the Adamo Drive corridor to the north.

19:24:54 30,000 vehicles a day separate us from any activity --

19:25:00 any activity corridor, 30,000 vehicles a day.

19:25:04 The two-level above-grade Crosstown.

19:25:08 And in fact, as Vin mentioned, when they complete the

19:25:12 connector between i-4 and the Crosstown, there will be

19:25:14 ramps into Ikea 90 feet high.

19:25:18 When you look at this plan we are isolated.

19:25:21 Not part of Ybor or Palmetto.

19:25:25 We are surrounded by heavy industrial zoning.

19:25:29 Mostly vacant, outdoor storage parcel.

19:25:30 Underdeveloped parcels.

19:25:31 We are the first one here.

19:25:32 A redevelopment corridor.

19:25:34 We are here.

19:25:35 We are waiting for others.

19:25:38 We talked about the crosstown connector, when completed

19:25:44 90 feet to the south further separating Ikea anything

19:25:45 further to the south.

19:25:47 Pretty clear.

19:25:48 Why are we here today?

19:25:50 Trying to improve our visibility and signage.

19:25:52 All those signs that I showed you as well as Miss Feeley

19:25:56 showed you, they provide communication if you are on our

19:25:56 site.

19:25:59 They don't provide any visibility or communication for

19:26:00 customers approaching the store.

19:26:01 You don't see it.

19:26:04 In fact the photo you see right here, take it from 21st

19:26:06 street at the traffic light sitting at Adamo Drive.

19:26:11 You will be looking at the Ikea site and you cannot see.

19:26:15 Existing signed building on 1st and Adamo.

19:26:15 No visibility.

19:26:17 The largest retail building in the State of Florida

19:26:18 needs visibility.

19:26:21 Needs to establish this location.

19:26:25 Here is a photo of the -- of what -- what Abbye showed

19:26:32 you, how many Abbyes equal to that sign.

19:26:37 If you are on the Ikea parcel, this is what you see on

19:26:39 the 22nd Street.

19:26:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: How much more time?

19:26:41 >> Almost done.

19:26:46 Spent a lot of time with FDOT pursuing solutions to get

19:26:47 highway signage.

19:26:48 We don't qualify.

19:26:51 We are not a million square foot mall even though

19:26:53 International mall has a sign.

19:26:55 We are not Busch Gardens.

19:26:56 Another comparison.

19:26:57 They have signs along the highway.

19:26:58 We don't.

19:27:01 We are more than a half mile from Interstate 4 with no

19:27:01 visibility.

19:27:04 Not only no visibility from Interstate 4, you can't see

19:27:07 it at 21st street and Adamo.

19:27:08 No visibility.

19:27:12 The largest retail building in the State of Florida, no

19:27:13 visibility on the site.

19:27:17 A photo of the International Plaza sign along the

19:27:18 interstate.

19:27:22 So we analyzed how high this sign needs to be.

19:27:23 Existing sign 35 feet.

19:27:26 We put a crane on the property and raised it at

19:27:30 different levels, 80 feet, 100 feet, 115 feet and 125

19:27:32 feet and we drove the area.

19:27:35 We drove Interstate 4, 21st Street, Adamo, streets in

19:27:38 Ybor and streets in Palmetto to understand the sensitive

19:27:41 of what you will see, when you will see it and what the

19:27:43 effectiveness, the result is the higher the better.

19:27:50 The higher the advice sign, the greater the visibility.

19:27:51 Contacts.

19:27:55 This is our site -- this is our Cincinnati area store.

19:27:56 On 30 acres.

19:28:00 The sign you see to the left is 115 feet.

19:28:03 You look at it in scale of an Ikea development on 30

19:28:08 acres, a building 40 feet with 12 or 1500 parking

19:28:10 spaces, it is in context ands in scale.

19:28:14 Our Salt Lake City area store as well, this is 100-foot

19:28:15 sign.

19:28:19 Just some examples of what you would see if you were to

19:28:21 approve our application here this evening.

19:28:24 The request, again, based on lack of visibility along

19:28:30 i-4 and immediate vicinity, FDOT's eliminate of all

19:28:31 other options.

19:28:34 No other choice to increase our visibility.

19:28:38 Ikea, the largest single retail building in the State of

19:28:42 Florida, 30 acres, the gateway corridor into the mayor

19:28:44 urban core activity of the City of Tampa we are

19:28:48 requesting to increase the signage as you know to 125

19:28:49 feet.

19:28:53 Will strengthen our visibility.

19:28:55 Columbia said, if the City of Tampa does better,

19:28:58 Columbia does better, and Ybor does better.

19:29:00 This will help anchor us.

19:29:04 The Furniture Row, the purchaser behind us.

19:29:08 They said, yes, let's try to establish an identity for

19:29:13 this location, even after Ikea is located here an

19:29:17 identity has not been established for 22nd and Adamo.

19:29:19 >> Vincent Marchetti just to wrap up, the Planning

19:29:23 Commission staff report finding of inconsistency of the

19:29:24 comprehensive plan.

19:29:27 If you read the staff report, it is amazing, Tony never

19:29:30 mentioned the store not one time.

19:29:36 He failed to address the 356,000-square-foot Ikea one

19:29:39 time during the complete finding of his report.

19:29:44 Not one time was it mentioned; however, he says that the

19:29:48 sign, which we believe is a companion request for our

19:29:51 application for the -- for the building -- is out of

19:29:53 character with, quote, the surrounding built

19:30:00 environment, but never mentioned the store.

19:30:04 We believe -- I mean Abbye has gone through all the

19:30:05 criteria and what not.

19:30:06 We have our presentation that we provided.

19:30:08 We have all the exhibits we submitted.

19:30:10 We submitted more documentation this evening.

19:30:12 We believe we meet all the criteria in the code.

19:30:16 We believe that Ikea is an unique and singular type

19:30:17 product.

19:30:18 Very unique.

19:30:20 If the City of Tampa is fortunate enough to get another

19:30:22 Ikea, they should get another sign.

19:30:24 Thank you.

19:30:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

19:30:27 Any question by Council?

19:30:29 Councilman Miranda..

19:30:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The two signs I saw in Salt Lake

19:30:33 City and the one in Cincinnati, Ohio, were they part of

19:30:36 the original design plan or did the signs come in after

19:30:38 the stores were open?

19:30:39 >> They were part of the original.

19:30:40 We never like to come back.

19:30:42 We are not in the business to coming back.

19:30:46 We like to secure what we need at the outset and go.

19:30:49 But this is one of the special cases.

19:30:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I was just curious.

19:30:52 >> Yes.

19:30:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay were Councilman Caetano.

19:30:58 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Sir, how did Ikea choose to move

19:31:00 to Tampa, Florida.

19:31:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Turn his mic on.

19:31:03 >> A big growing market.

19:31:05 We were looking to site in 2005.

19:31:07 A growing market --

19:31:11 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Did someone solicit you?

19:31:11 >> No.

19:31:14 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Who solicited you.

19:31:15 >> We did.

19:31:17 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You came here yourself?

19:31:20 >> My job is to look for new stores across the country.

19:31:23 We typically need about 2 million -- a population of 2

19:31:27 million people within a 60-minute drive time.

19:31:29 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: When you came here, who did you

19:31:32 speak to in the city?

19:31:34 >> First -- I believe our first meeting was with the

19:31:37 mayor, with economic development and it was a team of --

19:31:40 of our associates that surrounded that first initial

19:31:42 meeting with Ikea.

19:31:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Had you asked for a larger sign

19:31:45 that you had now?

19:31:49 >> The discussion with the sign was originally broached

19:31:50 with staff.

19:31:52 It was never submitted.

19:31:55 It was originally broached with staff and such a push

19:31:58 back on all the other signs, the 400% comment, the

19:32:02 shopping cart, so we made a decision to not pursue it,

19:32:05 and if we pursued it and rejected at this time, if I

19:32:07 understand you can not come back in front of the Council

19:32:11 for six months or a year and the project would be dead,

19:32:14 we made a decision to forgo this sign issue, open the

19:32:16 store and see what happens.

19:32:19 As I said Councilman Miranda, we are not in the business

19:32:22 of coming back and we like to secure what we have at the

19:32:23 outset with the most leverage.

19:32:26 We are sitting here.

19:32:27 We are not going away.

19:32:28 We invested in the City of Tampa.

19:32:32 We hired employees and put a stake in the ground.

19:32:34 We believe that the visibility we are asking for is

19:32:35 justified and would be a continuation of the request

19:32:39 that was granted by this body in 2007.

19:32:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The furniture store that is

19:32:44 coming, how large of a building are they going to have?

19:32:48 >> They are a little puppy, like 60,000 square feet.

19:32:51 But they have over 300 stores in the country and this

19:32:54 will be their second in Florida.

19:32:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Maximum height for your building?

19:33:00 >> Our building is about 40 feet to height.

19:33:02 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: How high can you go there.

19:33:05 >> I heard Abbye say 60 feet.

19:33:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: About 60 feet.

19:33:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by Council?

19:33:15 >> Furniture row purchased the property in 2008 as a

19:33:18 result of us purchasing our property.

19:33:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Right.

19:33:20 I remember that.

19:33:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

19:33:26 Any other question by Council?

19:33:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The only other comment I will make,

19:33:32 this is about a sign but not the size of a store.

19:33:35 I am not talking to you, sir.

19:33:38 Both sides are 365,000 square feet.

19:33:42 That is not pertinent to the discussion of a sign.

19:33:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

19:33:49 >> Mr. Chairman, I recognize and realize that Councilman

19:33:53 Capin came in early on in Miss Feeley's presentation,

19:33:56 and Miss Capin, we had a discussion about disclosures of

19:34:01 any ex-parte communication that Councilmembers had.

19:34:04 I am wondering if you have anything to declare it would

19:34:07 be appropriate to do so.

19:34:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, I did meet with the petitioner

19:34:17 about the dot regarding I-4 and 21st street.

19:34:26 And the signage on the interstate.

19:34:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: At this time, we will take public

19:34:29 comment.

19:34:31 Those who are in support to my right.

19:34:34 If you are in support to my right.

19:34:37 If you were in opposition to my left.

19:34:41 Opposition to my left.

19:34:44 My left.

19:34:45 Which is your right.

19:34:57 Okay.

19:35:02 Yes, we need to find out, has everybody been sworn?

19:35:07 If you are speaking tonight, -- raise your hand, we will

19:35:10 have to swear you in again those who have not been

19:35:11 sworn.

19:35:14 >> If you have not been sworn please raise your hand and

19:35:16 testify if you have not been sworn.

19:35:19 [Swearing in of Witnesses]

19:35:20 >> Thank you.

19:35:21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:35:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will start right here and alternate

19:35:27 going back and forth.

19:35:31 >> Brad Minsley, 2624 West Prospect Road, Tampa,

19:35:32 Florida.

19:35:34 And I have been sworn.

19:35:36 Mr. Chairman, Councilmembers, thank you for your time

19:35:38 this evening.

19:35:42 I come to you not as anybody with any expertise on urban

19:35:45 planning, so I can't tell you how a giant blue box with

19:35:50 its accompanied signage fits in with the historic

19:35:53 district or not but I come to you as one of your small

19:35:56 business owners, and I just would like to point out on

19:35:59 behalf of the business community, I think sometimes we

19:36:02 get swept up in the emotion and things of that sort, but

19:36:06 I just have to remind that you Ikea -- they came here to

19:36:09 make a profit, but when they came here to do that, they

19:36:11 brought with them the redevelopment of a brownfield

19:36:14 site, they brought with them 400 new jobs and those

19:36:17 people have salaries and spend money at our other small

19:36:17 businesses.

19:36:21 They came here and paid taxes, hundreds of thousands of

19:36:23 dollars that help pay for our infrastructure, our

19:36:24 schools.

19:36:27 They actually make pretty nice furniture that doesn't

19:36:30 cost that much and leaves a little money in our pockets

19:36:31 as we furnish our homes.

19:36:35 And I just ask that you -- if they are here asking for a

19:36:38 sign, I am sure they are doing it because there is a

19:36:39 reason for it.

19:36:42 And there is other businesses watching tonight.

19:36:46 And whether we go down the path and help foster our

19:36:49 business environment which has a benefit for all of us,

19:36:54 or we say no and reject them and send a signal to other

19:36:56 businesses that may be considering coming to Tampa.

19:36:58 I ask that you consider their sign, and I think they

19:37:03 make a good point that you have to look at relative to

19:37:07 this store, that you consider the small business member

19:37:10 because there is a trickle-down effect to everything

19:37:10 that we do.

19:37:12 That's all.

19:37:14 Thank you for your time.

19:37:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, sir.

19:37:21 >> Hello, Councilmembers, James Ratliff, 1914 east 4th

19:37:23 avenue unit 7 in Ybor City.

19:37:24 I have been sworn.

19:37:27 I am here today in opposition of Ikea's sign proposal.

19:37:30 I believe there are significant health, safety and

19:37:33 welfare issues that should be thoroughly vetted before

19:37:35 even considering approval of a request to create a sign

19:37:38 which is designed to be visibility from an interstate

19:37:40 over one-half mile away.

19:37:43 With traffic moving at high rates of speed especially

19:37:46 where vehicles are moving toward malfunction junction

19:37:48 and need their full attention on the road and not

19:37:52 necessarily on attracting them to a business at that

19:37:55 great distance.

19:38:00 Approving this sign, again, which is in a spot where,

19:38:04 you know, a lot of travel lanes are converging and that

19:38:07 the natural viewing angle isn't within your line of

19:38:10 sight along the right-of-way is to the right or to the

19:38:13 left, according to which direction you are moving in.

19:38:16 So I believe this is inherently dangerous.

19:38:20 Furthermore, the proposed sign, size and style is

19:38:22 completely out of character with the vision of its

19:38:24 surrounding communities and the unique places we are

19:38:26 trying to create.

19:38:30 This reminds me of the hcc Ybor campus controversy last

19:38:30 year.

19:38:33 One could argue that the economic impact of the hcc

19:38:38 campus is far greater than anything Ikea has brought.

19:38:41 Don't get me wrong, I love Ikea, I shop there all the

19:38:41 time.

19:38:42 I am very thankful.

19:38:45 I am a Tampa native, but they have come and brought jobs

19:38:51 and brought their wonderful product to us, but at the

19:38:55 same time, I believe this request is out of context with

19:38:56 the neighborhood.

19:39:00 Hcc actually revised their proposal to make the height

19:39:04 more in line with the surrounding historic context.

19:39:07 Also change the -- the view -- the -- rather the

19:39:12 material, the materials to make it more compatible with

19:39:16 the Ybor City aesthetic and certainly I don't believe

19:39:21 that a pole sign is creating an identity that we heard

19:39:23 several times from the applicant or a sense of blight.

19:39:25 If they are truly trying to create something, certainly

19:39:30 an identity, a pole sign, would not create a special

19:39:34 unique identity that is in character with the

19:39:36 surrounding communities.

19:39:40 I would also just like too to say that kind inform

19:39:45 rebuttal to some of Vince's comments, that, yes, it is a

19:39:48 subjective determination, but a communication tower that

19:39:50 could be allowed there, certainly.

19:39:53 However -- also one with 1800 square feet on top of it.

19:39:55 So it has a lot different impact.

19:39:58 1800 square feet is 180% of my living area.

19:40:04 1.8 of my apartment sitting on top of the sign, ready

19:40:05 for everyone to view.

19:40:07 So I appreciate your thorough consideration of this

19:40:08 matter.

19:40:09 I know it is difficult.

19:40:12 And, again, I want to thank Ikea for everything they

19:40:15 have done and this Council's decision to grant their

19:40:15 previous request.

19:40:18 I certainly have no problem with the existing signage

19:40:19 that is on-site.

19:40:22 I think it is appropriate; however, I do not think this

19:40:25 additional request is appropriate and ask that you deny

19:40:26 their request.

19:40:27 Thank you.

19:40:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:40:36 >> My name is Clark Minsley, LeMans Boulevard.

19:40:38 I have been sworn in.

19:40:41 I, too, am a small business owner, and I would just like

19:40:44 to say I am a patron at Ikea.

19:40:47 I think they deliver great product at affordable price

19:40:51 and being a young guy, you can certainly appreciate

19:40:51 that.

19:40:56 I commend Tampa for being a place that a business as

19:40:59 progressive as theirs would like to come and conduct

19:41:03 business, and, you know, I think that it is important

19:41:07 that in this area where a beach head has been

19:41:11 established for redevelopment, you nurture that and I

19:41:14 understand that and I commend Ikea for doing everything

19:41:17 they can for looking at other options that have come to

19:41:20 this as really a last resort from the way -- from what I

19:41:22 have heard and from the way I understand it.

19:41:26 And, you know, they came here, yes, to make a profit,

19:41:28 but they need to survive.

19:41:31 Drive-by traffic is extremely important for a company

19:41:32 such as theirs.

19:41:35 And, you know, anything that would help them, I am in

19:41:36 support of.

19:41:39 So I will -- I wanted to keep it brief and thank you for

19:41:42 letting me speak tonight.

19:41:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:41:47 >> Good evening, Michael.

19:41:52 I reside at 2000 east 2nd avenue in Ybor City.

19:41:55 I am a residential neighbor to Ikea.

19:41:59 I sit exactly catty corner to the Ikea building.

19:42:04 The size of the sign is a little bit excessive, I think,

19:42:10 you know, like he said, I am putting a three-bedroom,

19:42:14 two bathroom, garage home on top of this little pole to

19:42:16 identify Ikea.

19:42:19 When I sit at the poolside of my condo complex, right

19:42:22 now I see blue skies, clouds when it is cloudy.

19:42:25 If they intend to put this sign this height and this

19:42:28 size, when I lay at the pool to look at the blue sky,

19:42:31 all I am going to see is a yellow sign with a blue

19:42:34 background 24 hours a day.

19:42:37 So as I look out the window of my community at

19:42:40 nighttime, what I am going to see is not darkness or

19:42:44 stars or the moon, I am going to see a blue and yellow

19:42:46 sign in the sky.

19:42:51 So I don't know if it is in the daytime or the evening

19:42:52 time.

19:42:55 I am accompanied by a lot of the residents here.

19:42:58 We do like living in the historic area.

19:43:01 We fully support the business of Ikea.

19:43:02 They are quite correct.

19:43:04 They have brought a lot into the community for the

19:43:05 businesses.

19:43:07 They have brought a lot of traffic into the business.

19:43:11 So we are certainly not against the Ikea business or

19:43:13 anything like that, it is just the size of the sign

19:43:16 seems a little bit excessive and inappropriate.

19:43:20 We are not looking to a variance to any the existing

19:43:23 signs or the quantity of signs that they have.

19:43:26 Again I think it is fairly appropriate for the size of

19:43:28 the business and certainly the size of their parking

19:43:28 lot.

19:43:30 Thank you very much and I hope you decide against the

19:43:31 sign.

19:43:36 Thank you.

19:43:38 >> Hi, Jeffrey Underhill.

19:43:41 I live at 2222 East 9th Avenue.

19:43:44 Currently in the shadow of the same giant Burger King

19:43:48 signs that a lot of my neighbors live.

19:43:51 When I stand in the end of my driveway and look toward

19:43:56 the proposed Ikea tower, I can't see if through the palm

19:43:59 trees or the existing Burger King sign through the palm

19:44:00 trees either.

19:44:04 I moved here to work at the Ikea Tampa store and I chose

19:44:06 to live in Ybor with respect for working-class

19:44:10 character, architecture and proximity to work.

19:44:14 I ride my bike most days which I am very grateful for,

19:44:16 so in doing that I see a good deal of Ybor and much of

19:44:20 it reaffirms my faith that I made the right decision,

19:44:22 but I also have a great understanding of the actual area

19:44:25 where the store is and largely an industrial area.

19:44:29 I have only shopped at 17 of the 37 stores.

19:44:31 I have only been an employee for five years and I have

19:44:33 been a customer since 1991.

19:44:35 As a customer, I have depended on those navigational

19:44:38 signs, and I have shopped from Seattle to Salt Lake City

19:44:43 to Texas to Chicago to the northeast and while these

19:44:49 signs may seem incompatible with the surrounding areas,

19:44:51 they are consistent with the other stores I have been

19:44:52 to, and I have been to 17.

19:44:56 But anyways, sign or no sign, not the most troubling

19:44:58 thing I see on my street.

19:45:01 We have properties that have rotating short-term

19:45:02 tenants.

19:45:05 There are other area uses that Ybor has to deal with and

19:45:08 thank are well-documented and public sites

19:45:10 unfortunately, and those are the concerns that I wish I

19:45:14 would like to see more addressed, because sign tower is

19:45:19 isn't going to affect my stay in Ybor.

19:45:23 It will bring attention to these other air ewes and I

19:45:26 hope that you vote in favor -- of the other issues and I

19:45:28 hope that you vote in favor of the sign.

19:45:30 Thank you.

19:45:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

19:45:34 >> My name is Camille Renshaw.

19:45:41 I live at East 2nd Avenue with multiple other members.

19:45:43 If you deem it appropriate, I think they will come join

19:45:54 me.

19:46:19 I don't know exactly how this works.

19:46:21 >> On the screen the top left corner a rectangular

19:46:24 doughnut to give you an idea where we all live.

19:46:26 That is the box factory.

19:46:29 A historic structure that is over 100 years old.

19:46:32 We all moved in roughly four years ago, about the same

19:46:34 time Ikea did.

19:46:36 They are a dear neighbor to us. I shopped there this

19:46:36 weekend.

19:46:38 I daresay several of these folks did.

19:46:40 We are big supporters.

19:46:43 Much of our furniture is from there.

19:46:48 The -- the box factory that -- that centerpiece.

19:46:50 I don't know if I can pull it back up.

19:46:51 It kind of went away.

19:46:54 The center piece -- historically, that is not something

19:46:58 we built or our developer built, it was there

19:47:01 historically, part of the factory floor.

19:47:06 Cigar boxes were made there and wood was primarily dried

19:47:10 out on the courtyard, as Michael mentioned, Vice

19:47:13 President of the board for our association, we have a

19:47:17 beautiful courtyard there with pool, classical sort of

19:47:19 luxury-style courtyard.

19:47:21 It is blue skies and clouds right now.

19:47:25 And if we are laying out there with the Ikea sign, we

19:47:28 feel it dramatically injuries our property value, and

19:47:34 there are obviously windows -- we are diagonally

19:47:35 neighbors of this Adamo intersection.

19:47:38 All of the windows on that side I think -- if you want

19:47:41 to talk about palm trees blocking the view, they do.

19:47:43 We have done some lovely landscaping.

19:47:46 If we have a sign this is any higher at that point, it

19:47:48 changes what happens.

19:47:52 I actually work with col years International which was

19:47:55 the Commercial real estate brokerage group that brought

19:47:59 Ikea here and we are very proud that they are here and

19:48:00 we walked them through it.

19:48:03 We walked them through many of the variances that came

19:48:06 before you guys, and you guys have done a great job of

19:48:08 handling them as our neighbor.

19:48:10 This is excessive.

19:48:13 I think that we would prefer that they be handled like

19:48:18 an International mall, have that kind of milestone

19:48:20 signage rather than something that is 125 feet, the

19:48:24 examples that have been mentioned that are 125 feet are

19:48:27 good examples, but they tend be too Burger King that is

19:48:32 on I-4, not something that is directly beside 53

19:48:36 residential condominiums.

19:48:39 It is a totally different flare in terms of what the

19:48:46 impact is for us versus some of those -- those examples.

19:48:49 I don't know if anybody else here would like to speak,

19:48:52 but I think in the -- the way that I would ask this to

19:48:56 move forward, and I have spoken quite a bit with Ikea's

19:48:56 Council and group.

19:48:58 I am on the board with Hinka.

19:49:03 I do a great deal -- we asked that they continue to

19:49:05 address this with the FDOT.

19:49:08 The problem is the FDOT regulations don't allow for

19:49:13 Florida's single largest tenant to get appropriate road

19:49:14 signage.

19:49:16 That is the problem, the problem isn't that the sign is

19:49:17 too short.

19:49:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else in that group going to be

19:49:22 speaking?

19:49:24 >> Thank you, City Council, Steven Sherman.

19:49:28 I, too, reside at 2001 east 2nd avenue.

19:49:30 The other issue that I think we want to address is the

19:49:33 precedent setting that this decision will make.

19:49:37 We don't want other businesses that are going to be

19:49:42 residing in that area to have that same ability to erect

19:49:45 signs of that same height and nature.

19:49:49 I live -- if we can look at the aerial once again --

19:49:50 directly at that corner.

19:49:52 And it doesn't matter as Michael and Camille have both

19:49:56 mentioned, morning, noon and night, I can see the sign.

19:50:01 I also think that in the era of technology of which we

19:50:05 live, the knowledge and understanding of where an Ikea

19:50:08 is located within a major metropolitan area such as

19:50:11 Tampa is fairly easy to find.

19:50:14 I would -- I would venture to say that the majority of

19:50:16 the folks in this room have smartphone of some sort or

19:50:20 have some -- some sort of navigational means to know

19:50:23 where this store is.

19:50:27 So, again, I would want to go with the members here from

19:50:31 our community and urge to you vote against the variance

19:50:35 to allow Ikea to erect that sign.

19:50:41 Thank you.

19:50:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

19:50:44 Thank you.

19:50:48 Next speaker.

19:50:55 >> Hi, my name is Jose Garboza, 5th Avenue in Ybor City.

19:50:59 I am here to represent the historic Ybor neighborhood

19:51:03 civic association and all the residents in Ybor City.

19:51:08 We oppose the proposed 125-foot-high sign request for

19:51:12 the following reasons: Ikea and the proposed sign are

19:51:17 locate adjacent to Ybor City district, National historic

19:51:19 landmark district, one of only six in the state and one

19:51:23 of only two livable districts in Florida.

19:51:25 St. Augustine being the other.

19:51:28 Ikea and the proposed sign located Adamo Drive in a

19:51:31 mixed use corridor village established by the city's

19:51:36 comprehensive plan adopted in February of 2009.

19:51:39 The city's policies 16.1.1 is to promote redevelopment

19:51:42 in the Adamo Drive corridor that is geared toward

19:51:47 creating a vibrant mixed use and pedestrian-friendly

19:51:47 environment.

19:51:51 Ikea's request to increase the pole sign height to 125

19:51:54 feet tall and the sign area to double in the current

19:51:55 size will not be compatible with creating a

19:52:00 petitioned-friendly environment -- a pedestrian friendly

19:52:03 environment and compatible with the adjacent district.

19:52:08 The current city code limits on-site free-standing signs

19:52:10 to 20 feet in height, the original rezoning position

19:52:15 before Ikea granted a significant increase and on-site

19:52:19 signage above and beyond what was allowed at the time.

19:52:22 Approval of Ikea's request would be precedent setting in

19:52:26 the City of Tampa and negatively effect the urban

19:52:28 character of the surrounding area.

19:52:32 The Adamo corridor has several vacant sites to be

19:52:34 redeveloped in the future.

19:52:36 This could lead to a dangerous trend along the roadway.

19:52:41 The economy is bad for all retailers, not just Ikea.

19:52:44 All retailers half a mile from the interstate be allowed

19:52:47 to construct a sign visible from the interstate?

19:52:51 Thank you.

19:52:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:52:53 >> Good evening, Council.

19:52:56 I saw y'all this morning and here to represent a

19:52:58 business own they are morning that we did support, and

19:53:01 we are here tonight to oppose the request.

19:53:05 I didn't realize until I read the paper how tall they

19:53:09 are requested that sign to be, and Ikea dreams of a 12

19:53:10 story --

19:53:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: State your name.

19:53:23 >> The association has been part of the Ikea from the

19:53:24 very beginning.

19:53:28 We attended all the meetings at Wilson Miller and

19:53:30 totally supported them personally and as an association.

19:53:34 What bothers us is we tried to work with Ikea from the

19:53:38 beginning and Linda Saul-Sena was sitting in that seat

19:53:41 when we asked Ikea to have more visible put your

19:53:44 building at Adamo and 22nd and put the sea of cars in

19:53:45 the back.

19:53:47 And they said they couldn't do that.

19:53:50 They went with the 35-foot sign which now they are

19:53:52 grandfathered in.

19:53:55 You change the statue if they wanted one today, it would

19:53:56 be down to 20 feet.

19:53:58 I don't think they have given you any hardship other

19:54:01 than what the business owners are suffering and that is

19:54:02 the economy.

19:54:05 A sign -- we requested to them that they buy Billboards

19:54:10 and other signs to get the traffic off the interstate.

19:54:13 The precedent set something what I feel like you all

19:54:15 should -- setting is what I feel you all should be

19:54:16 considering tonight.

19:54:19 A text amendment for the redevelopment of the Adamo

19:54:21 corridor and incompatible with our national historic

19:54:25 landmark district and the fact that you would set a

19:54:27 precedent and they even named another furniture store

19:54:30 which means if they get 125 feet, the other one would

19:54:32 want a little higher and the same problems we are having

19:54:34 in Ybor City with the music.

19:54:36 One bar turns up the music.

19:54:37 The next one wants it louder.

19:54:41 So I always come to you in total honesty, but it has

19:54:43 always been about the precedent and incompatible with

19:54:45 our National historic district.

19:54:48 I don't think they have showed you any other hardship

19:54:51 other than the economy we are all suffering too, and I

19:54:54 request that you deny their request.

19:54:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:54:56 Next speaker.

19:55:04 >> 1001 East 24th Avenue and President of the Ybor

19:55:05 Neighborhood Association.

19:55:07 I am here on of the board.

19:55:12 We do not directly border Ikea or Adamo Drive; however,

19:55:15 much of our neighborhood is located within the National

19:55:20 historic landmark district which does border Ikea and

19:55:20 Adamo Drive.

19:55:23 Adamo Drive as you heard tonight has the potential to be

19:55:25 a significant mixed use corridor benefiting and

19:55:29 supporting the greater Ybor, Palmetto Beach and downtown

19:55:30 core areas.

19:55:33 The comprehensive plan established guidelines for the

19:55:36 redevelopment of Adamo Drive as a mixed use corridor to

19:55:40 promote vibrant -- vibrant and pedestrian-friendly

19:55:41 environments.

19:55:43 Those goals have been set and adopted.

19:55:46 A vision was established by resident and business owners

19:55:47 in the city.

19:55:52 125-foot sign is not compatible with this future

19:55:56 125-foot -- 125-foot signs are not compatible with that.

19:55:58 Many concessions have already been made for this

19:56:01 particular property.

19:56:09 And I am concerned that 125-foot sign would further

19:56:13 cause -- just not a great condition on Adamo in is not

19:56:15 about Ikea.

19:56:15 We like Ikea.

19:56:18 We shop at Ikea.

19:56:22 We eat at Ikea in is about respecting the community's

19:56:22 vision for the future.

19:56:26 A precedent it sets for a corridor and so many

19:56:27 underutilized parcels on Adamo.

19:56:30 Tis is an incredibly important vote this evening.

19:56:36 The signage proposed is a short-term way finding

19:56:40 solution for a new retail we are immediate issues.

19:56:45 Unfortunately, 125-foot sign has a significant long-term

19:56:48 effect on the very unique Adamo Drive corridor and

19:56:51 National historic landmark district and most importantly

19:56:56 the City of Tampa, how many 12-story sign also we

19:56:59 eventually have along Adamo Drive.

19:57:02 In behalf the historic Ybor community, we respectfully

19:57:08 ask that you oppose the signage variance and visions of

19:57:10 the city's comprehensive plan for this corridor.

19:57:12 Thank you for your consideration.

19:57:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:57:14 Next speaker.

19:57:19 >> My name is Sean Conlon, 1213 East Columbus drive.

19:57:20 I have been sworn in.

19:57:23 I am the Vice President of the VM Ybor Association.

19:57:26 A lot of things I was going to cover have already been

19:57:28 covered, but some of the things that I did want to touch

19:57:32 up on is not only is it setting a precedent for the

19:57:35 Adamo Drive corridor, but you are also looking at other

19:57:38 historic districts.

19:57:41 Crosstown through Hyde Park and what if those stores

19:57:46 want their 125-foot sign put up so they can be visible.

19:57:48 One of the other things they had mentioned is the

19:57:52 90-foot-tall road for the trucks going through.

19:57:54 I don't believe that is their target market.

19:57:57 Truck drivers, they don't need to see that sign.

19:58:01 It is not like it is going to be traffic highway that

19:58:04 people would -- would be driving through.

19:58:09 In 2007, Ikea was not the only company looking at

19:58:12 purchasing that site, and it is something that if they

19:58:15 wanted the 125-foot sign, they should have done then,

19:58:21 not try to use the guilt trip now that they want to get

19:58:24 the sign because of hurting business or anything like

19:58:25 that.

19:58:29 And if they do it with the other stores where they have

19:58:33 all 100-foot signs, then why didn't they originally do

19:58:36 it with this store, and if they weren't going to get it,

19:58:39 and decide to build or not to build based on what has

19:58:43 been done because a lot has already been done to -- to

19:58:46 make up for, you know, some of the stuff they have with

19:58:49 the 400% increase and all of that.

19:58:54 So I just wanted to state, you know, that I do oppose

19:58:58 this, and I hope that you guys consider all of that.

19:58:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

19:59:02 Next speaker.

19:59:05 >> Hi, I am Kelly Bailey.

19:59:07 I was sworn in.

19:59:11 Reside at 2701 north 9th street in the historic Ybor

19:59:15 landmark district in VM Ybor.

19:59:21 I am secretary of the neighborhood association and I am

19:59:23 coming here to speak on my own behalf.

19:59:25 I am voicing my opposition to the sign.

19:59:26 I believe it is out of character of the area.

19:59:28 We all live in this area.

19:59:32 Ikea built the store knowing they were adjoining a

19:59:34 National historic area and I think they need to respect

19:59:38 what the residents here want.

19:59:40 None of the people speaking on behalf other than one on

19:59:43 behalf of Ikea live in the immediate area and I am sure

19:59:46 they would not appreciate a sign like this polluting

19:59:51 their visual space.

19:59:54 I am also afraid it will --would set a poor precedent

19:59:58 for future signs in the area and, I also agree with the

20:00:01 first gentleman's comments that the sign being so far

20:00:04 off the their someone will be needing to look away from

20:00:07 traffic to view the sign in the first place which could

20:00:11 possibly cause dangerous accidents in that -- in that

20:00:11 junction.

20:00:13 I am asking you to oppose the plan.

20:00:14 Thank you.

20:00:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:00:19 Next speaker.

20:00:20 >> Good evening.

20:00:25 My name is James Singleton, 3510 East 8th avenue and

20:00:27 also a member of the board of the East Ybor City

20:00:31 Historic and Civic Association.

20:00:33 A lot of what I was going to say has already been

20:00:38 covered, but just to touch on a few things it shall I

20:00:40 was kind of troubled because of all that is going on

20:00:44 tonight because Ikea came to -- and I am assuming that

20:00:46 they went to all the various homeowner associations

20:00:49 trying to get our ideas, our feedback, because, like,

20:00:52 they really cared about what we felt which was great.

20:00:55 And one of the things they brought up were the D.O.T.

20:00:59 signs which we all were in favor of, even renaming part

20:01:04 of the street Ikea Boulevard, but to my knowledge, I

20:01:07 think that every one of the historic and civic

20:01:12 associations shot them down cold on this sign, and I am

20:01:16 really troubled that they still -- it is like they

20:01:20 didn't care about our support.

20:01:22 Shift my passion.

20:01:27 To it in a nutshell, that sign anywhere in the historic

20:01:33 district of Ybor City will be a scab, an ugly scab to

20:01:34 the area.

20:01:37 No disrespect to Ikea, I am glad they moved to the area.

20:01:38 But enough is enough.

20:01:41 If they move into an area where there is a local

20:01:45 historic district, they need to be very sensitive to our

20:01:52 desires and our wishes to keep it a certain character

20:01:54 and last speaker brought up something that I will bring

20:01:56 up as well and I will go ahead and say it again.

20:02:00 On their presentation that they did for our association,

20:02:04 they showed the various signs as far as what it would

20:02:07 look like from the interstate and so forth, and from the

20:02:12 interstate, I mean, it is not easily seen from the

20:02:15 interstate which means you really got to be looking at

20:02:17 that time when you are driving at 50, 60 miles per

20:02:20 hour, that is not a smart thing to do.

20:02:23 But I think that the sign should be kept to a certain

20:02:27 size as they have been, and we don't need to set a

20:02:29 precedent by raising the bar, because then all the other

20:02:32 companies are going to want to do the same thing.

20:02:34 Thank you very much.

20:02:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

20:02:40 >> Good evening, Council, Jennifer Willman.

20:02:41 2426 Stewart Street.

20:02:44 I am the President of the Palmetto Beach Community

20:02:44 Association.

20:02:47 The Ikea site is located within the neighborhood

20:02:50 boundaries of Palmetto Beach.

20:02:53 We had a general member meeting on Tuesday night.

20:02:55 There was -- all the members and the Board of Directors

20:02:58 stated unanimously that they are in opposition to the

20:03:00 petitioner's request tonight.

20:03:05 I understand if you want to help Ikea, we want to help

20:03:08 all of our retailers do better.

20:03:11 Right now especially in these tough economic times,

20:03:14 everyone wants to improve their business, but the truth

20:03:19 is, you have already helped Ikea when the site plan was

20:03:20 approved in 2007.

20:03:24 You granted nine waivers of the city code, five waivers

20:03:29 for increased signage that included a three-sided pole

20:03:35 sign, which is not usually allowed by the city code

20:03:36 standards.

20:03:43 Three-sided, the current sign is 9 x 33 feet at 35 feet

20:03:46 in height, the increase would take it 11 feet by 51

20:03:50 feet, the sign, at 125 feet in height.

20:03:52 That is twice the area it is now.

20:03:55 The current sign code, as was stated by staff is 20 feet

20:03:56 in height.

20:04:00 That is the law, and we -- you know, we look to you to

20:04:05 uphold this law as citizens of this community who want

20:04:07 to, you know, like what our city looks like.

20:04:09 We need to you uphold this law, please.

20:04:13 Any additional height or size of the sign would greatly

20:04:16 impact the quality of our community and create visual

20:04:17 pollution.

20:04:22 Approval of this request would set a precedent.

20:04:23 There is -- you know, there would be nothing stopping

20:04:28 any Wal-Mart, Target, Publix, any store from asking for

20:04:31 the same thing that Ikea is asking for tonight if you

20:04:33 approve this request.

20:04:36 I would like to show you a map of this area.

20:04:38 If I can have the Elmo please.

20:04:38 Okay.

20:04:40 So the red is the city limits.

20:04:44 Ikea located 26 miles away from interstate 4 as they

20:04:47 stated in their application, the yellow and blue area --

20:04:50 the yellow area outlined by blue is the .6 mile buffer

20:04:53 around all the interstates in the City of Tampa and the

20:04:57 red indicates the city limits.

20:05:00 If you approve this tonight, potentially you are looking

20:05:06 at every -- every Commercial business, every -- in this

20:05:09 yellow area coming to you asking for the same thing.

20:05:14 Is that okay with you?

20:05:18 You are not just saying yes to Ikea.

20:05:21 You are saying yes to all the other stores, the letters

20:05:25 of support from Columbia and Furniture Row, these are

20:05:26 the business owners.

20:05:30 You heard testimony tonight.

20:05:32 There are other -- there are other businesses watching

20:05:33 tonight, okay.

20:05:35 They are watching to see what you decide, and just

20:05:39 waiting for the floodgates to open to allow this --

20:05:43 these kind of signs in our city.

20:05:45 There was talk about the McDonald's and the Burger King

20:05:47 sign against the interstate.

20:05:50 Just because we have the signs doesn't mean we want more

20:05:52 of them.

20:05:58 Ikea as the previous testimony stated that Ikea has

20:06:01 other visualization picture.

20:06:04 I don't know if they are in the packet that they gave

20:06:07 you tonight, but they though very different views of

20:06:10 what the sign going to look like along the roadway.

20:06:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, thank you.

20:06:12 >> Please vote no.

20:06:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

20:06:21 With.

20:06:25 >> Good evening, my name is Diane --

20:06:28 I have been sworn in, I do not live in Ybor but I work

20:06:31 at Ybor 1310 North 22nd Street.

20:06:37 We are in cigar building built in 1895.

20:06:46 I have a picture I would like to show you.

20:06:48 This is from our parking lot on the south side of the

20:06:53 building, and even though Ikea is not in the Ybor City

20:06:56 district, they are right next to us, where we can

20:06:58 definitely see the sign.

20:07:01 We have been working on improving the building.

20:07:05 This is what our building is like.

20:07:09 Let me show you another one.

20:07:12 This is what our building looks like.

20:07:15 This is a picture of what it looks like now.

20:07:18 We have replaced the windows.

20:07:20 Redone the roof.

20:07:24 We are working on improving the front, and we are now

20:07:27 also talking about building out offices on our top

20:07:33 floor, and if we go up, as you can see, you can still

20:07:34 see Ikea.

20:07:38 We have invested a lot of money in it, and those signs

20:07:40 that they are talking about, if we understand it

20:07:43 correctly, is going to be clearly visibility to us.

20:07:44 It already is.

20:07:48 And the sign is going to be as large as the front of our

20:07:50 building.

20:07:54 And we are spending considerable efforts to restore the

20:07:58 building, bring it back to what it was used to be, and

20:08:03 Ikea sign would tower over our building and definitely

20:08:08 be affecting the historic Ybor district.

20:08:11 For that reason, we ask that you deny their request.

20:08:19 Thank you.

20:08:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

20:08:27 Next speaker.

20:08:30 >> Chair of the YDC.

20:08:33 This has been on the agenda for a number of months.

20:08:35 We have been discussing it.

20:08:41 And we sent you -- sent you a letter on November it.

20:08:43 I am going to briefly go through the letter.

20:08:45 The people tonight have done a great job of explaining

20:08:47 the position.

20:08:51 On October 26, 2010, the Board of Directors met, and

20:08:57 after long dissertation and -- and consideration voted

20:09:02 not to support the Ikea's request in the site plan to

20:09:07 allow for increasing sign height to 125 feet.

20:09:12 They are against the increased size of the sign, 1800

20:09:13 feet.

20:09:15 We feel that it is incompatible with the City of Tampa

20:09:21 signage, but most importantly it is immediately adjacent

20:09:24 to the place we love which is Ybor City and we think

20:09:29 that sign is incompatible with Ybor City.

20:09:33 And saying all of that, we will work with Ikea and we

20:09:36 think they are a great benefit to the Ybor City area, a

20:09:39 great benefit to the City of Tampa, so we would like to

20:09:43 do whatever we can to help them, but we would like to

20:09:47 you please to consider to reject this proposal to build

20:09:53 this sign.

20:09:54 Nothing more.

20:09:54 Thank you.

20:10:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

20:10:02 >> My name is Evan Johnson.

20:10:08 I live at 935 east is 1th avenue in historic Ybor City.

20:10:13 And I am -- most everything has been said already.

20:10:16 But I -- just three things that came to my head to think

20:10:18 about tonight.

20:10:20 It is, first, the economy.

20:10:23 You know, the store has been here for a short period of

20:10:26 time, and I don't know what the projections that Ikea

20:10:30 has for the performance of this particular store are,

20:10:33 but if they are not meeting them it may be because of

20:10:36 the worst economy in 50 years plus, and we need to keep

20:10:40 that in mind as many all things turn around, so will

20:10:42 their store's performance.

20:10:44 And so my question is, how can we make assumptions about

20:10:49 future performance based -- excuse me on these two very

20:10:51 terrible years in the economy.

20:10:55 The second -- you know, and I also wanted to say, it is

20:10:57 other reasons.

20:11:00 It is the fact that people like me are passing on

20:11:03 purchases, and it is the fact that our building industry

20:11:07 as you all know sitting, watching over zonings has

20:11:10 slowed greatly, and people don't need new furniture for

20:11:12 new houses.

20:11:16 Second is really to think about the neighborhood.

20:11:20 These neighborhoods here really are the historic urban

20:11:20 core of Tampa.

20:11:25 I live in a historic Ybor neighborhood but adjacent to

20:11:30 EME Ybor, the president of these organizations, these

20:11:32 associations have plenty of other issues that they

20:11:36 continue to deal with on a daily basis as they fight and

20:11:38 work for these neighborhoods to redevelopment, code

20:11:42 enforcement issues, crime issues, keeping retail stores

20:11:45 in Ybor City issues, and yet they are all here and have

20:11:49 all been conversing Ikea for the last several months and

20:11:52 all are here in unified opposition.

20:11:54 That is something to think about.

20:11:56 Third point is to think about the future.

20:11:59 The comp plan has recognized that Adamo corridor needs

20:12:00 help.

20:12:04 Ikea has helped greatly and we are glad they are there.

20:12:07 And the City of Tampa has recognized that it needs help,

20:12:10 and there will be a planning process for this mixed use

20:12:12 urban village corridor, sorry.

20:12:15 Mixed use corridor village, and it is coming, and to go

20:12:18 ahead and approve something like this sign with such

20:12:22 unified opposition I believe is problematic given that

20:12:25 the planning process will occur for this corridor and

20:12:27 these people in this room and neighborhood associations

20:12:29 will be involved in that planning process.

20:12:31 So what are we saying to them.

20:12:34 So with that, I would ask that you please vote against

20:12:36 this petition.

20:12:41 Thank you.

20:12:43 >> Good evening, Council.

20:12:45 Kevin camp.

20:12:50 211 -- I actually have not been sworn in.

20:12:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else who has not been sworn who

20:12:54 will be speaking tonight.

20:12:56 Please stand and be sworn.

20:12:59 [swearing in of witnesses]

20:13:00 >> I do apologize for that.

20:13:01 I didn't intend to speak.

20:13:05 I didn't come here with too many preconsidered notions

20:13:09 about this issue; however, after listening to both

20:13:13 sides, you know, I really didn't know if it was my place

20:13:13 to speak.

20:13:17 I do live outside the historic Ybor area.

20:13:20 So -- but after actually listening to both sides, I

20:13:23 really could only come up with three adjectives which

20:13:26 describe to me what has been presented before you and

20:13:34 that is really a bit of insensitivity, arrogance, and --

20:13:36 and -- insensitive.

20:13:39 Seems to be arrogant and just completely outside the

20:13:42 scale of what is intended for that area.

20:13:44 Also seems like they have doubled back and come to you

20:13:47 later after already hearing from the Council that this

20:13:50 wasn't going to be approved.

20:13:53 Why would you come back afterwards and think anything

20:13:54 would be different later.

20:13:56 Thank you for your time.

20:13:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

20:13:58 Anyone else?

20:14:06 Okay, petitioner you have five minutes on rebuttal.

20:14:18 Are there any questions by Council at this point?

20:14:21 >> Thank you, Vincent Marchetti for the record on

20:14:23 rebuttal.

20:14:27 The first part Ikea is not in the historic district.

20:14:29 Staff has acknowledged that.

20:14:31 Planning Commission has acknowledged that.

20:14:34 We tried to work with over organization known to mankind

20:14:36 within the historic district and a lot of them.

20:14:38 We have gone top great length the last ten months to try

20:14:41 to do that.

20:14:46 Camille spoke, and by the way she has been very good of

20:14:48 coming to meetings and listening to her and et cetera,

20:14:50 but spoke about the box factory residence.

20:14:53 I handed out to you a couple of documents here.

20:14:57 The first document is a site plan located at 2 1st and

20:14:58 Adamo.

20:15:03 The second page is the traffic volumes on Adamo Drive.

20:15:05 Adamo and 21st, 22nd.

20:15:10 30,000 cars per day travelling on the roadway adjacent

20:15:12 to the box factory.

20:15:14 The fact of the matter is, the people of the box factory

20:15:18 decide to live within an industrial area, okay.

20:15:23 The -- the pages that include photos, these are photos

20:15:29 that were taken about two weeks ago, and they show, what

20:15:32 you might expect, a lot of truck traffic on Adamo and a

20:15:35 lot of truck traffic on 21st, and you can see quite

20:15:40 visibly there that, you know, the box factory are

20:15:44 located surrounding an area that is industrial.

20:15:47 And I think that is important to note that, you know,

20:15:50 industrial classification and the zoning out there was

20:15:51 on the property first.

20:15:53 They chose to live in the area.

20:15:55 Ikea has come along in the redevelopment of Adamo Drive

20:16:02 and trying to do a good job at.

20:16:05 Fran -- talked about the building in the front versus

20:16:08 the back and the east, west et cetera.

20:16:09 Whether you put the building in the front, you still

20:16:13 have the picture that Mike showed which is zero

20:16:16 visibility from 21st to Adamo Drive.

20:16:19 Whether you put it in the front, the back or whatever.

20:16:26 There is no visibility.

20:16:31 Mr. -- well, again I spoke at various associations.

20:16:34 Mr. Singleton seemed to imply that the associations were

20:16:39 consistent with trying to help us out with D.O.T. We

20:16:43 took -- and also that was -- we took many months -- we

20:16:46 actually delayed this hearing for three months trying to

20:16:46 work with the associations.

20:16:49 We could not get one letter from any association group

20:16:51 to D.O.T. to support our cause.

20:16:55 Not one person wrote a letter -- I am sorry.

20:17:00 Fran wrote one letter, but no association, YDC included

20:17:03 stepped to the plate and help us with the FDOT with the

20:17:06 off-site signage issues we had and tried to do instead

20:17:09 of a sign on-site.

20:17:13 Jen Willman talked about Palmetto.

20:17:17 She talked about the -- the precedent this will be

20:17:21 setting for Palmetto, if you recall, on the overhead

20:17:25 here, is separated from the Crosstown Adamo Drive.

20:17:27 Ikea separates the two.

20:17:32 The Crosstown 90-foot-high ramp.

20:17:36 This is Palmetto here and south.

20:17:38 So when she is talking about how imposing the sign is

20:17:41 going to be on her community, it is already the

20:17:42 Crosstown

20:17:49 The Crosstown a structure 90 feet in height.

20:17:54 Let me have the graphic up -- again, Michael mayer.

20:17:55 I have been sworn in.

20:18:00 A lot of discussion of the precedent building and other

20:18:01 businesses lining up.

20:18:03 There is no other precedent like Ikea.

20:18:05 We are not a Publix.

20:18:07 Not a neighborhood shopping center.

20:18:08 One store in Tampa.

20:18:10 That's it.

20:18:12 Not a Wal-Mart at every shopping center.

20:18:12 This is it.

20:18:16 And the Ikeas are designed to serve the entire 3 million

20:18:18 people in this region and to have some visibility and

20:18:25 establish the 22nd Adamo with an identity and Ikea alone

20:18:28 is justified and we believe that the 2007 approval of

20:18:31 the Ikea PD, this is just a continuation of that.

20:18:34 We were here at this time, I don't think we would be

20:18:36 having an issue that we are having today, the

20:18:40 redevelopment on that 30 acres in 2007, the

20:18:44 asbestos-laden buildings vacant and energy it brought to

20:18:47 the Ikea today at that location warrants your special

20:18:50 consideration and the continual vision of the 2007

20:19:04 action that was taken.

20:19:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is that it.

20:19:07 Councilmember Miranda.

20:19:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

20:19:11 I want to revisit history for one minute.

20:19:13 Growing up in Ybor City was a wonderful thing and so

20:19:17 proud to see so many young people -- or younger than I

20:19:19 anyway -- living and moving back to where I was reared

20:19:20 at.

20:19:25 When you look at the Ikea site, that was the American

20:19:27 can company site for many, many years that employed

20:19:29 many, many people.

20:19:32 Just down the street about 26th avenue from 22nd through

20:19:32 the left.

20:19:36 So I was -- or 32nd was can company.

20:19:39 The factory that you saw from the first floor that the

20:19:42 young lady spoke about possibly moving the office to the

20:19:52 top floor was the arturo Fuentes cigar factory which.

20:19:54 The Box Factory, lofts were the Box Factory.

20:19:59 When I was a kid I used to go get the wood to make my

20:19:59 kites.

20:20:02 The city made an enormous investment in Ybor City.

20:20:04 It rolled the dice.

20:20:08 You see for a long, long time none of you were there.

20:20:10 Not Ikea and not the residents.

20:20:14 All we had was tumbleweed and crime.

20:20:17 And we took a vote years ago to make a great investment.

20:20:20 Some said we failed, and some say we succeeded.

20:20:24 But the evidence is, there is room today tells me that

20:20:28 we have succeeded when you look at the ad valorem tax

20:20:31 collection back before '95 to where it is today, I bet

20:20:33 my life in it that we succeeded.

20:20:36 Ybor City is coming back and coming back in a different

20:20:42 tone for residential like it used to be.

20:20:45 I visited Ybor City for the last two Fridays prior to

20:20:48 two weeks ago.

20:20:51 And what I saw was not the same character that I saw it

20:20:53 two or three years ago.

20:20:55 Much more settled.

20:20:58 Much more in beat with life.

20:21:01 Much more people entertained, smoking a cigar, having a

20:21:03 glass of wine, having dinner.

20:21:08 That was the intent when it was originally investment

20:21:13 made in central Ybor.

20:21:16 What I see is that two forces came back in to make the

20:21:18 area what it is, whether it is in the historical

20:21:23 district or in Palmetto Beach district or the Gaza strip

20:21:26 because evidently it is gone somewhere, but it is there.

20:21:29 It's incumbent upon me to say thank you both on both

20:21:30 sides.

20:21:34 I certainly helped to bring Ikea here when it came to

20:21:35 this body.

20:21:39 And to determine that it was best for jobs.

20:21:41 You see when elected officials say I am going to create

20:21:42 jobs, they are lying.

20:21:45 I can't create one job.

20:21:48 I can help people like Ikea create the jobs, but I can't

20:21:53 create them.

20:21:56 I can help develop things so you folks have a good place

20:21:59 to live, but I can't build them.

20:22:05 It is not my role.

20:22:10 My role is to facilitate both sides as much as possible.

20:22:13 When this is happening, I am happy to see movement in

20:22:16 the residential area and also in the Commercial area.

20:22:19 When I see something coming up, and believe me, what I

20:22:21 asked -- and I don't think it would have been bold

20:22:23 enough to bring it to me about this site.

20:22:27 We did speak about the other site on the -- on the

20:22:28 expressway signs.

20:22:31 And that was the text of the conversation.

20:22:34 But now when you look at that, what 125 feet?

20:22:37 How many of you have watched a baseball game.

20:22:38 A lot of you have.

20:22:42 A baseball game from home plate to second base is 120

20:22:44 feet.

20:22:47 And if you are on first base, it takes you 3.2 seconds

20:22:50 to get you there or they are going to throw you out.

20:22:57 So it's that length plus 5 feet.

20:23:00 Is that -- that's what we are talking about.

20:23:03 That is exactly the distance of the sign from home plate

20:23:07 to 5 feet past second plate.

20:23:10 On top of that as I understand this, you are look at

20:23:15 something that square footage wise will be 1800 square

20:23:16 feet.

20:23:18 Well, I live in a nice neighborhood I think.

20:23:24 My house is not 1800 square feet.

20:23:28 That's the only -- that I have.

20:23:31 I facilitated and help facilitate to bring what we have

20:23:33 there today.

20:23:36 Let me ask about advertising.

20:23:38 Myself this debate was going on.

20:23:43 How many of you have driven up 75 all the way north,

20:23:44 rock city --

20:23:44 [Inaudible]

20:23:51 -- that rock city just came to me, an avalanche.

20:23:55 But rock city, you see a sign, rock city, 66 miles.

20:23:57 You don't pay much attention to the first sign.

20:23:57 You keep driving.

20:23:59 Rock city, 32 miles.

20:24:01 Rock city, 18 miles.

20:24:03 Rock city, 12 miles.

20:24:06 I say, oh, well, I got to go to rock city.

20:24:07 There is nothing in rock city.

20:24:09 Have you been there?

20:24:09 [Laughter]

20:24:10 I have.

20:24:13 It was a mistake.

20:24:15 There is nothing there.

20:24:15 [Laughter]

20:24:19 But what I am saying is why can't Ikea do the same

20:24:19 thing.

20:24:23 It would bring an enormous amount of traffic to you.

20:24:27 I don't know what those signs cost but rock city got

20:24:27 nothing to you.

20:24:31 I like your color, yellow and blue, Jefferson dragons,

20:24:34 but it's -- it's -- it is just the wrong place at the

20:24:37 wrong time.

20:24:39 It's -- it is a wonderful store.

20:24:40 I visit it.

20:24:45 In fact I take my aide to lunch there once in a while

20:24:47 because it is inexpensive.

20:24:48 Some will say I am cheap.

20:24:50 I can say it was inexpensive.

20:24:54 I have purchased items at Ikea and it is a wonderful

20:24:55 place and a great atmosphere.

20:24:57 And if you don't know how to follow signs inside the

20:25:04 store, you never get out.

20:25:04 [Laughter]

20:25:08 I spent a weekend there one day.

20:25:08 [Laughter]

20:25:12 It is nice, but you got to follow the signs.

20:25:14 If you can't read, you ain't leaving.

20:25:17 So what I am saying is, there is a solution to this

20:25:17 thing I think.

20:25:20 And it is the rock city solution.

20:25:24 You have something to offer that very few places have.

20:25:26 You are unique.

20:25:26 You are different.

20:25:28 You are charming.

20:25:30 You are reasonable.

20:25:32 Your product is good.

20:25:35 I don't see why you can't succeed in doing something

20:25:36 like rock city did.

20:25:37 I have been there.

20:25:39 A disappointing place to go.

20:25:42 So that is my comment, and I am going to hold

20:25:46 reservation until the rest of the Councilmembers speak.

20:25:47 Thank you.

20:25:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilmember Mulhern.

20:25:52 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah, speaking of baseball, I think we

20:25:56 need a 7th inning stretch after this because all of us

20:25:58 here can hardly move.

20:26:02 I just want -- I want to say one thing about -- since

20:26:03 everyone is here.

20:26:04 Everyone loves Ybor.

20:26:10 It is wonderful what -- you know what Ikea has brought

20:26:11 there.

20:26:15 And it is really wonderful that people are moving in and

20:26:18 restoring the historic fabric of the neighborhood across

20:26:23 Adamo Drive, but when everyone is talking about the

20:26:28 identity, Ikea is your Corporate identity, but the

20:26:32 identity that we need to keep in mind is the identity of

20:26:37 the City of Tampa, and in this case the identity of Ybor

20:26:38 City.

20:26:41 Ybor City has a lot of things, and that neighborhood has

20:26:49 a great identity that Councilman Miranda who grew up

20:26:52 there can really evoke and remind us of, and all these

20:26:55 great young people who are moving back there and the

20:27:04 people who stayed there really have created, and Ikea is

20:27:07 lucky to be there and should be taking advantage of the

20:27:10 identity of what a great city this is, what a beautiful

20:27:11 city this is.

20:27:14 And what a wonderful neighborhood they got to be in.

20:27:19 And I also want to point out that being in a brownfield

20:27:22 site has a lot of tax advantages.

20:27:25 And it wasn't just a gift for them to go there, they got

20:27:29 -- they had a lot of benefits out of that too.

20:27:32 I think if you need to hire someone to do your

20:27:35 advertising, maybe Abbye can freelance for you.

20:27:41 She did some really great photoshops and she could be --

20:27:43 and actually honestly, there are a lot of people in the

20:27:47 creative industries and advertising that need work, so

20:27:52 maybe Ikea can hire some of these local advertising

20:27:55 people to work on something more creative.

20:28:00 We had someone here talking about the social media and

20:28:02 smartphones and how to get there.

20:28:03 Don't text while you are driving.

20:28:07 But before you leave your house, that's what old people

20:28:11 like me do, we go on google maps and figure out where we

20:28:11 are going.

20:28:15 So I just don't feel like we really -- we heard really

20:28:21 strong case for not allowing this extreme variance in

20:28:25 height and incredible size of this signage, but I didn't

20:28:29 -- I don't feel like there was really a case built for

20:28:34 this other than what one person said and what my husband

20:28:38 told me should be my campaign slogan.

20:28:40 It's the stupid economy.

20:28:42 And it really is.

20:28:43 Everyone is suffering right now.

20:28:49 And I think it isn't a basis for us to without any kind

20:28:52 of, you know, data this is actually going to improve the

20:29:00 business of this one store, allow this -- this extreme

20:29:06 -- extreme variance in height.

20:29:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, there is not a motion on the

20:29:10 floor.

20:29:19 I am wait for a motion.

20:29:20 Anyone else?

20:29:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

20:29:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second to close public hearing.

20:29:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

20:29:30 All those in favor signify by saying eye.

20:29:34 Councilman Miranda.

20:29:36 >> Based on the facts we heard today.

20:29:41 Not the Ikea brand or the Ikea store, but what Ikea is

20:29:45 asking for that does not me the, in my opinion, the

20:29:45 right thing to do.

20:29:48 So I am going to move for denial of this petition based

20:29:53 on facts of what we have heard of a sign being 125 feet

20:29:58 in the air with approximately 1800-square-foot of

20:30:02 something up there on sides -- component of size that

20:30:06 equals the 1800-square-foot sign and I move for denial.

20:30:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yeah, let me -- is there a second to

20:30:14 that?.

20:30:14 >> Second.

20:30:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think we need to add to the motion

20:30:18 based on the report from both the Planning Commission

20:30:23 and the staff, inconsistent, incompatibility.

20:30:28 I mean I want to say, however, I do appreciate -- we all

20:30:31 due appreciate Ikea being here.

20:30:34 They have been very good neighbor, very good partner.

20:30:39 They have provided 400 jobs.

20:30:42 All of that is very important, very essential, but at

20:30:51 the same time, I think the sign needed to be up on I-4,

20:30:54 the Burger King, the McDonald's or whatever in this

20:30:58 location is not compatible and does not meet our code

20:30:58 requirements.

20:31:01 And so with that being said, there is a motion on the

20:31:02 floor to deny --

20:31:04 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman.

20:31:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

20:31:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Most likely this motion will fail.

20:31:12 And looking at page 26, Ikea has been up, what, for

20:31:14 three and a half years?

20:31:16 How long have you been up in operation.

20:31:18 >> I am sorry the hearing is closed.

20:31:21 Would you like to reopen the hearing -- it was not

20:31:22 closed?

20:31:23 It was not a vote to close.

20:31:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, to close it.

20:31:26 Close it.

20:31:27 To close it.

20:31:29 >> Do you wish to have the hearing --

20:31:31 >> I don't have to ask him.

20:31:32 Talk to the Council.

20:31:35 Everybody got this -- this building on the corner has

20:31:37 been like that for three and a half years that I know,

20:31:42 and if we are going to deny someone like this, why

20:31:44 doesn't somebody get after these people to fix that

20:31:44 building.

20:31:47 It looks horrible.

20:31:51 It is ugly.

20:31:53 >> I agree with you --

20:31:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That is not the only spot.

20:31:56 Not the only spot down there.

20:31:59 There is a whole bunch of them, you know.

20:32:02 And the historical is getting a little out of line in my

20:32:03 opinion, all right.

20:32:06 This building should be fixed.

20:32:08 And our building department or the mayor, somebody

20:32:10 should get down there and make them fix it.

20:32:12 It doesn't look good!

20:32:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You can do that at the end of the

20:32:15 meeting and make a motion.

20:32:17 This is about a sign --

20:32:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I know what it is.

20:32:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am not trying to correct you, I am

20:32:22 saying let's not mix the two together.

20:32:24 We don't want oil and water.

20:32:29 >> If I can, respectfully follow up Councilmember

20:32:33 Miranda's statement because that is significant and what

20:32:35 Mr. Miranda is absolutely correct.

20:32:38 If you want to bring up a special issue at the end of

20:32:41 the evening in a different hearing, but with regard to

20:32:42 the information before you, the petition that is before

20:32:45 you, that is -- and the criteria --

20:32:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The record.

20:32:47 >> The record.

20:32:49 The evidence you have heard.

20:32:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion --

20:32:53 >> Also, Mr. Chairman, if I can, to follow up on that

20:32:56 motion, I believe you made reference to the staff report

20:33:03 which did reference 17.5-74 of the -- of the city code

20:33:08 and the general requirements of 27-324.

20:33:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A motion on the floor.

20:33:13 All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

20:33:15 Opposed?

20:33:17 Okay.

20:33:26 >> Motion carried unanimously.

20:33:28 >>CURTIS STOKES: Mr. Chairman --

20:33:32 >> Forgive me for doing this or for interrupting.

20:33:35 It haven't been announced yet, but this is -- this is

20:33:40 still subject to an issue of appeal period, which is 30

20:33:43 days from -- from the notification.

20:33:45 So I just want to caution you with regard to any

20:33:48 statements that you make pertaining to this issue

20:33:51 outside of the hearing which may ultimately affect the

20:33:53 city.

20:33:55 >>CURTIS STOKES: I just want to make a general

20:34:00 statement, not about this but -- at some point, we have

20:34:03 to give the greater Chamber of Commerce involved when we

20:34:07 have businesses like Ikea that come to the community and

20:34:07 create jobs.

20:34:11 There has to be an advocate for businesses out here in

20:34:11 this community.

20:34:13 You have your civic -- you have your civic associations

20:34:17 and your homeowners associations on the side of

20:34:20 homeowners, but we have to make sure that we get the

20:34:23 greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce and the business

20:34:25 community on the side of businesses like Ikea.

20:34:30 It is very hard to make this decision here when you have

20:34:34 the concerns of the constituents, citizens, but you have

20:34:39 no one from the greater Tampa chamber advocating on this

20:34:41 -- on behalf of businesses.

20:34:44 So I just want to make a statement that we have to make

20:34:46 sure that we get the business community involved.

20:34:53 It seems kind of one-sided in a way.

20:34:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

20:34:56 Well, the motion has carried.

20:35:02 And so we will -- we will take a five-minute -- what did

20:35:04 you say, 7th inning stretch.

20:35:07 Take a five-minute break and then come back.

20:46:37 Five minutes please.

20:46:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The Tampa City Council will now come to

20:46:39 order.

20:46:44 A roll call.

20:46:52 [roll call taken]

20:46:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we take up the next case, we

20:46:58 need to make one correction on the brownfield

20:47:02 designation or the ordinance that we passed earlier.

20:47:05 It is my understanding there is an error in the date.

20:47:08 So we need to make that correct, redo the resolution, is

20:47:09 that right?

20:47:11 >> Make the motion to rescind the previous resolution.

20:47:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to rescind the previous

20:47:17 resolution on the brownfield.

20:47:19 >> And a substitute asked.

20:47:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

20:47:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded on rescinding the

20:47:25 earlier motion.

20:47:29 All in favor signify by saying aye.

20:47:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The last paragraph December 13.

20:47:36 >> I believe the original date was in error was put down

20:47:37 2011, I believe.

20:47:40 I believe the corrected date is the one.

20:47:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The corrected date -- what is the

20:47:43 corrected date?

20:47:46 Make sure -- it is in the new resolution?

20:47:49 >> The corrected date is to have the hearings on

20:47:53 December 2, 2010 at 10:30 and December 16, 2010 at

20:47:56 10:30 a.m.

20:47:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That motion made by Councilman Miranda

20:48:01 and seconded by Councilman Stokes on the new motion.

20:48:04 All in favor signify by saying aye.

20:48:06 Opposed?

20:48:06 >> Mr. Chairman.

20:48:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

20:48:12 >> One last thing and I apologized to City Council, came

20:48:15 to my attention a scrivener's error in the resolution I

20:48:20 gave to you which ratified your appointments to the --

20:48:24 to the -- the ebolac committee.

20:48:26 I had the wrong dates in there.

20:48:29 If that can be corrected tonight, I can pass that

20:48:30 around.

20:48:32 And the correction of the date.

20:48:35 I had put down 2010 as the ending term instead of 2012.

20:48:40 I respectfully ask the Council to move this motion which

20:48:42 corrects the scrivener's error.

20:48:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion please.

20:48:45 >> So moved.

20:48:45 >> Second.

20:48:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

20:48:51 Moved by Councilwoman Miller and seconded by Councilman

20:48:52 Miranda.

20:48:54 Signify by saying aye.

20:48:55 Opposed?

20:48:59 >> Thank you for that courtesy, Council.

20:49:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moving to the next case.

20:49:03 Make presentation on the last item for the evening.

20:49:06 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Good evening, Council, Abbye Feeley,

20:49:06 Land Development.

20:49:09 The final item for your final evening agenda.

20:49:12 What I provided to you if you still have it from earlier

20:49:16 this evening is a memorandum from myself concerning this

20:49:27 case, and if I may -- when we switched cases up, I may

20:49:48 have given you my -- this case was previously before

20:49:55 City Council at the October -- I am sorry -- September

20:50:02 24th, thank you.

20:50:03 Let me start over.

20:50:05 Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.

20:50:06 I am sorry.

20:50:09 This case was previously before you on January 14 home

20:50:14 run 2010, and what I have provided -- January 14, 2010,

20:50:16 and what I have provided was a staff report that was

20:50:26 presented to you on January 14 attached to this, z09-21.

20:50:30 The request from RS-100 to PD planned development for

20:50:34 two single-family residential zoning lots.

20:50:36 No waivers were being requested.

20:50:43 The purpose under the PD was to create two 99 x 132-foot

20:50:46 lots.

20:50:49 This is back before you by direction of the special

20:50:53 magistrate which Julia Cole will discuss.

20:50:57 A revised site plan that I provided to you that does

20:51:01 have the following modifications.

20:51:04 Increased the side yard setback from 7 feet to 10 feet

20:51:11 and limited the principal square structure footage.

20:51:13 In terms of the development proposed on-site, the

20:51:16 revised plans are more restrictive than the plans

20:51:19 previously reviewed by the development review committee.

20:51:24 nd the DRC has not revised its previous findings.

20:51:26 The following notes were requested to be added to the

20:51:30 site plan per the original city staff report, and these

20:51:32 site items still remain.

20:51:35 The first is that the tree table for each lot will be

20:51:37 required at the time of permitting.

20:51:40 The second was that parks and recreation will need to

20:51:45 review for the second-story canopy conflict with the

20:51:45 grand tree.

20:51:49 And third that the site would comply with street parking

20:51:54 and that the site will comply with all Transportation

20:51:55 technical standards.

20:51:57 Lastly, the Park and Recreation Department raised

20:52:00 concerns of a required protective radius of the tree

20:52:05 shown on the plan and asked that the setback be shown at

20:52:10 27 feet for skit meeting.

20:52:12 David Riley from the Parks and Recreation Department is

20:52:17 here this evening to discuss that matter if required.

20:52:27 Go ahead and just show you where we are.

20:52:29 This is the zoning atlas.

20:52:32 Lykes Avenue to the north.

20:52:35 Lincoln to the east.

20:52:36 Glen to the west.

20:52:45 This is the subject site shown in green.

20:52:51 As shown from the previous presentation by staff, this

20:52:56 shows the conforming and nonconforming lot.

20:53:00 Conforming known red, meaning 100 feet or greater,

20:53:03 nonconforming shown in blue which means they are less

20:53:05 than 100 feet.

20:53:11 The RS-100 requires 100 feet of frontage in site has 198

20:53:12 feet of frontage.

20:53:15 Therefore to create two buildable lots they will have to

20:53:20 rezone to PD to waive the minimum lot requirements.

20:53:23 They do have the required area associated with these

20:53:25 lots, but not the required frontage.

20:53:33 Staff is available for any questions.

20:53:36 >>TONY GARCIA: Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff,

20:53:37 I have been sworn.

20:53:40 I will just have a couple of comments and be brief on

20:53:43 this since it has been heard several times by Council

20:53:47 and I am sure has been reviewed by new members of the

20:53:48 Council regarding this case in front of you this

20:53:49 evening.

20:53:52 There have been no other significant facts that have

20:53:56 changed as a relation to the comprehensive plan.

20:53:58 Therefore, the Planning Commission maintains its finding

20:54:02 of consistency of the comprehensive plan regarding this

20:54:04 proposed project before you this evening.

20:54:09 Thank you.

20:54:11 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, City of Tampa Legal

20:54:11 Department.

20:54:15 Prior to moving into the presentations, I did want to

20:54:16 give some legal context for this particular matter.

20:54:20 As Abbye stated this was a case in front of you in

20:54:25 January 2010 in which City Council reviewed a proposed

20:54:30 PD site plan which would have allowed two lots at a

20:54:35 99-foot width of each particular lot without any

20:54:38 specified conditions.

20:54:40 That request was denied by City Council.

20:54:44 City Council -- then those -- the petitioner filed what

20:54:49 is called a 70.51 Florida statutes request for relief.

20:54:54 It is a statutory provision in which a property owner

20:54:57 who has been denied an application such as a rezoning

20:55:02 can request a Special Magistrate to review that decision

20:55:06 to do two things, the first to facilitate a resolution

20:55:09 and the second to review the matter to determine whether

20:55:11 or not the board's action unreasonably or unfairly

20:55:15 burdened the real property.

20:55:18 A hearing is held in front of the Special Magistrate in

20:55:22 which members of city staff, myself and members of the

20:55:25 public and the petitioner had an opportunity to present

20:55:28 evidence and testimony as to whether or not City

20:55:32 Council's decision unfairly or unreasonably burdened the

20:55:34 petitioner's real property.

20:55:36 As a result of that case -- and I am not getting into

20:55:39 too much detail about it since we had previously talked

20:55:45 about it, but I am giving more of a thumbnail sketch,

20:55:48 the Special Magistrate made a finding that the City

20:55:51 Council's decision in denying the previous rezoning did

20:55:56 unfairly burden the real property and also found that

20:55:59 there was potential residential of the conflict by

20:56:03 approving a PD site plan with two lots which are at 99

20:56:08 feet with additional limitations on square footage of

20:56:12 each property and the size of the structure for each

20:56:15 property as well as increased setbacks.

20:56:18 As a result, this case came back to you to make a

20:56:20 decision as to whether or not to either set this public

20:56:23 hear and go ahead and reject this Special Magistrate's

20:56:25 findings.

20:56:28 At -- during that time, the City of Tampa Legal

20:56:31 Department came across some information that led us to

20:56:34 recommend to this body that we go ahead and set the

20:56:38 rezoning hearing for a full public hearing in order for

20:56:41 us to assure that all due process was afforded to all --

20:56:44 all of the parties in this matter.

20:56:46 For the purposes of the record, I am going to go ahead

20:56:48 and submit into the record the memorandum which I

20:56:52 submitted to City Council as part of that issue when

20:56:54 this matter was originally set, so it is part of this

20:56:56 record today.

20:57:07 I will go ahead and hand that.

20:57:10 After we went ahead and set this for a new public

20:57:12 hearing at the recommendation of the city Legal

20:57:16 Department, the petitioner did submit a new site plan in

20:57:19 line with resolution that was recommended by the Special

20:57:20 Magistrate.

20:57:23 I just wanted to let you know where you are in terms of

20:57:24 this process.

20:57:28 This is a full public hearing on the revised site plan

20:57:33 which came as a result of the Special Magistrate's

20:57:35 recommendation that this new site plan with the

20:57:38 additional condition would facilitate a resolution of

20:57:39 this matter.

20:57:41 That is part of the record.

20:57:44 The Special Magistrate's report is part of this record.

20:57:46 The finding on the previous case is part of this record;

20:57:52 however, you sit as a full public hearing to look at

20:57:55 this new site plan, not the previous site plan, but this

20:57:59 new site plan, listen to the evidence and make a

20:58:02 decision as to whether or not the criteria in your code

20:58:04 has been met for the purposes of this site plan which is

20:58:06 in front of you.

20:58:09 For -- for now, I will ask that we just go ahead and

20:58:11 follow our normal rezoning process.

20:58:14 Have the petitioner get up and have their case stated,

20:58:17 but if there are any questions regarding the process, I

20:58:18 can answer them.

20:58:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

20:58:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, since this is -- it has been a

20:58:24 while.

20:58:31 When did we vote on this last?

20:58:33 >>JULIA COLE: When did you last --

20:58:36 >>MARY MULHERN: the last time Council voted was when we

20:58:39 denied it and it went to Special Magistrate.

20:58:43 >> January 14, 2010 when City Council took action on the

20:58:45 previous rezoning application.

20:58:47 >>MARY MULHERN: So that was the last time.

20:58:47 And what was our vote?

20:58:50 Was it unanimous?

20:58:52 >>JULIA COLE: I believe it was but I would ask the

20:58:55 Clerk to confirm that.

20:58:58 >>MARY MULHERN: I need some reminder, clarification.

20:59:01 I may never have had this question answered before, but

20:59:06 when you said whatever that -- is it a statute where

20:59:11 they are able to go to -- it can go to Special

20:59:16 Magistrate for -- to facilitate a resolution, if we

20:59:22 voted unanimously to deny something, how does it then go

20:59:25 to have a resolution?

20:59:30 How is it that we skip the part where there is an appeal

20:59:33 or -- or some kind of legal action?

20:59:39 How do you go into -- maybe that was just a choice of

20:59:42 words for you, but I don't understand that.

20:59:45 >>JULIA COLE: It may that be -- I was just trying to

20:59:46 boil it down.

20:59:49 We had several presentations that I made on this

20:59:50 particular matter.

20:59:55 When you take an action to deny a petition, an

20:59:58 applicant, a property owner has two options, three

21:00:00 options, they can do nothing, they can file an action in

21:00:05 Circuit Court, or under the Florida statute, there is an

21:00:08 opportunity for a property owner to request a Special

21:00:12 Magistrate, review the decision and do two things.



This represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

21:00:52 >>MARY MULHERN: So we are stuck with that as the next

21:00:54 option because of Florida statutes.

21:00:56 And the petitioner has that option.

21:00:58 >> And petitioner has --

21:01:01 >> To make a unanimous decision.

21:01:03 >> If it's not overturned, and when this comes back to

21:01:05 you, it was explained the last time --

21:01:14 >> It was just a recommendation.

21:01:16 So it's not binding.

21:01:22 >> It is not binding on this board.

21:01:24 That's correct.

21:01:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to make that clear for

21:01:27 everyone here, that there was a unanimous decision of

21:01:31 City Council.

21:01:33 It went to a special magistrate who was chosen by

21:01:36 apparently legal, and petitioner, and now it's back to

21:01:42 us, like when it goes to circuit court, and we have

21:01:47 anything binding on us.

21:01:49 This is just a recommendation from one.

21:01:55 >> Yes, and I call it a premediation.

21:02:02 That's what the statute is intended to do.

21:02:04 >> That's the idea.

21:02:05 Premediation.

21:02:06 >>JULIA COLE: I would characterize -- in terms of the

21:02:09 facilitation of any kind of mediation, under Florida

21:02:12 statutes, the special magistrate is given the authority

21:02:15 to write a report recommending to City Council whether

21:02:18 or not they believe the mediator, the special

21:02:24 magistrate, the decision unreasonably or unfairly

21:02:27 burdened real property, but that is not binding on this

21:02:29 council.

21:02:30 It is a recommendation that becomes part of your

21:02:32 record.

21:02:32 >> Okay.

21:02:34 Thanks a lot.

21:02:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask Ms.

21:02:37 Cole, would it be appropriate -- first of all, the

21:02:40 way -- it could also be characterized is this is an

21:02:44 option of the Florida legislature through Florida

21:02:47 statutes has given to local bodies for alternative

21:02:50 dispute resolution.

21:02:51 It does not preclude the petitioner, who was denied,

21:02:58 from still going to circuit court and I'm wondering

21:03:01 whether you intend at any point to discuss what would

21:03:03 the posture be depending on what the council's decision

21:03:06 is, because I think it's important for them ultimately

21:03:09 to know what the effect -- and you did make the point,

21:03:15 the fact that what they have before them now is a new

21:03:19 site plan, and a new petition, based on the

21:03:22 recommendations of the special magistrate.

21:03:25 But what would happen for both side, whether they

21:03:29 approve it or whether they deny it, would you discuss

21:03:32 that later on or have a discussion?

21:03:34 >> I don't think it's appropriate to discuss that now

21:03:36 before we vote.

21:03:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.

21:03:37 I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

21:03:56 >> I'm John Grandoff, suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.

21:04:00 And I represent Vance Blanchard who is here this

21:04:03 evening.

21:04:04 Please raise your hand.

21:04:08 The matter before you is the consideration of a special

21:04:11 magistrate's report.

21:04:13 I am going to read excerpts from it.

21:04:14 The site plan that is before you is what we call our

21:04:18 compromise site plan that was originally proposed

21:04:20 during the public hearing.

21:04:22 I offered to the neighborhood to increase the setbacks

21:04:25 to 10 feet on each side to limit the square footage of

21:04:29 the houses to 5,000 square feet.

21:04:32 And we have continued to bring that proposed site plan

21:04:36 forward and that's what I have here.

21:04:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Grandoff, you need to take the

21:04:50 microphone in order that the record can be clear.

21:04:52 >> This was also considered by Mr. Todd in the special

21:04:58 magistrate process that we participated in as directed

21:05:00 under the statute.

21:05:07 I would like to read some excerpts from his report to

21:05:11 set the tone on this.

21:05:12 First, understand that he said as follows:

21:05:15 In fulfilling my duties as special magistrate I have

21:05:18 driven the entire area surrounding the subject property

21:05:21 including the following streets, and the list of the

21:05:23 streets, I reviewed the transcript of the testimony

21:05:25 taken at the public hearing together with all exhibits,

21:05:28 By the petitioner, the ordinance and case law, taken

21:05:35 and exhibits received in the special magistrate public

21:05:38 hearing in which we participated along with the folks

21:05:40 in the neighborhood that are here this evening, also.

21:05:47 The property measures 198 feet wide by 136 feet deep,

21:05:52 total area 26,000 square feet.

21:05:56 The reason we are here tonight is because we are a foot

21:05:58 short, speaking of length and distances tonight.

21:06:02 We are one foot short, or six inches on each side of

21:06:08 each lot.

21:06:09 That's what's at issue.

21:06:11 Now, on the site plan, while the code requires seven

21:06:20 feet on each side -- let me get you orient first of

21:06:24 all.

21:06:25 This is -- code requires seven feet on each side.

21:06:33 Across 25 feet in the front.

21:06:35 We have increased the front to 35 feet, because that's

21:06:38 required by the plat.

21:06:40 And the rear setback is 20 feet.

21:06:42 So these are the side setbacks increased to ten feet,

21:06:47 ten feet, ten feet, ten feet.

21:06:48 In the middle you have a 20-foot area between the

21:06:51 homes.

21:07:01 They spoke earlier about the conditions that remain

21:07:02 that are typical conditions, tree table, parks,

21:07:05 off-street parking.

21:07:06 We have no issue for that.

21:07:08 And please remember, there are absolutely no waivers

21:07:10 pending before you.

21:07:13 Now -- (away from microphone)

21:07:29 You can come over here and look.

21:07:42 It's nearly 20 feet.

21:07:49 That's 20 feet.

21:08:06 >> Abbye Feeley.

21:08:09 It is 20-foot.

21:08:09 >> That's the distance on the hopes, first offered on

21:08:12 rebuttal on January 14th.

21:08:17 Now, in exchange for six inches on each side we are

21:08:19 going to provide 20 feet between the homes and then 10

21:08:22 feet on each side of the home as pointed out on the

21:08:27 setback.

21:08:27 Mr. Todd found the following.

21:08:29 The DRC, Ms. Cole's staff, found the creation of two

21:08:38 99-foot lots was compatible with the surrounding

21:08:41 neighbors.

21:08:42 Further, the intent of the comprehensive plan, every

21:08:44 city, department agency evaluate gave a positive

21:08:48 recommendation.

21:08:49 City's Land Development Coordination also found that

21:08:51 the PD was appropriate under the criteria.

21:08:57 Counsel, that's me, made it clear to the council would

21:09:01 make larger setbacks and Gulf view park civic

21:09:06 association, Mrs. Johns, here this evening, on the

21:09:08 record stated that if council were to try to approve

21:09:15 the PD that her client wanted council to approve a ten

21:09:19 foot yard setback on the PD site plan.

21:09:23 Many surrounding property owners were principle will be

21:09:27 objecting that if it was approved it would set a

21:09:29 precedent to more PDs in the neighborhood.

21:09:32 No objection including from counsel from the Gulf view

21:09:36 park civic association constituted any competent

21:09:40 substantial evidence.

21:09:40 This is Mr. Todd's parenthetical.

21:09:43 I have repeatedly re-read the testimony and am

21:09:47 confident my review did not overlook any testimony or

21:09:50 demonstrative evidence that is deemed competent,

21:09:53 substantial evidence under Florida law from the Gulf

21:09:56 view park civic association.

21:10:00 Ms. Feeley, who is an expert, testified under oath that

21:10:02 the precedent argument -- this was the body of the

21:10:06 motion for denial -- that the precedent argument that

21:10:09 looking at all properties in the neighborhood under

21:10:12 single separate ownership, there was only one other

21:10:15 property in the neighborhood that had the same width as

21:10:19 the subject property, and that such property was

21:10:21 already zoned RS-75, thus enabling development on

21:10:24 property with frontage with width of less than 100

21:10:27 feet, and there being, quote, no one else who has 198

21:10:33 feet and ask you for two 99s.

21:10:36 So testified Ms. Feeley without contradiction.

21:10:50 Mr. Todd continued and said the only overriding

21:10:53 testimony from the neighbors to a PD that would set a

21:10:56 precedent.

21:10:56 However under Florida law a PD does not establish a

21:10:59 precedent which controls future decisions of this

21:11:01 council.

21:11:04 Council is trying to conjure up theoretical -- by their

21:11:12 very nature PDs are singularly applicable to a

21:11:15 particular parcel of land and must be judged

21:11:18 accordingly.

21:11:18 Not by unfounded speculation on possible future

21:11:27 application.

21:11:28 Remember Mrs. Feeley he's testimony about speculation.

21:11:46 In summary, several houses.

21:11:56 This is the Turner house.

21:12:02 On the board of the Gulf view park association.

21:12:05 The Turners did not object, as far as I know.

21:12:07 RS 100, the lot width is 86 feet wide.

21:12:12 The house is 4894 square feet.

21:12:15 That information from the property appraiser's Web

21:12:19 site.

21:12:20 That's the Turner house.

21:12:21 These are all houses at 99 feet or less which I am

21:12:25 showing you that are in evidence.

21:12:27 I was going to show you three.

21:12:31 Here is the McGinnis house.

21:12:34 Down the street on Lykes Avenue.

21:12:36 RS 100, 98 feet wide.

21:12:39 One foot shorter than what we are requesting.

21:12:42 5,444 square feet.

21:12:48 The third house, the Deac house, also on Lykes, 99 feet

21:12:53 wide, 4941 square feet.

21:12:56 And I have one more.

21:12:57 I'm sorry, there were four I was going to talk about.

21:13:00 The Lorenzo's house, 4240 square feet.

21:13:05 Also on Lykes.

21:13:07 I simply averaged several houses on the same street on

21:13:10 the same lot, same square footage, and I got to about

21:13:14 5,000 square feet.

21:13:16 That's how you get to the 5,000 square feet.

21:13:18 That's compatible.

21:13:20 That's consistent.

21:13:20 Mr. Todd heard the same testimony.

21:13:23 If you look at the same pictures, he drove the

21:13:25 neighborhood.

21:13:25 He knows the neighborhood.

21:13:27 How he wrote, how can two homes limited to 5,000 square

21:13:31 feet with increased setbacks particularly side yards --

21:13:34 because we are talking about width -- be inconsistent

21:13:38 with the neighborhood?

21:13:38 The norm and not the aberration in the owner's

21:13:42 surrounding neighborhood appears ton consistent with

21:13:44 homes of approximately 5,000 square feet.

21:13:46 For example, the McGinnis home at 5400.

21:13:51 The Deac home at 4900.

21:13:53 And the Turners at 4800.

21:13:55 These are but three examples.

21:13:57 The evidence showed many other RS 100 homes in the Gulf

21:14:00 view park subdivision of homes having front width of

21:14:07 less than 100 feet.

21:14:10 Florida law compels the council not to consider the

21:14:15 unfounded fears of the neighbors that two homes with

21:14:19 increased setbacks on property 198 feet by 132 feet, 20

21:14:25 feet between them, would adversely impact a residential

21:14:31 neighborhood.

21:14:33 Mr. Todd concludes his report on page 10 and says, I'm

21:14:37 constrained to find that council's denial of the PD was

21:14:42 unreasonable and unfairly burdened the Blanchard's

21:14:45 property.

21:14:45 Now he's talking about the PD before the comparables.

21:14:49 I further recommend to that even if they reject this

21:14:54 recommendation that approved the PD site plan with

21:14:58 three additional conditions: Number one, that the side

21:15:01 yard of the two homes shown on the plan be not less

21:15:04 than ten feet.

21:15:05 We have done that.

21:15:06 Number two, and these two homes built on the subject

21:15:09 property having gross building areas not exceeding

21:15:11 5,000 square feet.

21:15:13 We have done that.

21:15:14 That's on the site plan.

21:15:15 And three, a clear unequivocal statement by council in

21:15:19 approving such amended site plan that it does not

21:15:22 create a precedent.

21:15:24 We have done that.

21:15:27 In summary, this is a very reasonable request.

21:15:30 It is merely over a foot in exchange for a significant

21:15:36 setback and limitation square footage is absolutely in

21:15:39 character with homes on the street, around the street,

21:15:42 homes of those who are objecting, and has been found

21:15:48 consistent and compatible with your zoning plans, your

21:15:50 zoning code, and the comprehensive plan by Ms. Feeley,

21:15:54 and Mr. Garcia.

21:15:55 I respectfully request your approval of Mr. Todd's

21:15:59 report as to the compromise plan, and I reserve any

21:16:03 further time for rebuttal.

21:16:04 Thank you for your time.

21:16:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

21:16:08 Thank you, sir.

21:16:09 Any questions by council?

21:16:11 Any questions by council?

21:16:12 Okay.

21:16:14 If not, we will take public comment at this time.

21:16:17 Those who are in support to my left -- I'm sorry, those

21:16:21 in opposition to my left.

21:16:23 Those in opposition to my left.

21:16:25 Those in support to my right.

21:16:29 Those in support to my right.

21:16:33 Which is your left.

21:16:34 Those in opposition to my left, your right.

21:16:48 State your name and your address, please.

21:17:04 >> Good evening.

21:17:05 I'm Melissa Stedson, 3401 Mullin Avenue.

21:17:12 I have been sworn in.

21:17:13 I have been asked to represent the Board of Directors

21:17:14 of Gulf view civic association.

21:17:18 In addition, I would like to present this evening 100

21:17:22 petitions that have been signed.

21:17:25 May I present them?

21:17:26 Thank you.

21:17:32 (away from microphone)

21:17:34 A great deal of are opposed to this.

21:17:41 >> If you could restate that.

21:17:43 That didn't get on the record, please.

21:17:44 >> Okay, thank you.

21:17:45 We have 193 members in our Gulf view civic association,

21:17:49 and I have just presented 100 signatures this evening.

21:17:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:17:52 >>> We are very concerned about this PD rezoning.

21:17:58 We are worried because it will set a precedent and

21:18:01 destroy the overall character of our neighborhood, and

21:18:04 I would like to show you this map, chart, whatever.

21:18:11 This is our civic association boundary.

21:18:17 From Swann, Henderson, Himes, Sterling, San Miguel and

21:18:26 up, MacDill and over Morrison and up.

21:18:32 The red is PDs or special uses that have just been

21:18:38 recently passed by City Council.

21:18:40 As you can see, it is encroaching into our

21:18:42 neighborhood.

21:18:43 This is the petition for rezoning on Lykes.

21:18:47 It's dead center in the middle of our neighborhood.

21:18:50 The yellow is the RS-100 designation for all the homes.

21:18:56 As you all probably know, in 1987 the neighborhood was

21:19:05 100 designated.

21:19:07 Recently we have had two substantial real estate

21:19:10 transactions take place in Gulf view.

21:19:12 Each family purchased two properties to build one

21:19:15 house.

21:19:16 They have chosen our neighborhood for the tranquility

21:19:18 and the size of the property.

21:19:21 Our neighborhood is special.

21:19:23 And many community leaders who contribute to the

21:19:26 well-being of this city find it desirable to invest and

21:19:30 live in our neighborhood.

21:19:32 Gulf view is desirable because of the proximity to

21:19:35 downtown Tampa.

21:19:37 It's the character of our historic neighborhood.

21:19:39 And this was the intent established by the Tampa

21:19:43 planned development.

21:19:44 Tampa comprehensive plan policies for South Tampa

21:19:47 district include preserving, protecting, enhancing

21:19:52 single-family neighborhoods, and also require new

21:19:55 development to respect and respond to those existing

21:20:00 physical characteristics that contribute to the overall

21:20:02 character and livability of our neighborhood.

21:20:07 Allowing one individual special treatment, like

21:20:10 changing existing zoning designations, to approve a

21:20:14 planned development is detrimental to the surrounding

21:20:16 neighborhood and properties in the entire Gulf view

21:20:20 neighborhood.

21:20:21 We respectfully request that you deny this proposal.

21:20:24 I would like to show you these two new properties that

21:20:28 were purchased.

21:20:29 They are both on Gulf view, one here, and one here.

21:20:33 Two homes were torn down here, and one house will be

21:20:36 built.

21:20:37 One house here.

21:20:39 One house being torn down.

21:20:42 (Bell sounds)

21:20:44 Thank you.

21:20:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

21:20:45 >> Calen brand, 3309.

21:21:00 3309 west Lykes Avenue.

21:21:02 I live directly across the street from this lot.

21:21:06 The special magistrate turned out to be not that

21:21:09 special.

21:21:10 He's a land use attorney.

21:21:12 He has an opinion.

21:21:13 His opinion happens to be the same as Mr. Grandoff.

21:21:15 The recommendation he made amazingly was Mr. Grandoff's

21:21:19 recommendation.

21:21:21 This recommendation is supposed to have something to do

21:21:24 with the history of the property.

21:21:26 For 70 years, this lot had a single-family attitude or

21:21:29 style home in the center of the lot.

21:21:31 Tudor style home in the center of the lot.

21:21:36 Including Mrs. Blanchard the intent each time was to

21:21:39 restore in the first case, or build one single-family

21:21:41 home.

21:21:43 Which was Blanchard's intention.

21:21:45 The household for 600,000 twice then 820.

21:21:49 It was then marketed for a very short period of time in

21:21:52 2008 for 2.99 million.

21:21:55 Then it was taken off the market, has not been marketed

21:21:58 since.

21:21:58 The zoning history, 1987, when it was designated RS

21:22:04 100, which is a rarity in the city, and should be

21:22:07 preserved, was not done arbitrarily.

21:22:11 They considered how the neighborhood had matured over

21:22:14 the years.

21:22:18 The last time that a house was built in the RS 100

21:22:21 zoning in our neighborhood, on a lot less than 100

21:22:27 feet, was 42 years ago, and that was one that the

21:22:31 developer picked up, jammed through with the zoning

21:22:34 conformance went in.

21:22:36 The magistrate did ask one of the staff what she

21:22:41 thought of two homes on the lot.

21:22:43 She replied, it would change the feel of the you

21:22:45 neighborhood, which it would.

21:22:48 It seems very reasonable that they are offering a

21:22:50 minimum of 5,000 square feet per home and setbacks of

21:22:54 ten feet.

21:22:54 However, the average side yard setback as the

21:22:58 neighborhood has developed is 25 feet.

21:23:00 My particular house, which is only 2900 square feet,

21:23:04 has 40 feet on each side.

21:23:06 One of my neighbors has 60 feet on each side.

21:23:09 The average size of the homes on Mullin, Lykes and

21:23:15 McKay, 3980 square feet.

21:23:18 There is no PD in the eight-block survey that staff

21:23:22 reviewed.

21:23:24 The trend in the neighborhood as Mrs. Steadman said is

21:23:29 assembling more than one lot more than 100 feet in

21:23:34 width.

21:23:34 And I said this before, I have the photos, instead of

21:23:37 talking about somebody who has a 98-foot lot I could go

21:23:40 through the list of 132, Merlin 168, these are the

21:23:45 widths of the lots.

21:23:46 This is what's attractive in our neighborhood.

21:23:49 When homes come up for sale they are marketed as being

21:23:51 in the most sought after neighborhood, charming brick

21:23:54 lined streets, expansive oaks, with RS 100 zoning.

21:24:00 This is all about reliance on you.

21:24:04 It's not unreasonable or undue burden onto anyone to

21:24:10 expect that what would be built on that lot is what is

21:24:14 allowed to be built on the RS 100 zoning.

21:24:18 The PD zoning is totally incompatible with the

21:24:21 neighborhood, and I urge you to uphold AP unanimous

21:24:26 rejection of this zoning.

21:24:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:24:31 >> Can I put this in the record, this 2.99 million for

21:24:36 sale on this lot?

21:24:37 >> Yes.

21:24:43 I'll make a copy for petitioner.

21:24:49 >> My name is Becky Ravenhorst, 3305 Mullin Avenue.

21:24:57 Our property is directly to the south of the property

21:25:01 in question, and my property is 165 feet in width, and

21:25:07 that we have one house that is built in the middle of

21:25:09 that property.

21:25:11 When council first voted on this petition, the decision

21:25:14 was unanimously against the proposed PD.

21:25:19 Councilman Miranda specifically mentioned that the

21:25:22 property is two feet short of the legal RS 100 code.

21:25:29 Many residents are long-time members of this Gulf view

21:25:32 estates neighborhood and know that the zoning has been

21:25:36 RS 100 for over 20 years.

21:25:41 Mrs. Blanchard knew that when she purchased the

21:25:43 property and planned to build one house, one large home

21:25:48 on the site.

21:25:51 Many of the gracious homes in this unique area of South

21:25:54 Tampa are built on lots that are over 100 feet in

21:26:00 frontage.

21:26:02 The zoning law is very clear that a site must be 100

21:26:08 feet in width in order to be considered a buildable

21:26:11 lot.

21:26:13 We are asking City Council to uphold and abide by the

21:26:17 city's own laws.

21:26:20 We strongly and strenuously object to anything less.

21:26:25 Our neighborhood representatives, who heir here, have

21:26:31 faithfully been attending these council meetings for

21:26:35 almost a year concerning this petition, in opposition

21:26:41 to this petition.

21:26:43 The will of the people of this neighborhood has been

21:26:46 consistently against this proposed PD.

21:26:51 Thank you.

21:26:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:26:55 Next speaker.

21:26:55 >> I'm Joan Williams.

21:27:00 I live at 3316 Lykes Avenue.

21:27:05 And I want to talk to you a little bit about the 3300

21:27:08 block of Lykes.

21:27:09 It has ten homes.

21:27:13 Four of the homes are built on lots under 100 feet.

21:27:17 One is 72.

21:27:19 One is 76.

21:27:20 One is 90.

21:27:22 And one is 99.

21:27:24 The dates that these homes were built were the

21:27:28 earliest, 1925 through 1955.

21:27:33 The sale of these homes are quite different than the

21:27:37 type homes that are being built today.

21:27:40 It allowed for -- the six lots that are on the street

21:27:47 are 165, 141, 132, 122, and the 198.

21:27:56 Because of the layout of the homes on the larger lots,

21:28:00 it gives really, really large side yard.

21:28:06 And I believe this is part of the appeal of our

21:28:09 neighborhood.

21:28:11 The homes are not right on top of each other.

21:28:14 And I believe that is why people desire to live there.

21:28:18 We have the beautiful brick street.

21:28:19 We have the medians with the oaks.

21:28:22 We have grand oaks in the fronts of our homes that we

21:28:26 spend a lot of money on to keep up with what we have to

21:28:30 do with them.

21:28:30 And the Blanchard property is a beautiful piece of

21:28:34 property, with oaks, a huge Magnolia tree, and one home

21:28:39 built on that property would be beautiful.

21:28:42 As it's been pointed out people are buying lots to put

21:28:46 them together to have one home.

21:28:50 And here we have a large lot that that could be done.

21:28:55 One point that has not been made is the scenario of

21:29:02 joining properties together.

21:29:05 We talk about this precedent, just on the properties

21:29:10 that are there right now.

21:29:11 But when you start setting the 138-foot property with,

21:29:16 you know, a 75-foot property, there will be some

21:29:19 precedence.

21:29:20 This will be continued, there will be others coming

21:29:23 forward and request the same thing.

21:29:26 I feel that the PD in the middle of our district is not

21:29:29 appropriate.

21:29:30 There are no unique conditions to necessity this

21:29:35 designation.

21:29:37 It's been used to get around the minimum lot

21:29:40 requirement of RS 100.

21:29:43 As far as it is known, Ms. Blanchard is not planning on

21:29:49 living on either one of these properties should it be

21:29:52 divided.

21:29:53 She does not have a vested interest in keeping the

21:29:55 character of the neighborhood.

21:29:57 While those of us who have been living there have

21:29:59 improved our property, we have kept them up, and

21:30:04 maintained, and we feel that this would be a detriment

21:30:07 to our property should this go through.

21:30:10 I'm asking you please, please, consider voting against

21:30:17 this proposal.

21:30:18 Thank you very much.

21:30:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, ma'am.

21:30:21 Next speaker.

21:30:21 >> My name is Patricia Torres.

21:30:27 I live at 361 west Lykes Avenue, and I'm a 61-year

21:30:32 resident of Gulf view.

21:30:35 We were here last February and March on another issue,

21:30:40 but a PD zoning on Jetton, and at that time City

21:30:46 Council reassured us, and pretty much promised us that

21:30:50 a PD setting, or zoning request for that particular

21:30:54 property, would not set a precedent.

21:30:56 So I'm just asking you all to stand up for what you

21:30:59 said and let your word be good that you will not let

21:31:03 any more PD zonings go into Gulf view.

21:31:07 Thank you.

21:31:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:31:09 Next speaker.

21:31:09 >> Rebecca Johns, McFarland Ferguson, 201 North

21:31:16 Franklin Street, suite 20 here, here on behalf of Kim

21:31:22 and Malley good win, 3306 west Lykes Avenue, directly

21:31:28 jays adjacent to the east of the subject property.

21:31:31 I won't rehash the character of the neighborhood and

21:31:34 all of the different properties.

21:31:35 I live in the neighborhood, but I do want to point out

21:31:38 that Tampa code requires that City Council give

21:31:44 consideration to numerous factors, one of which is

21:31:48 potential adverse impact to on-site natural elements

21:31:52 and surrounding impact to neighborhoods, and council is

21:31:57 also asked to promote and encourage development where

21:32:03 appropriate location, character and compatibility with

21:32:05 the surrounding impact to neighborhoods should be

21:32:08 looked at.

21:32:09 The Tampa comprehensive plan policies to the South

21:32:11 Tampa district include preserving, protecting and

21:32:14 enhancing single-family neighborhoods, and also

21:32:17 requires new developments to respect and respond to

21:32:19 those existing physical characteristics that contribute

21:32:25 to the overall character of the neighborhood.

21:32:26 The majority of the properties in this neighborhood

21:32:28 were developed pre1987 which was the zoning code.

21:32:33 And looking at non-conforming property is not the

21:32:37 standard to use in determining what the property size

21:32:40 should be.

21:32:41 That would just lead to the property sizes of

21:32:43 neighborhoods being decreased and the property values

21:32:46 being diminished.

21:32:47 And I will give you my signed authorization.

21:32:52 So we object to this rezoning.

21:32:56 Thank you.

21:32:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:32:57 Next speaker.

21:32:58 >> Good evening.

21:32:59 My name is David Ferrell.

21:33:02 My mother Virginia Ferrell lives at 3309 Mullin Avenue

21:33:07 directly south abutting the subject property and I am

21:33:09 here to on my mother's behalf to voice our objection

21:33:15 along with our neighbors' to the proposed zoning

21:33:18 request.

21:33:19 As a sitting member of the City of Tampa's

21:33:21 Architectural Review Commission, we evaluate property

21:33:26 size and appropriate ability via scale and mass.

21:33:32 And I'm afraid for all the same reasons that my

21:33:36 neighbors object to the site plan, we also agree with

21:33:38 that, but unfortunately no matter how you cut those

21:33:43 lots down in this present configuration, even with the

21:33:48 extended side yard setbacks, 5,000 feet on a lot that

21:33:52 small is inappropriate for the neighborhood, and I

21:33:57 think the ongoing trend in the neighborhood is to

21:34:00 acquire -- and I can give several examples of people

21:34:03 who have actually gone out and acquired properties, and

21:34:07 what they have done with them, although additional

21:34:09 structures have been put on them, the overall intensity

21:34:13 or floor area ratio of those lots is significantly

21:34:17 diminished.

21:34:17 And so again for all of those same reasons, I think

21:34:20 it's just too intense a development, and honestly, as a

21:34:24 builder for over 22 years, I have run the numbers, and

21:34:28 I don't understand why the petitioner feels that it's

21:34:31 such an advantageous economic situation to cut them

21:34:36 into two.

21:34:37 As the numbers run, it works profitabilitywise as a

21:34:44 single-family home also.

21:34:46 Thank you.

21:34:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:34:47 >> My name is Marian Hanlon. I reside at 3314 West

21:34:53 Lykes Avenue.

21:34:54 I'm west of the property right next door.

21:34:58 I feel that building two homes regardless of the

21:35:02 setbacks and all is going to be two homes and it's

21:35:05 going to take away from the character of the

21:35:07 neighborhood regardless.

21:35:08 So I am against two homes and I think it should be

21:35:14 denied.

21:35:14 Thank you.

21:35:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:35:17 Next speaker.

21:35:17 >> My name is Angie Rodriguez.

21:35:23 My husband and I and our three children live at 3305

21:35:26 west Lykes Avenue, directly across the street from the

21:35:29 lot.

21:35:31 And we would like to the be known we are very much

21:35:34 opposed.

21:35:36 We moved to this neighborhood seven years ago.

21:35:38 We were very fortunate to be able to buy property

21:35:41 there, and we have other families on our street.

21:35:47 The children live there and the parents live there and

21:35:49 now the grandchildren are there.

21:35:51 It's a special place to live.

21:35:57 It's not a place where people come in and leave.

21:36:01 We feel very lucky to live there.

21:36:04 We want to keep that neighborhood where we have the big

21:36:07 yard and our children can play, and that it is a

21:36:09 special place.

21:36:11 And when anyone comes to Tampa, and they see the

21:36:14 neighborhood, they say, AH, this is just the greatest

21:36:16 place, we just love to go walk the streets in this

21:36:19 neighborhood.

21:36:19 And we would like to keep it that way.

21:36:21 We don't feel a hardship for one person should put

21:36:27 everyone out who has lived in this neighborhood and

21:36:29 families, in a different situation, when she purchased

21:36:35 the property she knew the restrictions when she

21:36:37 purchased it, and that hasn't changed.

21:36:39 And so we would ask that you please keep it as it's

21:36:44 zoned right now.

21:36:45 Thank you.

21:36:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

21:36:50 Next speaker.

21:36:51 >> My name is Wes Maddox, 3607 west Lykes Avenue.

21:36:58 I was sworn in.

21:36:59 I have two lots on Lykes Avenue.

21:37:03 In addition to my home, and last year I built and sold

21:37:05 one parcel at the corner of Lykes.

21:37:09 When I moved to the neighborhood I was sensitive to the

21:37:13 community's desire to see the large lots and

21:37:16 understanding now, so I paid more in order to meet

21:37:20 those criteria so that I would not be before this board

21:37:24 requesting the very variance that's now being

21:37:28 requested.

21:37:30 It would leave a bitter taste in anyone's mouth that

21:37:33 tried to follow the rules, given the circumstances,

21:37:39 knowing that they can be so easily if this board

21:37:43 chooses to vote in favor of Mrs. Blanchard.

21:37:47 So my feeling here is that hi would like to see the

21:37:49 board vote against and maintain this RS 100 rating.

21:37:55 Thank you.

21:37:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

21:37:58 Anyone else from the public?

21:38:01 Petitioner?

21:38:06 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Two minutes, Mr. Chairman?

21:38:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have five minutes of rebuttal.

21:38:15 >> First I would like to point out, Mr. Todd's resumé

21:39:02 was at the end of the report.

21:39:05 Mr. Todd needs no introduction in the field of land use

21:39:09 law.

21:39:12 City attorney for the city of Temple Terrace for over

21:39:15 40 years.

21:39:16 American College of real estate lawyers.

21:39:18 Board certified real estate lawyer.

21:39:20 Founding member of the municipal attorneys association.

21:39:24 He's advised boards like you for 40 years on these

21:39:26 issues.

21:39:27 Eminently qualified.

21:39:30 He wrote this report and made these findings that I

21:39:33 read to you.

21:39:36 The letter that Mr. Johns filed on behalf of Mr.

21:39:40 Goodwin is conclusory and says it's going to decrease

21:39:43 the value of the neighborhood with no proof.

21:39:45 You can't make a conclusory statement like that.

21:39:49 Some of these petitions have been filed.

21:39:50 I have the originals here.

21:39:57 Mr. and Mrs. Deac on application -- doing just fine,

21:40:11 thank you, on 99 feet, in a 4900 square foot house.

21:40:18 Mr. Ferrell joined us this evening.

21:40:35 His house where he grew up is right behind Mrs.

21:40:39 Blanchard's property.

21:40:40 Excuse me for a second.

21:40:42 The site plan.

21:40:50 Mr. Ferrell's home is right here.

21:40:52 This -- Mrs. Ferrell is there right now, Virginia

21:40:57 Ferrell.

21:41:05 South west of the property.

21:41:08 This is Mrs. Ferrell's home.

21:41:14 Next door to Mrs. Ravenhorst.

21:41:20 66-foot lot.

21:41:23 And an objection to consistency and compatibility on a

21:41:28 99-foot lot?

21:41:30 Mr. and Mrs. You're next to Mrs. Ferrell signed the

21:41:36 petition.

21:41:38 A beautiful home.

21:41:40 66 feet.

21:41:42 I am not prepared to tell you the square footage: I

21:41:45 didn't determine that because I wasn't prepared to tell

21:41:47 you.

21:41:48 But that's a compatible home at 66-foot lot.

21:41:55 Mr. and Mrs. Melon signed the petition.

21:42:01 They are on the other side of the street.

21:42:03 76-foot lot.

21:42:08 Mrs. Garner, she's on a 90-foot lot.

21:42:13 Competent substantial evidence.

21:42:16 The McGinnises provided their signature to the

21:42:20 petition.

21:42:21 I have already showed you the McGinnises.

21:42:24 The McGuinness house is the standard of the average

21:42:27 that reaches 5,000 square foot.

21:42:30 Home.

21:42:32 Competent, substantial evidence.

21:42:34 In the record.

21:42:42 Let me see if I missed one.

21:42:48 I think I miss one.

21:42:51 Mrs. Robbins signed the petition in opposition.

21:42:55 66-foot lot.

21:43:02 There's the Turner house.

21:43:03 One of the other three that I averaged next door.

21:43:06 Mr. and Mrs. Annis have signed the petition.

21:43:10 They have a buildable lot of 72 feet.

21:43:13 They have a right to build a house right there right

21:43:15 now.

21:43:15 Don't have to rezone it, nothing, vested buildable lot,

21:43:18 today.

21:43:24 I would like to look at the Ferrell house one more

21:43:26 time.

21:43:27 That's almost 9,000.

21:43:28 Could be on a 66-foot lot.

21:43:30 Behind the property and object to it as incompatible.

21:43:33 What's incompatible?

21:43:37 You read Mr. Todd's report.

21:43:40 You have to come back to what counts.

21:43:42 And what is the competent substantial evidence?

21:43:50 He talks about the expertise.

21:43:54 The fact there were other PDs in the neighborhood as to

21:43:58 totally irrelevant applications, none of those other

21:44:01 PDs had to do with projects like this.

21:44:06 The only competent substantial evidence in the record

21:44:08 was in support of the owner's petition.

21:44:12 That came from Cathy Coyle, Tony Garcia, and Abbye

21:44:14 Feeley.

21:44:16 Their department's agency wrote reports coupled with

21:44:19 their sworn testimony were the only competent

21:44:20 substantial evidence before council regarding

21:44:24 compatibility, consistency, so-called precedent, and

21:44:27 other factors that council was required to carefully

21:44:30 scrutinize and supported approving a PD.

21:44:33 Simply stated, I believe it will set a precedent and I

21:44:36 don't want two homes on the property, or words to that

21:44:38 effect, does not fairly deal with the owner's

21:44:41 Constitutional rights.

21:44:42 (Bell sounds)

21:44:43 This is not a complicated case, folks.

21:44:45 It's all about one foot on each lot.

21:44:49 20 feet between lots.

21:44:51 I sincerely ask that you consider Mr. Todd's report and

21:44:54 adopt it in full with the site plan.

21:44:58 Thank you for your time.

21:44:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Grandoff.

21:45:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I could have those petitions I'll

21:45:03 put them in the record.

21:45:04 Thank you.

21:45:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by council?

21:45:10 Questions by council?

21:45:12 >>CURTIS STOKES: Quick question for Mrs. Feeley.

21:45:14 Mrs. Feeley, dealing with what Mr. Grandoff just

21:45:22 outlined, if those lots are less than the required

21:45:27 amount, if a hurricane came into Gulf view would those

21:45:32 houses be able to rebuild?

21:45:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, sir.

21:45:35 Land Development Coordination.

21:45:36 Yes, sir.

21:45:40 >>CURTIS STOKES: Thanks.

21:45:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Mrs. Feeley, don't sit down.

21:45:47 Sorry.

21:45:49 The lots that are less than 100, they are essentially

21:45:54 grandfathered in because that was before the zoning.

21:46:00 What year was that?

21:46:05 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development, if I may.

21:46:06 This area of the city was platted in November of 1924.

21:46:09 And it was platted as my staff report states as a

21:46:14 66-foot lot.

21:46:15 The corners were -- and I am reading off the original

21:46:18 plat right now.

21:46:20 The corners, several of the corners were done at 72

21:46:24 feet.

21:46:25 Many of these homes were developed.

21:46:27 There were two times zoning conformance of the city

21:46:30 both in 1966 and 1987.

21:46:32 Many of these were developed prior to any zoning as the

21:46:36 way we know it today.

21:46:38 That requires minimum lot width and minimum lot areas.

21:46:42 Therefore, if those lots were in single separate

21:46:45 ownership, they are buildable, as Mr. Grandoff said,

21:46:50 that 72-foot lot.

21:46:52 If that 72-foot lot has always been in existence and

21:46:55 maybe it's one of these corners I'm referring to, a

21:46:59 platted lot that is buildable today.

21:47:01 And as long as they are in single separate ownerships

21:47:05 since their creation, if it's a lot or lat and a half

21:47:09 or whatever it is, they would be buildable lots.

21:47:11 That is a correct statement.

21:47:12 >>MARY MULHERN: But when we are looking at this zoning

21:47:16 map, the conforming ones -- so half of them are not

21:47:24 conforming?

21:47:28 >> Yes, I --

21:47:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, I got it.

21:47:33 I got it.

21:47:33 >> If I can show you.

21:47:35 This is my work.

21:47:37 This is what I do.

21:47:38 And this is what we do loop at the existing development

21:47:41 pattern.

21:47:42 When something comes in and looks at potentially

21:47:46 putting together something that's less than what the

21:47:50 zoning standard of that area is, which in this case is

21:47:53 100 fate in width, we go through to the adjacent lots

21:47:58 of that subdivision, and that is what I was working off

21:48:03 before, the original subdivision for Gulf view --

21:48:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I understand, and that's how you made

21:48:07 this map.

21:48:08 >> And I pulled the legal description for all of those,

21:48:10 and I see if it's lot one --

21:48:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

21:48:14 >> If it's lot one plus the east half of something it's

21:48:19 66-foot plus the 33-foot which gets you to a 99-foot.

21:48:23 And then I go and I label all of them either red or

21:48:25 blue to show whether or not they have the minimum of

21:48:28 100 feet, or less than that, they become blue, equal to

21:48:33 that or more they become red.

21:48:34 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

21:48:37 Thank you.

21:48:38 >>JULIA COLE: I want to take a moment to follow up on

21:48:44 what Mrs. Feeley just stated as well as some comments

21:48:47 from folks in the audience about what is in front of

21:48:50 you.

21:48:51 And I know there may be a little confusion but I want

21:48:56 for the purposes of the record everybody to be clear.

21:48:58 You have in front of you a rezoning application to

21:49:01 planned development, some folks use the term variance.

21:49:04 This is not a variance.

21:49:05 This is a rezoning to planned development.

21:49:12 The map that Abbye made is to look at this from a

21:49:16 compatibility perspective.

21:49:17 That is the analogy you undertake when you are going

21:49:19 through a rezoning application.

21:49:21 It is different from a variance.

21:49:23 This isn't a question of hardship.

21:49:25 The other thing I want to point out to you, and it's

21:49:28 interesting that somebody pointed out another case that

21:49:31 came through in this area, about whether or not the PD

21:49:39 would create a precedent, and she could not obtain a

21:49:45 variance.

21:49:53 , dimensional variances on single-family lots are not

21:49:58 permitted.

21:49:59 They are prohibited.

21:50:00 The only mechanism that you have in your code, to seek

21:50:05 a lot that is not the same as the standard of your

21:50:09 zoning code is to seek a planned development.

21:50:12 There is no other option.

21:50:15 So your code doesn't allow this to be reviewed as a

21:50:18 variance.

21:50:18 And I wanted that to be very clear.

21:50:22 The PD in and of itself, magistrate, made some findings

21:50:29 on that, has told you he did not believe it sets a

21:50:32 precedent.

21:50:32 Ultimately that could be a legal conclusion that gets

21:50:36 made someplace else, but I do think it's important to

21:50:38 understand in the context of the PD rezoning is the

21:50:43 only option to receive relief from the standard of a

21:50:48 Euclidean zoning classification for a single-family

21:50:51 lot.

21:50:51 So you are looking at this from a compatibility

21:50:54 standpoint.

21:50:55 You are not looking at this from a hardship standpoint.

21:50:57 Thank you.

21:50:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I recall the testimony, there

21:51:05 was various dates, 25 and 55 was one of the dates, the

21:51:09 zoning areas, 56, and then '87 and then there was some

21:51:14 more discussion regarding Mrs. Feeley brought out the

21:51:19 single lot size, under single ownership.

21:51:24 So then I'm asking myself, why were those words chosen

21:51:29 and brought out the way they were?

21:51:31 Could it be that this particular piece of property was

21:51:38 under two ownerships and combined?

21:51:40 It was always under one ownership?

21:51:42 That's the question that I'm asking of Mrs. Feeley.

21:51:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, Mr. Miranda, they have always

21:51:52 been joined that way.

21:51:54 If they had not been joined that way --

21:51:58 >> Then it would have been permissible to build?

21:52:01 >> No.

21:52:01 Because once they became joined they lost that right.

21:52:04 If it had been that the one on the west was lot 5, half

21:52:10 of six, and the one on the east was the other half of 6

21:52:13 plus whatever, and they would have always remained that

21:52:16 way, 99-foot lots, they would have been buildable.

21:52:20 That's correct.

21:52:20 But at whatever point in time they became joined, that

21:52:24 lost their ability to ever be built --

21:52:26 >> You said it better than I could.

21:52:28 >> Yes, sir.

21:52:29 Thank you.

21:52:29 >> You don't have to agree with me.

21:52:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

21:52:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I think you are getting your exercise.

21:52:37 But didn't we hear that there's been a single-family

21:52:41 home on that lot for AP fairly long time, right?

21:52:47 Okay.

21:52:47 So it was one lot, a single-family lot.

21:52:52 In reality whatever the original platting was, there

21:52:55 was one house on that lot.

21:52:57 >> When it was developed and a permit was pulled on

21:53:00 that property, it was developed as one zoning lot, yes.

21:53:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

21:53:06 And I would just like to ask -- I'm good.

21:53:15 Thank you.

21:53:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

21:53:17 Motion to close?

21:53:19 >> So moved.

21:53:20 >> Second.

21:53:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

21:53:22 All in favor?

21:53:24 Motion made by councilman Stokes.

21:53:26 Seconded by council mane Caetano.

21:53:28 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

21:53:31 Opposes?

21:53:31 Okay.

21:53:32 What's the pleasure of council?

21:53:33 >> Like the old short stop on the cubs, they play a

21:53:52 double header.

21:53:54 The question in my mind is not a question of one foot.

21:53:59 Certainly, that is relevant if you are looking at it as

21:54:02 12 inches or six inches on each side.

21:54:05 The question becomes much broader, and I believe was

21:54:09 brought out in testimony that this was a one single

21:54:12 lot.

21:54:16 If it had been different lots at 72, yes, could you

21:54:19 build one on one side and one on the other side with no

21:54:22 problem, if it was under single ownership, if I recall

21:54:25 the testimony that was given.

21:54:28 I tried to maintain the 12-foot in mind on one side,

21:54:36 and the overall testimony on the other side.

21:54:42 In reviewing the document -- and I have no qualms with

21:54:49 Mr. Todd's testimony nor his ability to do what he's

21:54:52 done for 40 years.

21:54:54 He's a talented individual.

21:54:56 There's no doubt about that.

21:55:02 The foot short or the foot short on one side, six

21:55:06 inches or not, is the question that is being presented.

21:55:10 But really that's not the cause.

21:55:12 The cause is the single ownership of a 99-foot lot.

21:55:18 So you have to weigh the thing out.

21:55:22 Who is right and who is wrong.

21:55:25 I think at the end of the day, this is not going to end

21:55:27 here.

21:55:28 I really feel that way.

21:55:32 I can tell you directly.

21:55:34 I don't think -- I think this is going to continue if

21:55:37 they go to a magistrate, go to court.

21:55:39 That's my personal feeling.

21:55:41 Who is to know and who is to say what a judge is going

21:55:44 to do?

21:55:44 I can't certainly can't guess.

21:55:47 I don't know how this council feels regarding this very

21:55:52 particular and very difficult case that we have here

21:55:54 this evening.

21:55:57 So based on what I've heard, and the most important

21:56:04 compelling testimony to me is it was a one single piece

21:56:07 of property.

21:56:10 That's the sound that I heard.

21:56:16 On the other hand, you very eloquently, the attorney

21:56:19 for the petitioner explained it is a mere six inches on

21:56:25 both sides.

21:56:27 And that's true.

21:56:28 But a mere one count is a one millionth of an inch

21:56:34 between now and the moon is 27 million miles in width

21:56:38 when it gets to the moon.

21:56:39 So what I am trying to say is, both sides are right.

21:56:44 But only one is going to prevail.

21:56:46 Whether it's here or a court of law.

21:56:48 So I'm going to vote for denial based on the fact that

21:56:51 the existing property at the time was a one-ownership

21:56:56 property of one owner, and the intent, if they had been

21:57:06 two separate properties at something greater than 99

21:57:09 feet that was 66 feet, 66 on one side and 66 on the

21:57:13 other, all the testimony that I heard on the different

21:57:15 lot sizes were prayer to '87, if I recall.

21:57:20 So that's the reason and the analogy for my decision.

21:57:24 Mr. Chairman, I don't even know if I will get a second.

21:57:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.

21:57:30 Motion made by councilman Miranda for denial and

21:57:34 seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

21:57:37 Yes, sir.

21:57:37 >> I don't know if there's any additional discussion,

21:57:42 but, Mr. Miranda, I direct your attention to the staff

21:57:46 report, page 4, section 27-321, continues on page 5.

21:58:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, you are talking about the most

21:58:05 efficient encouraged development applicable location

21:58:08 character and compatibility with the surrounding impact

21:58:10 to neighborhood to build the environmental and existing

21:58:13 geography.

21:58:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It appears what your argument is,

21:58:16 sir, it does not comply with that based on what you --

21:58:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Based on the testimony thatch we

21:58:21 received, it is not blood pressure the one foot, it is

21:58:23 about the ownership of the single piece of property.

21:58:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

21:58:31 Moved and second.

21:58:34 All in favor of the motion on the floor which is

21:58:36 denial, signify by saying Aye.

21:58:39 Opposes?

21:58:39 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano voting no.

21:58:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, Mr. Chairman, there's one

21:58:47 other addition to follow up on.

21:58:51 >>JULIA COLE: City of Tampa legal department.

21:58:54 Since this is an action which you took pursuant to

21:58:57 Florida statutes, it does require that if a

21:59:00 governmental entity rejects a special magistrate's

21:59:03 recommendation which by virtue of your vote you are

21:59:05 doing that, the governmental entity render a decision

21:59:08 within 30 days to describe specifically the uses or --

21:59:12 the use or uses available to the subject real property.

21:59:15 What I would ask you to do now that you made a decision

21:59:17 to deny it which is based on rejecting the special

21:59:20 magistrate's recommendation that you make a motion to

21:59:22 request the zoning administrator give to this property

21:59:26 owner, which will let them know what the uses that are

21:59:30 available on the property.

21:59:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by councilman Miranda, seconded

21:59:40 by Councilwoman Mulhern, to direct the zoning

21:59:44 administrator send a letter to the petitioner relative

21:59:47 to what they can do on this particular property.

21:59:51 Okay.

21:59:51 >> And the only other matter, Mrs. Feeley --

21:59:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Put that in the record.

21:59:58 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

22:00:00 Opposes?

22:00:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: To notify the petitioner.

22:00:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, before we leave, a motion and

22:00:13 second to receive and file.

22:00:15 All in favor?

22:00:18 We are all kind of tired.

22:00:20 Ms. Cole, can I have your attention, please?

22:00:22 Ms. Cole?

22:00:23 At some future meeting, can we bring this issue back

22:00:26 about this whole process?

22:00:31 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

22:00:32 The process today or the process you underwent this

22:00:35 morning?

22:00:38 With the hearing master and the variance review that we

22:00:40 went through this morning?

22:00:41 Because it was quite a long day, wasn't it?

22:00:44 And I would be happy to come back and discuss with

22:00:47 council some options that we have per our new process

22:00:51 and the hearing office theory we did appoint this

22:00:53 morning.

22:00:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you understand the key point, we are

22:00:59 going to be swamped.

22:01:00 >> December 2nd I can do that.

22:01:03 December 16th.

22:01:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: December 2nd.

22:01:07 Do we need a motion to that effect?

22:01:09 >>JULIA COLE: December 2nd?

22:01:13 Very good.

22:01:14 Thank you.

22:01:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

22:01:15 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

22:01:17 Opposes?

22:01:17 Okay.

22:01:18 Any other business that needs to come before council?

22:01:20 >>THE CLERK: Who was the first and second on that last

22:01:22 motion?

22:01:24 >> Councilwoman Mulhern, and Miranda was seconded.

22:01:31 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I would like to make one go for the

22:01:33 record.

22:01:33 On the petitions that were filed by Mrs. Steadman, I

22:01:36 would like to make an objection to those petitions on

22:01:39 the basis of relevance, and that they have no probative

22:01:43 value in this process, and they are neither competent

22:01:46 nor substantial evidence that goes to the matter.

22:01:51 Thank you.

22:01:52 I have to do that to preserve my record.

22:01:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

22:01:54 Thank you.

22:01:55 We stand adjourned.

22:01:56 Thank you all very much.

22:02:15 (The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m.)



The above represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.