Tampa City Council
Thursday, December 12, 2013
6:00 p.m. Session
This file 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.
06:03:12 [Sounding gavel]
06:05:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: City Council is called to order.
06:05:24 Roll call.
06:05:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
06:05:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
06:05:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
06:05:29 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
06:05:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
06:05:32 All right.
06:05:32 We start with item number 1.
06:05:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
06:05:40 If I may, number 3 needs to be continued to January
06:05:47 Mr. Turanchik is here this evening to represent the
06:05:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Turanchik?
06:05:55 >> Ed Turanchik.
06:06:04 City Council members, we are representing property owners.
06:06:15 We are working on the lot rezoning and would like to
06:06:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before we start let me open hearings 1
06:06:23 through 7.
06:06:24 Motion by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr. Cohen.
06:06:27 All in favor?
06:06:28 The ayes have it unanimously.
06:06:29 Yes, sir, I'm sorry.
06:06:30 >> That's okay.
06:06:32 I spoke my peace.
06:06:35 Request a continue till January.
06:06:36 >> Anyone in the audience care to be speak to the
06:06:39 continuance portion of item number 3 from today's date to
06:06:41 January 16th, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., please come forward if
06:06:45 you are opposed to it, please come forward: I sew he no
06:06:49 I have a motion by Mr. Reddick to continue, second by Mr.
06:06:57 I said it, January 16th, the year 2014 at 6:00.
06:07:01 Thank you very much.
06:07:02 All in favor of that motion?
06:07:05 The ayes have it unanimously.
06:07:07 Item number 3.
06:07:09 Okay, item number 1.
06:07:10 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 1, Z-13-75.
06:07:15 The request is located at 2809 north 21st street and the
06:07:21 request before you this evening is from an RS-50 residential
06:07:24 single-family zoning district to CN neighborhood commercial,
06:07:29 Euclidean zoning districts.
06:07:31 Therefore no waivers may be requested with this application.
06:07:39 Oh, did you want to swear in the --
06:07:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes.
06:07:43 This is a public hearing, quasi-judicial.
06:07:46 Anyone who is going to speak on 1 through 7, please stand up
06:07:49 if you are going to speak, thinking of speaking or hopefully
06:07:51 going to speak, and get sworn in.
06:07:54 (Oath administered by Clerk)
06:07:56 >> Good evening, council members.
06:08:06 David Hay with your Planning Commission staff and I have now
06:08:10 been sworn.
06:08:11 For our first case we are in the central Tampa planning
06:08:16 As Abbye stated subject site is 2809 north 21st street
06:08:23 located approximately 70 feet north of interstate 4.
06:08:26 The site also falls within the boundary of East Tampa
06:08:31 The subject site, East Tampa urban village.
06:08:35 The subject site also has access to east 17th street
06:08:39 which is designated as a transit emphasis corridor on that
06:08:44 map that you can see there.
06:08:45 Onto the aerial, as you can see, the subject site is located
06:08:50 within the center of the aerial.
06:08:51 We have interstate 4 running east-west across the bottom of
06:08:56 the aerial and you can see the one pay pair of 21st
06:09:01 street and 23rd street.
06:09:04 You can see some of the commercial buildings along 22nd
06:09:07 while the remaining are predominantly single-family in
06:09:12 Next we move onto the future land use map.
06:09:15 The subject site is outlined in red.
06:09:17 On this map, you can see that this portion of 21st
06:09:20 street including the subject site are all designated
06:09:23 residential 20, while to the east centered around 22nd
06:09:27 street we have the community mixed use 35, represented by
06:09:29 the pinkish color.
06:09:32 By looking at the future land use map you can see the
06:09:34 comprehensive plan recognizes the 22nd street corridor as
06:09:37 the area of commercial mixed use corridor.
06:09:40 Planning Commission staff looks at a site for consideration
06:09:43 of nonresidential uses we first look at the criteria in
06:09:48 chapter 9.
06:09:49 Though the commercial locational criteria is not the only
06:09:53 consideration for nonresidential uses, it is an integral
06:09:56 tool that the city has at its discretion in directing growth
06:09:59 toward appropriate areas of the city such as mixed use
06:10:02 corridor villages or business center.
06:10:04 Out of review of the commercial criteria Planning Commission
06:10:07 staff wanted to highlight some issues regarding this
06:10:09 rezoning to the City Council this evening.
06:10:12 There are four criteria that the rezoning should meet for
06:10:15 The rezoning clearly meets the first two, but the last two
06:10:19 bring up some potential long-range planning issues that
06:10:22 staff wanted to highlight to you this evening.
06:10:25 Section C of the commercial locational criteria deals with
06:10:28 the potential development and potential multiple access
06:10:33 points, that that type of development usually brings.
06:10:36 Planning Commission staff identified this area due to the
06:10:38 existing small lot parcel configuration as an area if the
06:10:42 trend to nonresidential development continues, it may pose a
06:10:45 negative transportation impact over the long range with each
06:10:49 parcel potentially having its own access point onto 21st
06:10:53 Section B of the criteria deals with overall need for
06:10:56 nonresidential uses, saying that existing nonresidential
06:11:00 uses are, quote, inadequate to meet the demands of the
06:11:05 When Planning Commission staff looked at the existing land
06:11:07 use of the surrounding area, you can clearly see the number
06:11:11 of vacant commercially zoned parcels located along north
06:11:15 22nd street.
06:11:16 The number of existing commercially zoned vacant parcels
06:11:19 does raise the question among staff that there may be an
06:11:22 overabundance of commercially zoned parcels within the
06:11:25 general area or a lack of residential density to support the
06:11:28 number of existing commercial zoned parcels.
06:11:30 As stated previously, locational criteria is not the only
06:11:33 thing that staff looks at when reviewing a potential
06:11:37 rezoning to nonresidential uses.
06:11:39 Despite its located within the East Tampa CRA and the plan
06:11:43 encourages greater latitude for creating greater development
06:11:47 opportunities along the corridor.
06:11:48 Also the plan identifies the intersection of 22nd street and
06:11:51 Columbus drive located just south of the subject site as a
06:11:55 mainly commercial node within the East Tampa commercial
06:12:01 Planning Commission staff finds it offers a number of
06:12:04 transit to a number of other activity centers in
06:12:09 unincorporated Hillsborough County.
06:12:11 After reviewing all relevant goals, objectives and policies
06:12:14 of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission staff did
06:12:16 identify that portions of 21st street in proximity to
06:12:21 the identified node within the East Tampa CRA may be
06:12:25 appropriate for limited neighborhood commercial and
06:12:27 residential office uses.
06:12:29 These limited nonresidential uses should provide for a
06:12:32 logical transition of intensity between the existing
06:12:36 residential use as long 22nd street while supporting
06:12:39 long-range, main commercial corridor of 22nd street.
06:12:43 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals, objectives
06:12:46 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission
06:12:49 staff found the rezoning request consistent with the Tampa
06:12:52 comprehensive plan.
06:12:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Hay, a quick question.
06:12:59 You said a lot of things.
06:13:01 Sometimes we get bombarded with boards and I felt that way a
06:13:04 minute ago.
06:13:07 You showed us the map with all those vacant properties, and
06:13:11 I'm trying to figure out what the focus is on the Planning
06:13:14 Commission in terms of what you just said to us.
06:13:16 I need to get to the gist of it, which is that because of
06:13:21 where it's located, and because it's towards 21st and
06:13:24 not towards 22nd, and 22nd is the preferred corridor for
06:13:29 small commercial use, are you saying that to look at those
06:13:37 vacant commercial lots differently for the future of land
06:13:39 use map?
06:13:40 Or I wasn't sure what you were getting to.
06:13:43 >>David Hay: As part of that locational criteria that one
06:13:47 has to look at is one of the criteria is be that the section
06:13:51 talks about the overall need of commercial uses when looking
06:13:55 at a neighborhood.
06:13:56 It doesn't set out, of course, any criteria to be look at.
06:14:01 It just basically raises the issue.
06:14:03 When Steve looked at it, we had a discussion among staff
06:14:06 basically that there's already that quarter is all zoned
06:14:12 22nd street, all zoned CG currently.
06:14:14 And with the number of vacant parcels that are located
06:14:18 there, it raised a question among staff and we weren't able
06:14:24 to answer it.
06:14:25 That's why we wanted to raise it with you tonight, was that
06:14:30 is there the need present there?
06:14:33 It has to be a judgment call.
06:14:35 Is the need present there for additional commercial?
06:14:39 And, you know, staff wasn't in the position to really answer
06:14:42 We just wanted to highlight it as one of the issues, because
06:14:46 we didn't want to set the record where the comp plan used
06:14:50 22nd street and 21st, but 22nd street is the main
06:14:54 corridor, and if nonresidential uses are to expand, they
06:14:59 should be lesser intense, and really should be supportive of
06:15:02 the main corridor.
06:15:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I may be wrong about this but based on the
06:15:10 land use map, is this a historical action in terms of the
06:15:16 number of vacant commercial properties that are there
06:15:19 meaning that this was the nature of the plotting of the land
06:15:24 Because where it was located, so on and so forth.
06:15:28 Is that right?
06:15:28 >> That's correct.
06:15:28 >> And that's what I was getting at, when we do these
06:15:33 comprehensive plans later on, we are going to have to see
06:15:37 what the nature of what that section of Ybor City will have
06:15:40 to look like, and that's something that we'll have to decide
06:15:43 when we redo our comprehensive plan, and that's what you
06:15:47 were trying to say, correct?
06:15:48 >> That's what I was trying to say.
06:15:49 >> Thank you.
06:15:50 I'm glad I could get that clear in my head.
06:15:52 So thank you.
06:15:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, ma'am?
06:15:54 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This concludes my presentation.
06:15:59 The applicant is proposing to rezone from the RS-50 to CN to
06:16:02 allow for development of the property with CN uses.
06:16:05 It is comprised of two platted lots, and east-west, and then
06:16:10 a rear piece of 24.5 feet of the two platted lots to the
06:16:16 south for a total area of 9,067 square feet.
06:16:21 Minimum requirements to the CN is 5,000.
06:16:23 Minimum lot area with 60 foot minimum yard width. Setbacks
06:16:27 are 20-foot front, 10-foot sides, 10-foot corners and
06:16:34 10-foot rear.
06:16:35 In the CN zoning district, maximum building height is 35
06:16:37 Let me show you again the site.
06:16:39 Yellow, 18th to the north.
06:16:44 21st to the west.
06:16:45 22nd to the east.
06:16:46 17th to the south.
06:16:48 And as David told you, Columbus is just one block south.
06:16:51 There's a number of one-ways in this area.
06:16:56 The East Tampa civic -- business association is located just
06:17:04 to the east of this site.
06:17:07 Terrace is on the atlas.
06:17:12 You have a mix just south and to the east of 22nd.
06:17:19 You have the YC district.
06:17:21 You also have RM-16.
06:17:24 There are two PDs just to the north of this property that
06:17:29 were done a few years back for professional offices.
06:17:31 They have not been constructed yet.
06:17:33 The property is shown here in green.
06:17:35 The CG line is immediately to the rear or the east of the
06:17:41 subject site, and runs that corridor of 22nd which David
06:17:45 mentioned to you.
06:17:49 I'll show you some photos.
06:17:56 Here is the subject property from 21st.
06:18:01 21st is a one-way headed south.
06:18:06 This is at the corner of 21st and 17th.
06:18:14 That is the northeast corner of 21st and 17th.
06:18:18 This is the southeast corner.
06:18:24 These are along Columbus.
06:18:26 This is to the north of the property that like I said has
06:18:30 been PD for business professional office.
06:18:34 This is moving along 18th headed east.
06:18:41 This is a look down 17th.
06:18:44 Here is the access to the property on 17th.
06:18:52 That's on your map there.
06:18:55 I have to have think about where I am.
06:18:59 This is to the west of that -- I'm sorry, this is
06:19:05 immediately west of the access.
06:19:07 This is further west.
06:19:11 This is the west side of 21st coming down from the
06:19:15 This is immediately to the west of the property moving
06:19:21 This is at the corner, the northwest corner of 17th, and
06:19:28 There's another view of that.
06:19:37 the site does meet the Merry Christmas standards for
06:19:44 consideration of the CN zoning district.
06:19:46 Staff did find that given the existing uses of the area that
06:19:50 this would be a transitional from 22nd, 21st, given the
06:19:56 one-ways that are existing now, we did find the request
06:20:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
06:20:03 >>MARY MULHERN: CN is commercial neighborhood?
06:20:06 >> Yes.
06:20:07 >>MARY MULHERN: What would that allow?
06:20:21 >> If you give me a minute I'll pull up my codes.
06:20:24 It's everything except specialty retail, and specialty
06:20:28 retail is a thousand square foot maximum but allows for
06:20:31 business professional office, no medical office, lower
06:20:34 intensity commercial, and then the specialty retail.
06:20:38 >> It does allow specialty retail?
06:20:41 >> Let me pull it real quick and I'll look again, if we have
06:20:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think we have to look.
06:20:58 if you need time, we could have the petitioner go ahead.
06:22:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Petitioner?
06:22:09 >> I'm William Bennett, on behalf of 2809, 21st street.
06:22:22 And I'm seeking the rezoning to commercial neighborhood from
06:22:32 I heard a couple of things that were said here with relation
06:22:34 to the area, and the existing commercial lots.
06:22:39 If you look at those lots you can see they are kind of
06:22:44 I worked in that 22nd street corridor as a youth.
06:22:48 What kills all of the businesses is just see lots now is
06:22:54 they transition from two way traffic to one way traffic down
06:22:58 22nd street, and actually 21st street is the companion
06:23:03 street that makes 22nd street function.
06:23:10 It's just that it hadn't been developed.
06:23:12 And a big part of that has to do with the -- just
06:23:23 development came back in that area.
06:23:28 When 22nd street is a two-way traffic pattern, I guess the
06:23:32 traffic pattern did the people's behavior a little different
06:23:36 when they came through 22nd street.
06:23:38 Now they fly through 22nd street because it one-way.
06:23:43 And it's tough to find parking.
06:23:46 There's no parking.
06:23:48 If you have got a business there, it seems like the only
06:23:50 business that can survive on 22nd street in that particular
06:23:54 area is, you know, storefront churches.
06:24:06 Try to move away from the storefront church business plan
06:24:10 and try to do something different.
06:24:12 I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
06:24:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
06:24:18 With the commercial neighborhood, do you have nip plans in
06:24:20 mind exactly what you want to do with that rezoning?
06:24:23 >> That's a good question.
06:24:26 Yes, sir.
06:24:28 That neighborhood where you can get a beer, cigarettes very
06:24:33 easily, but you can't buy like a banana or tomato or
06:24:37 anything like that, you know, without getting on the bus and
06:24:45 So I'm thinking along the lines of produce.
06:24:54 I might consider doing something along the lines of computer
06:24:59 maintenance, and that type.
06:25:01 I'm not interested in selling cigarettes or beer.
06:25:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
06:25:06 We have enough of that in that area.
06:25:07 >> We do.
06:25:08 We really do.
06:25:09 And we need something a little more wholesome.
06:25:11 I would like to take advantage of the fact that we have got
06:25:14 three buses by this property.
06:25:18 I would like to create a safe zone for people to, you know,
06:25:26 that actually use the bus for transit.
06:25:29 And so I'm thinking that I have contemplated having a
06:25:33 business that starts before daylight so that people can have
06:25:38 a safe place and use the bus service.
06:25:44 And I have also contemplated, like I said, I want something
06:25:48 that's going to kind of like push the area.
06:25:55 You know, a nutritional or technology type.
06:26:07 I understand it's going to start creating some hot spots for
06:26:10 people to use their computers.
06:26:12 That's what I'm looking for.
06:26:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any other council members?
06:26:17 Are you finished with your presentation?
06:26:22 I'm going to ask you for rebuttal in a minute but go on.
06:26:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
06:26:27 I want to go ahead through some of this permissible uses
06:26:30 under the CN for Councilwoman Mulhern starting with the low
06:26:36 intensity uses, bed and breakfast, cemetery would be
06:26:39 permitted, a clinic, a club, daycare, nursery, place of
06:26:45 religious assembly, hotel facility, and then it picks up
06:26:51 with a bank, a tutoring shop, a micro -- no, take that back.
06:27:01 Office, business professional, pharmacy, which would be
06:27:06 stand-alone, public service facility, public use facility, a
06:27:09 restaurant, retail sales, convenience goods would be
06:27:13 allowed, retail sales, specialty goods, special event
06:27:17 parking, storefront residential, given the presentation of
06:27:20 the applicant may be something to consider where they could
06:27:23 have one or two units upstairs and either commercial or
06:27:27 small retail business downstairs type of use.
06:27:30 And that would be it.
06:27:31 Everything else would be a special use, conditional use or
06:27:34 accessory use.
06:27:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
06:27:38 Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item number 1,
06:27:42 I see no one.
06:27:43 You have rebuttal.
06:27:45 Would you like to take it, sir?
06:27:46 Five minutes.
06:27:47 >> Rebuttal?
06:27:48 I haven't heard anything that I was interested in rebuttal.
06:27:52 >> You're a very smart man.
06:27:54 >> Thank you, sir.
06:27:55 >> Motion to close by Mr. Reddick.
06:27:57 Second by Mrs. Montelione.
06:27:59 All in favor of the motion to close?
06:28:02 The ayes have it unanimously.
06:28:03 Mr. Reddick, would you kindly take number 1?
06:28:06 >> Move an ordinance for first reading consideration, an
06:28:09 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2809
06:28:11 north 21st street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
06:28:14 particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
06:28:17 classification RS-50 residential single-family to CN
06:28:21 commercial neighborhood, providing an effective date.
06:28:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Reddick, a second
06:28:26 by Mrs. Mulhern on a close vote with Mr. Suarez.
06:28:29 All in favor of the motion?
06:28:31 The ayes have it unanimously.
06:28:32 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.
06:28:36 Second reading and adoption will be on January 9th at
06:28:38 9:30 a.m.
06:28:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 2 cannot be heard.
06:28:42 No affidavit filed.
06:28:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can remove that from the agenda.
06:28:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Do you want this removed?
06:28:51 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Actually, I reset that case to January
06:28:54 16th already through the prior system, since it was
06:28:59 misnoticed it couldn't be reheard so I reset it.
06:29:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Then the proper thing would be the
06:29:04 council said to remove it.
06:29:06 Need a motion to remove item number 2.
06:29:08 Motion by Mr. Suarez on item number 27, second by Mr.
06:29:11 Further discussion by council members?
06:29:13 All in favor?
06:29:14 The ayes have it unanimously.
06:29:16 Item number 2 is removed.
06:29:17 Item number 3 was taken care of earlier with an extension of
06:29:20 time to January 16th, 2014 to 6:00.
06:29:23 Item number 4.
06:29:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
06:29:27 Item number 4 is Z-13-76 located at 1810, 1812 West Kennedy
06:29:33 Boulevard and 112 south Fremont.
06:29:35 The request before you this evening is from PD planned
06:29:38 development to PD planned development for office, business,
06:29:42 Many of you may be familiar with this building, the Walker
06:29:48 Brands building recently purchased and looking to do an
06:30:00 >>David Hay: Planning Commission staff.
06:30:01 I have been sworn.
06:30:03 We stay in the Tampa central planning district.
06:30:06 The subject site is located at the southeast corner of
06:30:08 Kennedy Boulevard and south Fremont Avenue in the Courier
06:30:11 City Oscawana neighborhood.
06:30:13 the subject site is located along Kennedy Boulevard which
06:30:17 has been designated as a transit corridor.
06:30:21 Onto the aerial the subject site is always within the center
06:30:24 of the map.
06:30:24 You can see Kennedy Boulevard running east-west.
06:30:27 You can also see Platt Street to the south and the Crosstown
06:30:32 expressway in the lower right corner.
06:30:34 Some landmarks include WalMart to the northeast, and you can
06:30:40 see the commercial uses at Kennedy Boulevard.
06:30:45 Finally we have the land use map.
06:30:46 The subject site has two future land use designations.
06:30:50 The northern portion of the parcel, and parcels located east
06:30:53 and west along Kennedy Boulevard are all designated urban
06:30:56 mixed use 60.
06:30:57 The southern portion of the subject site and all parts
06:31:01 located to the south and southwest are all designated
06:31:03 residential 20, which is that brownish-tan color.
06:31:06 To the east we have some community mixed use 35 centered
06:31:10 around south Packwood, and some community commercial 35
06:31:13 represented by the red center lying south of Rome Avenue.
06:31:16 Overall Planning Commission staff found that the proposed
06:31:19 planned development would allow for the logical expansion of
06:31:21 an existing office building and parking area without
06:31:24 creating any additional negative impacts on adjacent
06:31:27 residential uses.
06:31:29 Though the parking area is increasing in size and moving
06:31:31 deeper into the residential neighborhood along the south, no
06:31:34 new access points would be permitted and the parking area
06:31:37 would be appropriately screened from south Fremont Avenue.
06:31:41 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals, objectives
06:31:43 and policies of the comprehensive plan, Planning Commission
06:31:46 staff finds rezoning request consistent with the Tampa
06:31:49 comprehensive plan.
06:31:50 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thank you, David.
06:31:57 If I may for just a moment before I start my formal
06:32:00 presentation, let me just go to the aerial and show you
06:32:04 what's shown here, existing Walker Brands building shown
06:32:11 here, and the first lot here was part of the original PD.
06:32:14 The piece to the south as David just referred to that's
06:32:17 incorporated was also PD for office with parking on its own
06:32:22 So what is coming into play is that they have acquired this
06:32:28 southern piece that was PDed, and I refer to that in my
06:32:31 report for an office building with surface parking here, and
06:32:36 they are going to extend the parking area that's already
06:32:40 existing here.
06:32:41 I'll show you some pictures of that into that area, and also
06:32:44 cover those so we can talk a little about that.
06:32:49 I just want to be clear what you have here is two different
06:32:52 PDs, a PD that was done for the northern piece and then an
06:32:55 old PD here, and they are all coming into one.
06:33:02 When you look on the zoning atlas, you see the main PD to
06:33:05 the northern portion of the building and the existing
06:33:07 parking along the alley, and then here is that little tiny
06:33:11 PD there, that was the PD for the other office that was done
06:33:14 but was never done.
06:33:17 The request before you tonight is to allow for that old PD
06:33:21 that was never constructed to become an extension of the
06:33:24 current parking area, Walker Brands, and also to allow for
06:33:29 an addition to be made onto the existing Walker Brand
06:33:34 In the staff report, there are five waivers that were
06:33:38 previously approved through ZR-3-155 that relate to Walker
06:33:45 Brands in its current condition as built, and then there
06:33:48 were five waivers that are being requested before you
06:33:50 tonight that relate to the addition and the expansion of a
06:33:55 parking area.
06:33:57 So five new waivers are to allow all trees that are not able
06:34:02 to be replaced on-site to be paid to the tree bank.
06:34:05 The second is to reduce the required parking from 52 to 42.
06:34:09 And you will see there are two large grand trees on the
06:34:15 southern boundary of the properties being retained, so part
06:34:20 of that parking waiver is coming from that.
06:34:22 The third is to allow reduce the required backup from 6-foot
06:34:26 to zero foot, to allow reduction in the drive isles and 24
06:34:30 feet to 19.5 feet, and that is also around that tree area,
06:34:34 and I can show you that on the site plan.
06:34:36 And the last is to reduce the required vehicle use area
06:34:39 buffer for the southern parcel, the property from 8-foot to
06:34:44 zero foot along the alley both on the north and the east and
06:34:47 to reduce the buffer along the south from 3 to 2 feet with
06:34:51 the pavement of fee in lieu and I can show you that as well.
06:34:57 As I mentioned the request before you tonight is to
06:34:59 construct a 6,707 square foot addition to the existing
06:35:03 office building.
06:35:04 The property was previously zoned in 2003.
06:35:07 It was constructed, and it was constructed in 2008 at less
06:35:14 square footage than it was actually entitled for at 8,793
06:35:18 square feet.
06:35:19 The proposed addition will be an extension of the two-story
06:35:22 structure along the southern facade including a combination
06:35:25 of enclosed floor area and covered parking on the ground
06:35:29 In addition the subject seeks to incorporate the 51 by
06:35:33 130-foot parcel to the south to construct additional parking
06:35:37 via office use.
06:35:38 The parking would serve as an extension of the existing
06:35:40 parking lot on a parcel that was previously PDed in 2006 for
06:35:45 an office with surface parking.
06:35:48 Vehicular access to the property is going to remain off of
06:35:51 the northern portion of the alley.
06:35:53 And I'm show that to you.
06:35:54 It runs between the existing building and the parking area,
06:35:57 and the proposed building setbacks are as follows.
06:36:00 Zero foot on Kennedy Boulevard, 4-foot south to the alley,
06:36:04 one foot west, and ten foot east.
06:36:07 It's a setback for the proposed addition are consistent with
06:36:09 the placement of the existing building.
06:36:11 Furthermore, the Pinellas County application proposes to
06:36:14 cover the southern parking area with canopies.
06:36:18 The proposed setback is zero foot north, zero foot east and
06:36:23 seven foot minimum on the south and west.
06:36:26 Based on the addition a total of 52 spaces are required and
06:36:30 a total of 42 are being provided.
06:36:32 This property is located along primary transit corridor.
06:36:36 Therefore the 19% parking reduction was seen as acceptable
06:36:41 by staff.
06:36:45 I am going to go ahead and show you some pictures of the
06:36:47 There is a finding of inconsistency by transportation for
06:36:51 the reduction in the drive isle.
06:36:53 They are here this evening to speak to that if necessary,
06:36:57 from 24 feet to 19.5 feet.
06:36:59 It is only for one portion of the parking area.
06:37:03 And also there is a comment from natural resources that at
06:37:06 the time of permitting and other retention area will be
06:37:16 The zoning atlas -- I mean the aerial for the site, and the
06:37:19 zoning atlas.
06:37:21 Let me go ahead and show you some pictures of the site.
06:37:26 This is Kennedy Boulevard looking south at the subject
06:37:35 This is from Fremont coming south on Fremont.
06:37:43 This is the existing surface area adjacent to the buildings
06:37:47 that will be the location for the expansion.
06:37:51 Another view, that southern facade of the building.
06:37:57 These are from the alley along the south looking back north
06:38:00 toward Kennedy.
06:38:02 This is the current access to the property as previously
06:38:07 Portion of this is alley.
06:38:09 Portion of this is private property.
06:38:10 This is looking east, the existing parking area.
06:38:17 And this area here where the fence is, that will be shifted
06:38:20 southward to include that southern parcel.
06:38:23 This is from the alley looking back west toward Fremont.
06:38:29 This is the parcel that will be incorporated from the alley
06:38:32 looking back west to Fremont.
06:38:36 Another view.
06:38:43 This is at the northeast corner of the alley.
06:38:45 There are alleys that run both in between and bisect the
06:38:49 property as well as along the eastern portion of the
06:38:52 Here is the office immediately to the south along Fremont.
06:38:59 This is on the west side of Fremont.
06:39:01 This is immediately west of the newly incorporated parcel.
06:39:07 This is also west.
06:39:10 This from the alley looking back.
06:39:12 This is the existing Walker Brands parking.
06:39:16 This is to the south.
06:39:18 This is off the alley.
06:39:23 Also off the alley.
06:39:26 Looking back north along the alley.
06:39:28 And north along Kennedy.
06:39:33 Immediately north of the property Solomon.
06:39:41 This to the west, also a shot to the west.
06:39:43 This is to the east.
06:39:47 A look down Kennedy at that segment.
06:39:49 The west.
06:39:50 And a look down Kennedy.
06:39:54 Outside of the finding from transportation about the
06:39:58 reduction of the drive aisle, there are no modifications
06:40:01 that need to be made to this site plan between first and
06:40:04 second reading.
06:40:07 Staff is available for any questions.
06:40:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any questions by council members at this
06:40:11 >> Timothy horner associates, Franklin.
06:40:25 I would like to thank staff for their hard work and
06:40:27 responsiveness throughout the project.
06:40:30 Ms. Feeley did a good job describing the project.
06:40:32 If you have any concerns regarding the waivers or the site
06:40:35 plan in general, I would be happy to discuss them with you.
06:40:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's your total presentation?
06:40:43 >> Correct.
06:40:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You have rebuttal if any.
06:40:46 Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 4,
06:40:50 Anyone in the audience care to speak on Z-13-76?
06:40:55 I see none.
06:40:56 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.
06:40:58 Seconded by Mrs. Mulhern.
06:41:00 Further discussion by council?
06:41:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Sorry, chair Miranda.
06:41:07 The neighboring property owner was asking me a question and
06:41:10 they did want to speak to the application.
06:41:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Please come forward.
06:41:14 >> I'm Chris Fernandez.
06:41:17 I'm not sure I need to be sworn in. I have not been sworn
06:41:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You need to be sworn in, yes, sir.
06:41:21 (Oath administered by Clerk)
06:41:24 >> I'm not sure if this should be brought up this evening.
06:41:30 I don't have any particular problem with the proposed plan
06:41:34 other than ask, there is a grand oak tree, in my opinion a
06:41:38 grand oak tree in the southeast corner of the property.
06:41:40 I believe that grand oak tree is hurting my building, is
06:41:44 damaging my building, is definitely messing my sidewalk.
06:41:49 I'm not sure if that should be addressed tonight.
06:41:53 My understanding is that was going to be retained.
06:41:56 My earlier understanding wags it was going to be removed
06:41:58 because of the building to my building and sidewalk.
06:42:01 Once again I'm not sure if this is the forum, but I bring it
06:42:05 >> I only speak for Mace, and the city attorney can talk on
06:42:11 This is a zoning.
06:42:13 And I understand what you are saying about the tree being
06:42:16 disruptive to your property and, Marty, does that meet the
06:42:22 I don't think he's objecting to the zoning from what I
06:42:24 >> No, no.
06:42:26 The plan.
06:42:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The tree, maybe between first and second
06:42:29 reading, I'm not sure.
06:42:31 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
06:42:35 Sitting through the DRZ and everything, and I'll show you
06:42:40 the tree that he's referring to.
06:42:47 It was deemed by natural resources to be a healthy tree and
06:42:50 was sought to be retained.
06:43:00 Mr. Fernandez' property is here.
06:43:02 I do see that, because we did go to the property, to the
06:43:05 south, but he does have parking area there, and it is
06:43:09 possible for these roots to be as far as they could be.
06:43:14 The tree is in good health.
06:43:15 I'm not sure that, you know, the tearing up of his asphalt
06:43:21 has any direct correlation to the addition being proposed
06:43:25 It's an existing condition.
06:43:26 He could contact Mary Daniel with natural resources and
06:43:31 discuss what are his options.
06:43:33 But this plan does seek to retain it.
06:43:37 It is a grand tree.
06:43:38 It would require a waiver for us to remove, also.
06:43:41 And I would be hesitant to make any of those changes now.
06:43:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Petitioner, rebuttal?
06:43:48 >> Not necessarily any rebuttal.
06:43:53 But it would require an additional waiver.
06:43:58 We would not support taking that out if it delays this
06:44:01 process at all in rezoning the property.
06:44:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this to Mr. Fernandez.
06:44:07 I think if you contact us any of our aides we can at least
06:44:10 give you the avenue or the process to go through to try --
06:44:14 notice I use the word try -- to meet what you are trying to
06:44:18 I am going to tell you it's very difficult.
06:44:19 I am not going to sit here and tell you it's a cake walk.
06:44:22 It's not.
06:44:23 But we will try.
06:44:24 >> Thank you.
06:44:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any further one in the audience care to
06:44:29 speak on this item?
06:44:30 Any council members?
06:44:31 Need a motion to close.
06:44:32 I had a motion by Mr. Reddick.
06:44:34 Seconded by Mrs. Montelione earlier.
06:44:36 All in favor to close item 4, Z-13-76?
06:44:41 Please say aye.
06:44:42 Opposed nay.
06:44:43 The ayes have it unanimously.
06:44:45 Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take item number 4?
06:44:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move an ordinance being presented for
06:44:53 first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property
06:44:55 in the general vicinity of 1810 and 1812 West Kennedy
06:45:00 Boulevard and 112 south Fremont Avenue in the city of Tampa,
06:45:04 Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from
06:45:08 zoning district classification PD, planned development,
06:45:10 office, business professional, and retail, to PD, planned
06:45:14 development, office, business, professional, providing an
06:45:18 effective date.
06:45:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez, second by
06:45:22 Mr. Reddick.
06:45:23 Further discussion by council members?
06:45:24 All in favor?
06:45:25 The ayes have it unanimously.
06:45:27 Thank you very much for attending.
06:45:32 Item number 5.
06:45:33 >> Item adopted with Mrs. Capin being absent.
06:45:40 Second reading on January 16, 6:00 p.m.
06:45:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Z-12-49.
06:45:53 I have pondered whether I should vote or not vote and I
06:45:56 decided for the best of the city, I am going to recuse
06:46:01 And that doesn't mean that I can't go to the mike and
06:46:06 represent myself as a private citizen.
06:46:08 Last time I looked this was still the United States of
06:46:11 And I don't need the city to in any way, shape or form spend
06:46:20 any money in any litigation that mate happen because of me.
06:46:25 I can take care of my own litigation.
06:46:27 And I'm sure sooner or later something is going to happen in
06:46:31 this case, whether it's today or tomorrow, something is
06:46:34 going to happen.
06:46:35 And so I am going to recuse myself.
06:46:39 I am going to -- my property is directly across the street,
06:46:44 and we'll go from there.
06:46:46 So I am not even going to go any further with this.
06:46:52 Give that to the clerk, sir, and I will recuse Mace and go
06:46:55 from there.
06:46:56 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
06:47:03 We are going to then move on and consider this item.
06:47:07 Ms. Mandell, would you like to give us some guidance on the
06:47:11 order in which you would like us to take up this matter so
06:47:15 that it flows properly?
06:47:16 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.
06:47:20 There is before you three items that have remained from our
06:47:24 previous hearing which this was continued from.
06:47:27 At your previous hearing, the first item that you took up
06:47:30 was the vacation of Saint Isabel which City Council did
06:47:34 ultimately deny.
06:47:36 As a result of that denial, what is before you today is the
06:47:42 remaining two items.
06:47:44 The third item is just a carryover item for the second
06:47:48 public hearing on the development agreement.
06:47:50 You have before you the rezoning petition as well as the
06:47:54 development agreement which is in front of you for a public
06:47:58 hearing but not for you to take action till the second
06:48:01 public hearing pursuant to Florida statutes.
06:48:04 The petition that is in front of you today originally had
06:48:08 some Isabella as part of the Scripps and part of that
06:48:13 As a result of your denial the applicant has submitted to
06:48:17 staff and to the legal department, and I have provided that
06:48:20 to you, a new site man which would remove Saint Isabel as
06:48:26 part of the legal description, but would retain the
06:48:29 remaining commitments that were made as part of the
06:48:32 remediation and the remediated settlement that we did
06:48:36 discuss at the last hearing.
06:48:38 I will go back over those with you, but that's procedurally
06:48:41 where we are at this point in time.
06:48:43 My recommendation is that you go ahead and hear the rezoning
06:48:45 petition and Ms. Feeley can walk you through the new site
06:48:49 plan that was submitted as part of this process, and as part
06:48:52 of this denial of Saint Isabel, and then allow the public
06:48:56 hearing on the rezoning to occur, and if you would like you
06:49:00 can also hear the specifics of the development agreement at
06:49:04 the same time, during the same public hearing.
06:49:07 Given that had you won't take action on the development
06:49:11 agreement today, but they do come together as part of the
06:49:15 overall mediated settlement process that is in front of you
06:49:19 >>HARRY COHEN: So then why don't we go ahead and open items
06:49:24 5, 6 and 7?
06:49:28 >> I would not recommend you open 7.
06:49:30 >>HARRY COHEN: We'll leave 7 off.
06:49:32 >> We'll deal with 7 when we goat there.
06:49:34 >> Okay, got.
06:49:36 You are correct.
06:49:37 Thank you.
06:49:42 Item number 5.
06:49:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
06:49:59 The request before you this evening is from RS-50
06:50:02 residential single-family, RO-1 residential office and PD,
06:50:06 planned development, hospital, medical office and parking,
06:50:09 to PD, planned development, hospital, medical office, and
06:50:13 surface parking.
06:50:22 There are four waivers associated with the request.
06:50:25 The first is to reduce the allowable landscape aisle which
06:50:29 had they to a minimum 56 feet for interior landscape of
06:50:32 vehicle use areas.
06:50:33 The second is to allow for landscape area separation within
06:50:36 the vehicle use area to increase maximum of 27 lineal spaces
06:50:40 and to an average of 20 lineal parking spaces, and based on
06:50:45 the large trees that to retain that are on the property.
06:50:49 To reduce the required number of loading berths from 5 to
06:50:53 2 and fourth is to allow for commercial traffic access to be
06:50:57 a local street.
06:51:02 On all the photos and everything of this site --
06:51:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Feeley, is the only difference now that
06:51:30 there's no longer the request for Saint Isabel to be
06:51:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: No.
06:51:39 When this came before you last Thursday for the vacating, we
06:51:43 never got the opportunity -- not last Thursday.
06:51:49 We never got the opportunity to talk about the modifications
06:51:51 to the rezoning because we didn't take up the rezoning at
06:51:57 that time.
06:52:01 There are other changes to the rezoning plan that you have
06:52:03 not seen.
06:52:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
06:52:06 I would like to hear anything we didn't hear the last time.
06:52:09 But there was a lot of discussion about what the applicant
06:52:14 was going to do with landscaping, and the linear park and
06:52:20 all that.
06:52:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY: There was.
06:52:23 And we never got to talk about it in context, the plan that
06:52:26 really controls that in association with the development
06:52:28 So we can go ahead and talk about that now.
06:52:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, I just think that you can keep it free
06:52:38 for now.
06:52:38 I thought we did talk a lot about it.
06:52:40 >>HARRY COHEN: Council's pleasure to talk about the
06:52:46 differences and an abbreviated version of what we heard
06:52:49 JULIA: If that's council's desire I am going to recommend
06:52:52 that we hear both items together and consolidate those items
06:52:55 and talk about them in context.
06:52:58 Thank you.
06:53:04 >> And what's in the development agreement and talk about
06:53:07 the agreement, and might get some better context to what's
06:53:11 on the zoning plan.
06:53:12 >>MARY MULHERN: The other thing I wanted to ask, I do have
06:53:15 a site plan but it still says vacating Saint Isabel.
06:53:19 Is that what we have?
06:53:24 >> And again doesn't have the waiver.
06:53:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, the waiver is not on there.
06:53:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman?
06:53:34 Counsel for the petitioner has provided a packet to
06:53:36 everybody that may contain that information if I can pass
06:53:38 that out now.
06:53:38 >>HARRY COHEN: That would be fine.
06:53:45 >>JULIA MANDELL: We had a talk on a conference but I did
06:54:32 provide you all, with the revised site plan that removes
06:54:38 Saint Isabel, and provide you a red line copy of this
06:54:42 development agreement which shows the changes from the
06:54:44 previous development agreement in front of you to what's
06:54:47 occurred today.
06:54:48 As was described at the previous hearing on these matters,
06:54:54 there were several commitments that were made, both through
06:54:58 the rezoning and through the development agreement, relating
06:55:01 to this project.
06:55:04 Probably the most significant one, two significant ones,
06:55:08 which is why it's hard to talk about, are the following
06:55:12 The first commitment is, there was in place a linear park
06:55:17 with some amenities, not a lot of amenities but some
06:55:20 amenities that were in place on, I guess, the north side of
06:55:25 west Lake Avenue in which, I guess, at some point in time,
06:55:34 maybe ten years ago, St. Joseph is part of the rezoning and
06:55:38 is also part of the development agreement, is committing two
06:55:42 One, that they would go ahead and create a linear park which
06:55:48 goes from Gomez to MacDill Avenue, 50 feet off the north
06:55:54 boundary of Lake Avenue, and they will extend the existing
06:55:59 sidewalk, which is matching up with the existing -- with the
06:56:03 sidewalk that is on the linear park which is currently in
06:56:05 existence, and that will be 50 feet and will be remaining
06:56:09 open space for a commitment on the site plan, of the
06:56:13 rezoning, and development agreement.
06:56:17 In addition, St. Joseph is agreeing with a commitment in the
06:56:21 development agreement and associated documents to maintain
06:56:23 the entire linear park, not just the portion that they own,
06:56:28 that they will have maintenance responsibility as it exists
06:56:31 They also are required to -- they are not required to
06:56:35 maintain the existing linear park.
06:56:38 In addition, it's shown on the site plan, they will be doing
06:56:46 plantings along the back area of the 50 feet along with
06:56:49 extending the existing concrete wall.
06:56:52 And those are commitments that are within the site plan.
06:56:55 And I will ask Abbye to get into more detail of what that
06:56:59 means in terms of the site plan.
06:57:02 The additional commitment that they had made is at the wall
06:57:09 which exists today and the one that is going across, they
06:57:12 are committing that there will be no lights which extends
06:57:16 past that wall, and it will have to be a zero foot candle at
06:57:23 the line at 50 feet where the wall is.
06:57:26 The other significant commitment has been made within the
06:57:29 development agreement occurred with something we talked
06:57:32 about during our mediation, as I indicated at our last
06:57:37 session, that was brought forward on behalf of some of the
06:57:42 folks who attended the citizens that attended the meeting as
06:57:46 well as recommendations of the mediator, was that there
06:57:48 would be a commitment within the development agreement --
06:57:51 and this is not on the site plan, and that we can discuss
06:57:55 why in a moment, that there will be a restrictive covenant
06:58:00 placed on the property on St. Joseph property to the benefit
06:58:04 of the City of Tampa, which provides that there will be no
06:58:08 vertical development within 370 feet, an additional 20 feet
06:58:13 from here, of the west Lake Avenue right-of-way line.
06:58:17 So it would be an additional 20 feet off the linear park,
06:58:21 and 70 feet from west Lake Avenue, that they do not a Chief
06:58:27 any vertical development at that line.
06:58:30 I want to make it clear.
06:58:31 That's is one of the reasons why staff had some concern
06:58:36 putting that line on the site plan.
06:58:38 They didn't want to concede at some point in the future a
06:58:44 right to build up to that line.
06:58:45 It is simply a provision within the development agreement
06:58:48 which will ultimately be supported in the courts that they
06:58:53 cannot ask for or be granted the right to have any vertical
06:58:57 development within 70 feet of the right-of-way of Lake
06:59:02 Avenue without changing not the zoning, without actually
06:59:09 going back and having the city's commitment to jointly undo
06:59:13 that restrictive could have dent.
06:59:14 The development agreement runs for 30 years.
06:59:16 The restrictive covenant runs for as long as those parties
06:59:19 want it to run.
06:59:21 There may be some title issues there, but that's not really
06:59:24 important for this conversation.
06:59:25 But those are the two major components of what they had
06:59:29 committed to as part of this development.
06:59:33 I'll ask Abbye to finish the discussion.
06:59:36 The site plan in and of itself and what's on the site plan
06:59:39 in terms of the vegetation, the trees that they are
06:59:43 committing to retain, et cetera,
06:59:45 And any other questions that you might have.
06:59:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Actually, Julia did an awesome job of
06:59:59 describing the modifications to the plan.
07:00:02 The current plan is the plan you previously considered which
07:00:07 had the extension of the parking area coming almost all the
07:00:10 way to Lake.
07:00:11 So what you see here is that proposed added open space in
07:00:18 this area here that was not previously for consideration.
07:00:26 Everything about the remaining layout is the same, with
07:00:33 some -- the walkways that were being provided, were still
07:00:39 being provided.
07:00:40 Those mid-block connections, the access points are the same,
07:00:46 transportation is here.
07:00:46 They do, as they did prior, have an objection to the access
07:00:51 to the local street on Saint Isabel.
07:00:56 Lastly, I believe there was minor modification in number of
07:01:02 parking spaces that are being provided based on the
07:01:07 I just want to remind you that this was -- the way that this
07:01:11 plan lays out, and this is way too big, it is a phase plan.
07:01:16 There's currently a medical office in this location.
07:01:19 So phase 1 was to construct this area in between Lake, Gomez
07:01:25 and Saint Isabel on the eastern portion of the site with
07:01:28 MacDill being shown on your site plan to the south, but
07:01:31 actually being to the west.
07:01:34 Phase 2 being located, would be the construction of surface
07:01:37 parking on the existing garage area of the site.
07:01:42 And then lastly phase 3 would be the construction of surface
07:01:46 parking in the area where the existing medical office is.
07:01:50 That being said, something I wanted to say in between and
07:01:55 now just slipped my brain.
07:02:02 Oh, that being said, there is at this time no vertical
07:02:06 development being proposed for that property on south of
07:02:11 Saint Isabel.
07:02:13 Anything other than surface parking would require this
07:02:15 property to be rezoned in order to request it.
07:02:31 >>MIKE COHEN: Councilman Montelione?
07:02:35 >> Total of 771 spaces being proposed.
07:02:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Ms. Feeley, Saint Isabel remaining open
07:02:49 to traffic and not being vacated, what are, if any -- other
07:03:00 than the striped crosswalk, the mid-block crossing -- the
07:03:09 safety element as part of this plan, are part of the
07:03:12 Because we are adding that many parking spaces, eventually
07:03:22 when all of the parking is built on that additional piece,
07:03:26 so I'm talking about right now phase 1 parking.
07:03:32 There's two to crosswalks that are indicated across Saint
07:03:40 There's going to be a lot of people, I would imagine,
07:03:43 crossing Saint Isabel.
07:03:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Also, the plan is a little bit -- it may be
07:03:53 hard to see this but there's also proposed fencing that's
07:03:56 being proposed along Saint Isabel, a 6-foot aluminum, and
07:04:05 fence that you normally think of a wrought iron fence, to
07:04:11 those marked crosswalks.
07:04:12 So it would try to kind of go to those people in those
07:04:17 locations to utilize those instead of guests come out onto
07:04:21 Saint Isabel and crossing wherever they might.
07:04:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because I was out there awhile ago and
07:04:30 somebody was crossing Fowler Avenue within five feet of
07:04:33 where the crosswalk was but not in the crosswalk, because
07:04:36 the gas station they want to go to is their destination and
07:04:42 they don't care where the crosswalk is.
07:04:44 >> You will see that fencing is shown in this location, in
07:04:47 addition to hedge and planting, so you won't be able to just
07:04:51 leave this space here and run across the street.
07:04:53 You will have to come to one of these connections, and the
07:04:58 fencing continues here.
07:04:59 I mean, it will not be fenced or gate add cross the drive
07:05:03 which was my concern because of the required, you know,
07:05:07 But that will be directing people to utilize -- there are
07:05:13 actually two mid blocks, and then of course you have the
07:05:16 crosswalk at the MacDill, Saint Isabel, and you would
07:05:20 have the Gomez, saint Isabel as well.
07:05:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Also a remainder tonight, come back here
07:05:27 at 6:00, it's dark.
07:05:29 Is there additional lighting proposed in the areas of those
07:05:34 >> I don't believe there is additional lighting but I will
07:05:39 let the applicant --
07:05:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So that would also be a concern, because
07:05:44 if there's a hospital and people who are parking there,
07:05:46 either are most likely visiting people who are in the host
07:05:54 and may be distracted when they are crossing that street.
07:06:00 Even if it's employee parking.
07:06:03 They are tired and they might be distracted in crossing that
07:06:07 street, and number one priority is pedestrian safety.
07:06:11 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I know that there will be lighting provided
07:06:14 within the parking areas, and that we had concern --
07:06:22 >> I don't believe there is additional lighting for those
07:06:25 crosswalks but again I will let the applicant speak to that.
07:06:27 And that could always be an additional condition or
07:06:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It would be something that I would be
07:06:33 very concerned about.
07:06:34 Thank you.
07:06:34 >>HARRY COHEN: Petitioner.
07:06:39 >> Amy Boulris, Gunster law firm, on behalf of the hospital.
07:06:47 I want to open by thank you thanking you for your courtesy
07:06:51 on December 5th to continuing this to tonight.
07:06:54 Awed full docket that day so thank you for that courtesy.
07:06:57 I appreciate it.
07:06:58 I want to take care of a few housekeeping things very
07:07:01 quickly up front.
07:07:02 There has been a motion be to consolidate these hearings.
07:07:05 I would like to consolidate the presentation time and
07:07:10 rebuttal time but try to do it under the combined time
07:07:15 Secondly, at the last hearing we put several things into the
07:07:21 record, and I will identify those very quickly.
07:07:26 The original application for rezoning, the memorandum from
07:07:32 myself to Mrs. Mandell, correspondence from Mr. Sierra to
07:07:38 Ms. Mandell dated April 8th, an affidavit of mailing
07:07:42 notice for the development agreement for dated November 18,
07:07:47 notice of neighborhood meeting that was held October
07:07:51 23rd, copy of return receipt showing delivery of that
07:07:54 notice to Mr. Sierra who represents several of the
07:07:57 neighbors, a copy of the hospital request under Florida
07:08:03 Statute 70.51, City of Tampa's response to that petition,
07:08:08 and a letter of recommendation from special magistrate
07:08:11 Siemen dated November 19th to this council into
07:08:16 tonight's record. I am going to hand the clerk several
07:08:19 One is a development agreement with proposed revisions that
07:08:24 have been discussed including a red loin and the revised
07:08:29 Second item is another affidavit of properly noticing the
07:08:33 intent to consider tonight's development agreement.
07:08:37 The other thing was a December 12 letter to Mr. Sierra
07:08:42 enclosing his November 22nd letter to me.
07:08:44 And the structural report that was put in the record last
07:08:48 January, and put it again tonight so it's all here.
07:08:54 And the photograph rendering of how the -- I am going to
07:09:00 keep it up here on the Elmo but then put it in the record
07:09:13 >> We have got it.
07:09:15 >> I don't know which you can see better.
07:09:18 Just for the record we have to remove our standing
07:09:35 objections that we went into at length last time relating to
07:09:37 the role of Chairman Miranda.
07:09:40 I know he repeats himself for tonight but one aspect of our
07:09:45 objection and we must renew is we object to him as acting as
07:09:49 both a witness and a judge in the same matter.
07:09:52 And it's my understanding he previously voted on the zoning
07:09:56 application last time so I am just putting that in the
07:09:59 record because I have to.
07:10:01 But we can move right on.
07:10:03 I think I will open my comments by, however, respectfully
07:10:08 differing with his statement tonight that there will
07:10:12 certainly be litigation here.
07:10:17 I can represent in good faith that my client hospital is
07:10:19 here in hope of avoiding that possibility.
07:10:27 And this was a conscious decision by the hospital to try to
07:10:29 invite the city and the staff and the neighbors to the table
07:10:34 to the concerns that everyone had and work out a solution.
07:10:37 And that was an investment the hospital made in resolution.
07:10:45 They could have litigated within 30 days of the January
07:10:49 They chose not to do that, and as we stand here tonight it's
07:10:52 still the desire not to have to resort to.
07:10:54 That so we are here in good faith and I hope tonight is all
07:10:57 about a mutually satisfactory resolution.
07:11:01 And we welcome the council's consideration to the revision.
07:11:07 As you heard from Mrs. Mandell, after the denial of the
07:11:12 zoning petition before you tonight, last January,
07:11:16 A special magistrate was appointed and sat with the parties,
07:11:22 city staff, several of the neighbors represented by Mr.
07:11:25 Sierra attended that hearing, and we talked about solutions.
07:11:29 The ultimate outcome of those hearings was that the special
07:11:32 magistrate asked certain things of the city, which
07:11:36 essentially was vacation of the Saint Isabel right-of-way to
07:11:41 make it possible for the city to recoup land that it's
07:11:44 devoting to buffer on the south side.
07:11:47 And then the special magistrate asked several things of the
07:11:52 And the hospital tonight is still willing to do everything
07:11:57 the special magistrate asks of the hospital even without the
07:12:02 The hospital has put before you tonight a revised site plan
07:12:06 and companion revised development agreement which excises
07:12:12 the vacation of Saint Isabel as a condition to the
07:12:15 settlement but still offers everything that they offered in
07:12:19 the last hearing.
07:12:20 So to answer the question posed earlier, does this site
07:12:24 plan, is it the same as presented on November 21st,
07:12:28 except without the Saint Isabel vacation?
07:12:31 The answer is yes.
07:12:32 Everything that the special master asked the hospital, the
07:12:35 hospital decided to offer in hopes of a resolution so what
07:12:46 was advertised, woo he would propose to revise between first
07:12:49 and second reading, city staff advises us that they consider
07:12:54 it a nonsubstantial revision and if council subpoena so
07:12:57 inclined to pass it on first reading we would come back on
07:13:00 second reading at the appropriate time, or if city staff,
07:13:03 and city attorney tell us that they are it constitutes a
07:13:09 substantial revision, we would be happy to come back on
07:13:12 second reading at a later time according to the code.
07:13:14 So that's what we are here tonight about.
07:13:21 I am going to ask people that are far more talented than I
07:13:25 to describe the site plan.
07:13:26 Mr. LaRocca will do that.
07:13:28 And talk about the parking issues, the traffic issues, and
07:13:31 most importantly the pedestrian safety issues that is
07:13:33 proposed in this site plan, pedestrian crossing signs with
07:13:37 flashers, so within the crosswalk, flashers go off, Mr.
07:13:43 Henry can speak to that.
07:13:44 Mr. Davis is also here for rebuttal if needed on some issues
07:13:48 about what the hospital has and has not represented in the
07:13:51 past, if we have to get into that.
07:13:53 But essentially I want you to understand that the hospital
07:13:58 as a nonprofit provider of medical services to this
07:14:00 community acquired the subject property for future hospital
07:14:06 That's never been in question.
07:14:08 In fact, the city has a specific comp plan policy that is
07:14:12 unique to this very block of land suggesting that it be used
07:14:16 for medical services in conjunction with the hospital as a
07:14:19 regional medical facility.
07:14:21 And we respectfully submit that using it as a parking lot is
07:14:25 a lesser intense proposal than other possibilities of the
07:14:30 neighborhood, and we think a far better transitional use.
07:14:40 There was some discussion about why doesn't the hospital
07:14:42 just replace the garage that they want to demolish?
07:14:45 And if it was so essential to demolish the garage, why
07:14:48 haven't they done it already?
07:14:49 And I just want to remained council there's kind two of
07:14:52 components to the garage problem.
07:14:54 One is that it is deteriorating.
07:14:56 It was built in the early 80s.
07:14:59 It is in need of structural repairs, that would cost between
07:15:06 a million and a half and three million dollar, and yes,
07:15:09 that's fixable with a very large investment of money.
07:15:12 What is not fixable is the fact this garage no longer meets
07:15:16 industry standards.
07:15:18 It has blind curves, hairpin turns, it doesn't function to
07:15:23 industry standard, and so the hospital has decided that in
07:15:29 being a steward of resources as a nonprofit and serving its
07:15:33 patients and employees that it would be better to replace
07:15:36 the parking that's in that garage at this time with safer
07:15:39 parking, and do it at a far lower cost on land that they own
07:15:43 for hospital purposes.
07:15:50 And it would cost several million dollars more to build fix
07:15:57 the garage and would rather put that into patient care and
07:16:00 quality of medical services.
07:16:02 That's what it's about, is about serving the community and
07:16:05 giving high quality medical services and proving the
07:16:09 situation that exists in the garage today.
07:16:13 So with that I am going to turn it over to --
07:16:16 >>HARRY COHEN: Before you do let's take questions or
07:16:17 comments from Councilman Reddick.
07:16:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
07:16:21 Let me ask you a question that you just stated about the
07:16:25 structure of the garage.
07:16:32 And I have been out there recently.
07:16:34 Now, do you feel that that garage is currently safe?
07:16:39 >> I'm not going to stand here as an attorney for the
07:16:42 hospital and tell you it's unsafe.
07:16:46 It could be safer.
07:16:49 And anyone is welcome to drive the garage and compare it to
07:16:52 other garage you use in your daily life in offices, but it
07:16:56 is not the easiest garage to navigate for drivers or
07:17:00 And since it needs structural repairs and costs $3 million
07:17:07 to do that, it's wiser to replace in the a cost efficient
07:17:12 >> Since you are not going to replace it, is the hospital
07:17:14 doing anything to review the damage to determine whether
07:17:20 those cracks and other structures that you might have will
07:17:26 be safe for those who are parking in the garage?
07:17:30 Has there been analysis?
07:17:32 >> There's been a structural engineer who worth reported
07:17:35 evidence and testified in January that it's in need of
07:17:39 scheduled maintenance.
07:17:41 I don't believe that it's imminently unsafe.
07:17:44 But it's at a point where as a good steward of product
07:17:49 management needs to either repair or replace.
07:17:52 It's at that point.
07:17:53 And there are others that can talk more to it.
07:17:56 I also wanted to mention something that I should mention.
07:18:00 City attorney did have a summary of the development
07:18:05 agreement and the commitments that the hospital is prepared
07:18:07 to make in terms of the buffering along the south side.
07:18:12 The picture before you -- this is a photograph taken street
07:18:25 level toward the hospital, and it's an actual picture of the
07:18:32 tree canopy.
07:18:33 But imposed in this picture is a picture of the renderings
07:18:41 and the decorative wall, so this is a plan to depict how it
07:18:45 would look from the homes on west Lake, looking towards the
07:18:48 hospital across the linear park area.
07:18:56 At the FLEUDRA meeting we learned something that the area
07:18:59 that has been previously exacted by the hospital in
07:19:01 connection with another application that's now labeled as
07:19:05 linear park area, the neighbors were not happy with how it
07:19:08 was being maintained, and they were upset at the hospital
07:19:12 under the misconception that it was still hospital property.
07:19:15 So what was done to address that concern is the hospital has
07:19:19 agreed to extend the sidewalk, and install landscaping and
07:19:24 shrubs uniformly across the whole area, and then commit to
07:19:30 maintain in the perpetuity.
07:19:31 And as for the vertical construction setback, that's
07:19:37 proposed to be a covenant running with the land, not running
07:19:40 with the agreement.
07:19:41 It could actually survive the expiration of the agreement.
07:19:44 It run was the land which is about as long-term commitment
07:19:48 as the property owner can make.
07:19:59 The neighbors told us they prefer that to be a dedication
07:20:02 rather than a covenant.
07:20:03 The city does not prefer the vehicle to accomplish this
07:20:06 permanent setback to be a dedication, and the hospital
07:20:09 particularly, without the benefit of those at Saint Isabel,
07:20:16 needs to keep that even though it's pertinent by a covenant
07:20:21 for open space and other calculations on the site plan.
07:20:24 So functionally we believe the covenant, particularly one
07:20:26 running with the land, is the functional equivalent to a
07:20:30 dedication for purposes of the neighbors' concerns.
07:20:33 So with that I would like to turn this over to Mr. LaRocca
07:20:38 to describe the amenities in the site plan, and further to
07:20:42 answer any questions, and then I will have Mr. Henry come on
07:20:45 up without introduction, and then Mr. Davis.
07:20:48 Thank you.
07:20:48 >> John LaRocca, Murphy LaRocca consulting group and agent
07:21:07 for the applicant.
07:21:09 I have been representing the hospital on matters of rezoning
07:21:10 on a number of occasions and was involved in the original
07:21:10 request considered in January.
07:21:21 I have been sworn.
07:21:22 My address is 101 East Kennedy Boulevard.
07:21:24 I will try to be brief.
07:21:27 Julia and Abbye gave a very good description of what has
07:21:31 occurred as a result of the mediated process, that first
07:21:38 step that I have been going through.
07:21:39 The site plan that I have on the Elmo, and on the board
07:21:47 along with the landscape images have been addressed.
07:21:51 Again I want to reiterate the intent and purpose of the
07:21:53 rezoning request was to replace the existing garage for the
07:21:58 reasons stated previously.
07:22:02 That replacement would occur in a phased schedule, obviously
07:22:06 constructing surface parking for about 500 -- 514 spaces on
07:22:14 the south side of Saint Isabel, removing the parking
07:22:17 structure that exists north of Saint Isabel, replacing it
07:22:20 with surface parking.
07:22:21 At the end of the day, the result would be about an equal
07:22:26 amount, in fact about 25 more parking spaces than what
07:22:30 currently exists.
07:22:31 >>HARRY COHEN: I apologize.
07:22:35 Please, everyone silence your phones.
07:22:37 We have been hearing all the ringing and binging and pinging
07:22:40 and it's very distracting.
07:22:42 Please silence for owns or take them outside.
07:22:44 I apologize, sir.
07:22:46 Go ahead.
07:22:46 >> Thank you.
07:22:47 With that, the application as originally submitted and
07:22:51 presented we believe is consistent with the comprehensive
07:22:54 land use plan, goals, objectives and policies, specifically
07:22:58 objective 19. A indicating the city shall support major
07:23:04 facilities as provider of service and major employers in
07:23:08 19.8.1 that would permit in-fill on those vacant parcels to
07:23:14 find within the boundary southern side on those lots
07:23:18 fronting on the south side of Saint Isabel, which this
07:23:22 property is included.
07:23:23 That then leads me to the site plan as has been described
07:23:27 this evening.
07:23:28 And on the Elmo and on the board and in the plans that are
07:23:31 before you, the site plan being considered, I reiterate for
07:23:37 the record, there is no vertical construction planned with
07:23:40 this development proposal.
07:23:42 It is strictly to accommodate and address the parking needs
07:23:45 of the hospital.
07:23:46 This site plan before you, and as has been prepared and
07:23:50 presented, as a result of the process, extends the 50-foot
07:23:55 open space buffer area to the west of the current linear
07:24:00 It will be landscaped.
07:24:01 It will be separated from Lake Avenue with a wall, and that
07:24:07 will be restricted and maintained through a restrictive
07:24:11 The waivers that Abbye described, she indicated the reasons
07:24:15 for those waivers, but the two waivers regarding the
07:24:19 transportation or traffic design, the way the parking lots
07:24:22 are created, were created --
07:24:26 (Bell sounds).
07:24:27 >>HARRY COHEN: Let me just say the petitioner indicated
07:24:29 that because we had combined that she was going to ask for
07:24:32 additional time, petitioner, how much more additional time
07:24:35 do you think you need beyond the first 15 minutes?
07:24:38 >> I was hoping we could have a combined 30 and then a
07:24:44 combined 10 for rebuttal.
07:24:45 >>HARRY COHEN: Okay.
07:24:48 Well, we'll do that, but let's --
07:24:50 >> Yes.
07:24:52 We'll be under that if we can.
07:24:53 >>HARRY COHEN: Okay, that would be great.
07:24:55 >> I will be very brief to conclude by saying that two of
07:24:58 the four waivers that are being requested were to protect
07:25:03 the tree canopy and design, redesign the parking areas to,
07:25:07 to protect as much of the tree canopy and the green space
07:25:10 that exists in that parcel south of Saint Isabel.
07:25:15 With that said, and many of the other comments that have
07:25:18 been provided with regard to the site plan, this is a site
07:25:22 plan that addresses all of the comments that were suggested
07:25:25 by the hearing master during the FLEUDRA process.
07:25:30 I will be happy to answer any questions and ask Henry to
07:25:33 address some of the transportation-related issues in
07:25:35 question that have come up.
07:25:39 And I'll leave the site plan for other purposes.
07:25:41 >> Steve Henry, 5023 West Laurel, Tampa 33607.
07:25:47 And I have been sworn.
07:25:49 We were asked to conduct analysis for the project.
07:25:53 And my presentation tonight will focus on four different
07:25:57 First is the traffic impacts of the proposed request.
07:26:00 Second is the justification for the access to Saint Isabel.
07:26:04 The third is a justification for the pedestrian crossing
07:26:07 across Saint Isabel and the fourth is the parking garage.
07:26:11 As Mr. LaRocca indicated that the request before you tonight
07:26:17 is to basically to take the existing parking garage and add
07:26:21 in surface parking on both the main campus and on Saint
07:26:27 It's not for any additional square footage or beds to the
07:26:31 So it's not adding any additional traffic for the proposed
07:26:36 And so from that standpoint, the code does not require
07:26:42 traffic analysis but the code did require to us do a detail
07:26:46 traffic analysis which we did and that included doing
07:26:49 one a.m. to p.m. peak hour, 24-hour machine counts on all
07:26:54 the driveways and adjacent roadways, and then traffic based
07:26:59 on the actual allocation of the redistribution of parking
07:27:02 around the campus, and finally conducting intersection
07:27:05 analysis to evaluate the impact of the change in the parking
07:27:11 Based on that, this isn't going to change.
07:27:16 Someone coming from the east with the parking garage and
07:27:18 will couldn't to come from the east whether it's parking
07:27:21 garage or surface parking.
07:27:22 But based on our analysis, all the driveways including the
07:27:25 ones on Saint Isabel would operate at acceptable level of
07:27:31 The request before you tonight is to request a waiver of
07:27:34 section 27-246 of the code for access to Saint Isabel, for
07:27:40 the parking lot on the south side of Saint Isabel.
07:27:44 This section of code requires a waiver when there's
07:27:47 residentially zoned property along the local streets, and
07:27:52 looks at what is called the affected segment of the roadway.
07:27:55 In this case that affected segment is from MacDill to
07:28:00 I would like to put a graphic on the Elmo showing that the
07:28:16 blue shows the proposed -- and this is MacDill, Saint
07:28:20 Isabel here.
07:28:23 The blue represents the subject property.
07:28:26 The red represents the nonresidentially zoned properties.
07:28:30 And the yellow represents the zoned, residentially zoned
07:28:34 properties along the affected segment of Saint Isabel.
07:28:38 The segment from MacDill to Habana is about 1300 feet
07:28:43 long, about 2600 feet of property frontage along both the
07:28:48 north and south side of the road.
07:28:50 There's about 425 feet of residentially zoned properties, or
07:28:55 about 16% affected.
07:28:58 The largest portion of frontage actually fronts on Habana.
07:29:07 There are three residents that currently are on Saint
07:29:18 What I have done is the top picture shows the actual
07:29:20 residence itself.
07:29:22 This one is right at the corner of Gomez and Saint Isabel.
07:29:26 And the picture to the south is looking from that property
07:29:30 across Saint Isabel and west on the north side of Saint
07:29:34 This is the first one.
07:29:38 This one shows the next house along the eastern portion of
07:29:44 Saint Isabel again looking across the street at a medical
07:29:52 And this shows the third house again looking across the
07:29:56 That's a medical office.
07:30:07 From MacDill to Gomez, the section that has the -- has
07:30:12 no residentially zoned properties along it.
07:30:16 Along what's called the affected segment of Saint Isabel
07:30:20 from MacDill to Habana currently has seven
07:30:23 nonresidential driveways.
07:30:26 Based on these factors, we believe that the access to Saint
07:30:29 Isabel for that segment from MacDill to Gomez is
07:30:38 Next is pedestrian crossings.
07:30:40 As shown on the site plans, we are asking for two mid block
07:30:46 The City of Tampa does not actually have a criteria for mid
07:30:50 block crossings.
07:30:51 So Hillsborough County has established specific criteria for
07:30:56 these crossings, and it is based on ITE and the federal
07:30:59 highway administration criteria.
07:31:01 It's based on a number of factors including number of lanes,
07:31:04 posted speeds, daily traffic, number of pedestrians, and I
07:31:11 can go through each one of those if you like.
07:31:13 We did a detailed report on those.
07:31:15 We did meet with your city staff.
07:31:17 We met with city transportation department regarding both
07:31:21 the pedestrian crossings and also the access of Saint
07:31:27 They were in support of the pedestrian crossings.
07:31:31 They did ask for a number of safety features that the
07:31:36 hospital has agreed to.
07:31:37 One is activated pedestrian flashing beacons, right turn
07:31:43 restriction on cars exiting the driveway when there are
07:31:49 pedestrians within the crosswalk, and also park along the --
07:31:54 the lighting that was strategically placed to illuminate
07:31:57 those mid block crossings.
07:31:58 So we have those in order to be able to provide save
07:32:04 crossings across Saint Isabel.
07:32:08 The third thing I want to talk about is the parking garage.
07:32:11 Based on the analysis our opinion that the surface parking
07:32:13 provides a more viable solution to the hospital to meet
07:32:18 parking demand.
07:32:19 If the structure were built today under today's standards,
07:32:22 the new parking garage, it's about 15,000 -- essentially a
07:32:26 little more -- per space for those parking.
07:32:30 If you replaced the existing parking garage and put the
07:32:34 exact same number of spaces the cost is in excess of
07:32:36 $6.5 million for that parking garage.
07:32:39 We believe that the surface parking provides a more viable
07:32:42 option to the hospital.
07:32:45 That completes my presentation, if you have any questions.
07:32:47 >>HARRY COHEN: Any questions or comments from council
07:32:51 members at this time?
07:32:54 Mr. Reddick.
07:32:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
07:33:06 >> Those flashers, how bright would they be?
07:33:12 >> I don't know the foot candle but two things that would
07:33:15 happen is they would flash in the day and also at night.
07:33:18 We have the lights that would be on the mid block crossing
07:33:23 so you have both the flashing lights to identify approaching
07:33:26 vehicles, if there is a pedestrian crossing, and whenever
07:33:29 somebody actually goes to walk across the crosswalk, they
07:33:33 actually are illuminated.
07:33:37 Then also you have got the parking lot to hell illuminate
07:33:41 those crosswalks.
07:33:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
07:33:45 >>HARRY COHEN: Okay, thank you very much.
07:33:46 Mrs. Montelione.
07:33:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And you just said the lighting in the
07:33:57 parking lot but there is also additional lighting directed
07:33:59 at the crosswalks, correct?
07:34:01 I thought I heard you say that previously.
07:34:02 >> Correct.
07:34:04 And where it would be is what the city engineer wanted was
07:34:11 strategically located parking lot lighting to light -- so it
07:34:16 would be directed toward the crosswalks.
07:34:19 Liked the crosswalks.
07:34:20 But it's essentially parking lot lighting, with the hedge
07:34:23 that will also illuminate --
07:34:25 >> So we would have to make sure after this is built that it
07:34:28 is done and the inspector who is doing the final site
07:34:31 inspection --
07:34:32 >> Well, part of what can be done is the site plan, sort of
07:34:36 a photometric plan, and that can be done as part of the
07:34:40 And that's what we do typically when you do a lighting plan
07:34:42 for parking lot.
07:34:43 The photometric plan will show what the foot candles are,
07:34:47 where they are and how they are directed.
07:34:49 So that would be done as part of the review process.
07:34:52 >> Okay.
07:34:54 And the flashers that Mr. Reddick was asking about, from
07:34:59 what I understood you to say, is that something that
07:35:03 somebody has to push a button in order to effectuate the
07:35:06 light coming on, they just walk across and the flashers come
07:35:11 >> Yes.
07:35:12 >> You are not counting on the pedestrians to actually push
07:35:16 a button to make the light come on?
07:35:18 >> They are activated by the movement.
07:35:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: By movement.
07:35:22 And you said something about restricting right turn out of
07:35:27 phase 1 to go north on Saint Isabel?
07:35:33 >> What we are talking about is that if you are exiting the
07:35:39 parking lot -- and you want to turn right, if there's a
07:35:46 pedestrian in that crosswalk, you may not know it because
07:35:50 you wouldn't see the flashing lights that are on Saint
07:35:54 So what you asked for is on the stop sign a sign and
07:36:03 flashing lights that would say basically no right turn whale
07:36:06 there's a pedestrian in that crosswalk.
07:36:08 So that way, you have not only warning of people driving
07:36:11 down Saint Isabel, but also people exiting the parking lot,
07:36:16 that they don't make a right and hit a pedestrian.
07:36:18 >> Thank you.
07:36:27 >> Mr. Davis won't come forward unless we need him on
07:36:32 >> All right.
07:36:33 We are going to hear from the public now and afford the
07:36:35 public the same opportunity as the petitioner since we
07:36:39 combined the items to have additional time if they so
07:36:42 >> Good evening.
07:36:54 Frank Miranda, a beneficiary of 2918 west Lake property on
07:36:58 that property held by a trust.
07:37:01 703 West Swann Avenue and I am a practicing lawyer.
07:37:05 I can tell you right now that you have just been misled on a
07:37:09 number of issues.
07:37:11 And to begin with, you have been misled in that this
07:37:14 corporate game the applicant has played is definitely for
07:37:17 I can tell you that I have experience and knowledge that
07:37:21 their CFO brought in doctors from the hospital and explained
07:37:26 to them that they are running at a deficit and didn't make
07:37:29 enough money.
07:37:30 The calculation for that is they have projected a $20
07:37:34 million profit and only received a $7 million profit.
07:37:36 Make no mistake, this is not about health care.
07:37:39 This is about health care profit.
07:37:41 Simply what it is.
07:37:43 Let's talk about the alternatives.
07:37:44 I can also tell you that I was part of a purchase in which
07:37:48 this hospital purchased just north of the existing hospital
07:37:51 St. Joseph's across the street to the north.
07:37:54 There's plenty of opportunity for commercial buildings to be
07:37:56 built at that location.
07:37:58 Let's talk about to the west.
07:37:59 There are other industries that have taken over spots that
07:38:04 once was Tampa-was the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
07:38:10 This has plenty of parking.
07:38:11 There's another alternative.
07:38:13 When this corporation -- and it's a for-profit corporation.
07:38:16 I don't care how they design it.
07:38:18 Down the road there's money being made.
07:38:20 When this corporation wants to write a check they write a
07:38:23 If they simply went to those people to the north and wrote a
07:38:29 check in cash and they are telling you they cannot replace
07:38:31 that despicable parking garage that they have already?
07:38:34 That's what they are referring to you.
07:38:36 It's a fallacy.
07:38:37 And I can tell you that none of them live on Lake Avenue.
07:38:42 None of them live in West Tampa.
07:38:43 And if someone proposed to this council, let's put high
07:38:49 levels in 71 spots across from Tampa General, you would be
07:38:54 The papers would be in front of you and -- and if people
07:39:00 came to you and they said put 771 spots on land of crossing
07:39:06 SoHo for the hospital to expand, you guys would all be hung.
07:39:11 Politically and socially.
07:39:14 "The Tampa Tribune" would be all over you.
07:39:16 The times would be all over you.
07:39:18 The mayor would be all over you.
07:39:21 Let's talk about the settlement agreement.
07:39:23 There's not one resident that signed that settlement
07:39:31 They went to the city and did and the city signed.
07:39:36 There aren't residents that signed that settlement
07:39:38 But I can promise you this.
07:39:39 Let me tell you something.
07:39:42 This nice lady in the pink dress from Miami from the law
07:39:46 firm, she said we are hear with an olive branch.
07:39:51 We are hear for peace.
07:39:52 I can tell you will that she has definitely threatened
07:39:55 I can tell you that.
07:39:57 (Bell sounds)
07:39:57 >> We are going to give you another three minutes in the
07:39:59 same way that we did the petitioner.
07:40:01 So keep going.
07:40:01 >> I can go on?
07:40:03 >> Yes.
07:40:04 I'm giving you another three minutes.
07:40:05 >> And that the presentation that there was an olive branch
07:40:10 offers offered, if there's anything they can possibly do for
07:40:12 the benefit of health care is a fallacy.
07:40:17 And I can tell you, I grew up on that street.
07:40:21 And on that street and in that neighborhood, there's people
07:40:23 in different classes and creeds and religions, and they
07:40:26 speak different languages, and they are old, and they are
07:40:29 young, and they deserve the same respect that you would give
07:40:32 Davis Island residents.
07:40:34 And they deserve the same respect you would give the SoHo
07:40:39 And this is nothing but profit.
07:40:41 That's all it is.
07:40:42 So if you want to look at big corporation in the mouth and
07:40:46 they can come to you with a 501(c)3, that's what it says on
07:40:50 the piece of paper, they are right.
07:40:51 But when you dig deeper they are only telling you half the
07:40:56 And there's no settlement.
07:40:58 There's a settlement between the city and the presentations
07:41:01 they made and a big corporation.
07:41:03 Not the little guy.
07:41:06 We didn't sign anything.
07:41:09 Let them go and let them spend the money.
07:41:11 It's the cost of doing business.
07:41:12 Let them make all the profit they want.
07:41:14 They are entitled to that.
07:41:16 Do it the right way.
07:41:17 Spend the money.
07:41:18 Because on other expansions they are more than willing to
07:41:21 stroke the check.
07:41:22 So do not diminish the property of people who have worked 10
07:41:27 and 14 hour days, worked two jobs, stay home now because
07:41:32 they can't be here because they are taking care of the
07:41:34 elderly of that they live with.
07:41:36 Don't disgrace them.
07:41:37 Give them due process.
07:41:38 I can tell you, this settlement agreement, there was no due
07:41:42 process afforded us.
07:41:44 And I can promise you -- and I'm coming here with smoke and
07:41:48 fire -- that what was presented by that woman was not the
07:41:54 And I can promise you as a trial attorney, because we are
07:41:59 not scared to go to court.
07:42:01 Thank you.
07:42:01 >> My name is Michael Sierra, an attorney with offices at
07:42:11 703 West Swann Avenue, here tonight I have the pleasure of
07:42:15 representing the neighbors along west Lake Avenue.
07:42:19 I would like to present a petition.
07:42:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Sierra has given me a speaker waiver
07:42:32 form with seven names on it.
07:42:34 If I can, I would just like to see if they are here.
07:42:36 Nancy Greca.
07:42:38 Can you please raise your hand?
07:42:40 Thank you.
07:42:42 Olga Rocca?
07:42:45 Thank you.
07:42:47 Teresa, starts with an A?
07:42:51 Okay, are you here?
07:42:52 Thank you.
07:42:56 Nelda -- okay.
07:43:00 Shannon Roche?
07:43:01 Thank you.
07:43:02 Tiffany Lee, I believe.
07:43:05 And David Lee?
07:43:06 That's seven speakers that would be seven additional minutes
07:43:11 for the first round for a total of ten.
07:43:13 And if he requires additional ten, obviously because we
07:43:16 combined the hearings.
07:43:17 Thank you.
07:43:17 >> It sounds to me like Mr. Sierra has 20 minutes at his
07:43:25 Correct, Mr. Shelby?
07:43:26 >> If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to use only 15
07:43:28 minutes of it, so I may respond to any other comments.
07:43:32 >> There's only one bite at the apple up here.
07:43:35 >> Thank you.
07:43:37 >>HARRY COHEN: Go ahead.
07:43:38 >> If I may, this property was acquired by St. Joseph's
07:43:43 hospital in 1979.
07:43:45 This was not -- in-fill.
07:43:51 These were residential homes with people living in them,
07:43:53 with kids who played with my kids when I lived on that
07:43:57 corner, and lived there for 20 years next to Mr. Miranda,
07:44:01 next to these folks back here.
07:44:03 And since 1979, we have been fighting this intrusion into a
07:44:07 primary residential Hispanic, Latino neighborhood.
07:44:12 It's a minority neighborhood.
07:44:13 We should be afforded the same rights as any other
07:44:18 Like my colleague Mr. Miranda pointed out to you, I should
07:44:23 say Frank Charles, rather, pointed up to you, that any other
07:44:27 location, you would be in arms about it.
07:44:32 Let me bring another fact that you should consider.
07:44:34 There is no other hospital in the City of Tampa or in the
07:44:36 county of Hillsborough that I am aware of that intrudes more
07:44:39 than two blocks from a commercial street.
07:44:45 You go to Tampa hospital, more than two blocks.
07:44:47 They don't intrude.
07:44:48 They go up.
07:44:49 They go sideways.
07:44:50 They do something but they don't go further into the
07:44:53 Memorial doesn't go more than two blocks into it.
07:44:57 Down to town and country, the same way.
07:45:00 You go into Carrollwood hospital on Dale Mabry.
07:45:05 I'm not sure that's in the City of Tampa but they don't go
07:45:08 more than two blocks down Dale Mabry.
07:45:10 The new hospital on Van Dyke, it doesn't GOP any further
07:45:13 than to the residential areas.
07:45:14 Even university community, outside of university.
07:45:16 It doesn't do that.
07:45:17 The V.A. hot doesn't intrude further.
07:45:20 So what I am suggesting to you is, this is certainly an
07:45:25 And my good friend for many, many years, is not in-fill.
07:45:34 Well, when they buy houses, and they tear them down, and
07:45:38 then come back before you and say, this is in-fill, I
07:45:41 suggest to you there's some intellectual dishonesty there.
07:45:47 You create the situation and say that's why I am doing it.
07:45:49 I don't think that's right.
07:45:51 In this case, as has been pointed out to you, everybody that
07:45:54 has testified before you, for the hospital, is being paid to
07:45:58 do what they are doing.
07:46:00 And their purpose, their purpose is to be able to enhance
07:46:04 the value of land that they bought.
07:46:06 They bought residential land, and now they want to make it
07:46:09 more intense, more commercial, and get more use out of it,
07:46:13 and they are going to make money off of it.
07:46:15 And I want you to know that all of these residents that you
07:46:17 see here, everybody that has spoken to you on behalf of
07:46:20 residents including myself, has never been paid a dime.
07:46:24 Nor are they looking for a dime.
07:46:26 What they are looking for is simply don't take away the
07:46:28 value of my house.
07:46:29 This is probably the most important asset that each of them
07:46:33 And the hospital's action diminishes the value of their
07:46:36 property while it enhances the value of the hospital's
07:46:41 It's simply unfair.
07:46:43 It wouldn't happen in another neighborhood.
07:46:45 And I have faith that you again will turn them down on this
07:46:48 same request that they have come before you as many times as
07:46:51 you have.
07:46:53 Now, the neighbors are simply speaking to stop them from
07:46:57 moving into our neighborhood.
07:46:59 Keep them two blocks away.
07:47:01 Saint Isabel has historically been the place where they
07:47:05 No doctors' offices, no nothing else coming this way.
07:47:07 They came before you years ago and said, we need to have an
07:47:11 office building between our parking and the hospital.
07:47:14 At that time, they said, we own that vacant land, but we
07:47:18 aren't going to use it for parking at this time.
07:47:20 And they said, this will accommodate everything we need.
07:47:23 Well, the buildings they built required more parking.
07:47:27 It's an office building that they lease out and they rent
07:47:30 out, and they make money off of.
07:47:32 If you need to leave the hospital why don't you use that
07:47:36 office building for the hospital instead of coming into the
07:47:38 residential neighborhood?
07:47:39 And what is to stop them when they get this block, do they
07:47:42 go to the next one, tear it down and wait until some of my
07:47:44 neighbors die as many of them have since we first began
07:47:48 It's just unfair.
07:47:50 They have come before you, and they talked about a mediated
07:47:56 Well, I was invited to participate.
07:47:58 And did come and participate and the neighbors came.
07:48:02 But I'm not being paid.
07:48:04 I can only afford three hours.
07:48:05 I stated our position.
07:48:06 We didn't agree to anything.
07:48:09 I'm these are all bad things.
07:48:15 Leave the residents alone.
07:48:16 Put the houses back that you put down, they would be happy.
07:48:22 Now, if we go forward, and we are talking about
07:48:27 The transportation people object to introducing traffic into
07:48:31 a residential neighborhood.
07:48:34 And what do they see?
07:48:35 Well, we need a waiver.
07:48:36 We need a waiver.
07:48:37 And your traffic engineer says we are going to direct them
07:48:40 this way or that way.
07:48:42 For Pete sake, these people want to get out the easiest way
07:48:46 they can.
07:48:46 And the easiest way they can get out is out onto a
07:48:49 residential neighborhood because MacDill is carrying so
07:48:51 much traffic now that you have to wait a half a mile.
07:48:53 You can't get out on one cycle of the light.
07:48:56 You have to wait two or three to get out.
07:48:57 And MacDill is, after all, mostly residential.
07:49:01 So even MacDill, which is more tourist, should not be
07:49:04 carrying any more traffic and they are talking about
07:49:07 proposing more traffic because they built a big office
07:49:09 And now they are going to tear down the parking garage.
07:49:12 And what is it she said, scheduled maintenance?
07:49:18 Well, let them do scheduled maintenance on stuff their stuff
07:49:23 and keep using it.
07:49:24 Lots of buildings in town more than 20 years old and that
07:49:27 hospital is way older than the parking garage.
07:49:30 They keep using it, use the parking garage and leave the
07:49:34 neighborhood alone.
07:49:35 There's something very important that came up here which I
07:49:37 want to point out.
07:49:40 This able counsel from Miami -- and I guess they can't find
07:49:44 a lawyer in Tampa and spend money there.
07:49:46 They bring a hot shot lawyer and that's great.
07:49:49 When she comes in she talks about good faith?
07:49:52 Let me tell you about good faith.
07:49:54 I had a conversation with her, and I'm telling her these
07:49:57 people are being damaged more particularly than the
07:50:00 general -- when you build a stadium, this particular people
07:50:06 on this block are being damaged more than anyplace else.
07:50:09 And I suggest that you offer them some accommodation.
07:50:13 Offer them some compensation.
07:50:15 That was the conversation.
07:50:16 I sent her a letter confirming exactly that.
07:50:19 And the letter says, I suggested to you that the hospital
07:50:22 should recognize the financial aspect on each of these
07:50:26 resident and offer compensation.
07:50:28 That's what the letter says.
07:50:29 She turns around and sends me a letter which was faxed to my
07:50:33 office supposedly, except I was there until 5:15 before I
07:50:36 came here.
07:50:37 Got no fax.
07:50:38 She hands me a letter at the very last minute, and in the
07:50:42 letter she's stating that I requested, that I have demanded
07:50:47 and that you supported vacating -- I didn't support
07:50:51 I went to the mediated settlement, whatever it was, gave
07:50:55 them three hours of my time and I had to leave.
07:50:57 And I told we object to it, period.
07:50:59 I have never told her anything different.
07:51:01 I told her I object to it.
07:51:03 I didn't have authority nor do I have authority now to
07:51:05 demand anything on behalf of the neighbors other than deny
07:51:09 That's what we are demanding.
07:51:11 These what we are requesting.
07:51:13 That's what we are asking that you do.
07:51:15 But she put the letter into evidence.
07:51:19 Don't listen to what I am saying.
07:51:20 Read the two letters.
07:51:21 See if in fact I am extorting, if I am demanding.
07:51:25 This monetary demand is abhorrent behavior.
07:51:29 Maybe in Miami they can do that.
07:51:33 We are a little ethical here.
07:51:34 We are honest.
07:51:35 We say watch we mean and we mean what we say.
07:51:37 Read my letter and read her letter to me, and you tell me if
07:51:41 that's good faith.
07:51:42 I leave this in your capable hands to make that decision.
07:51:45 She says that they are serving the community, that their
07:51:49 main purpose is to serve the community.
07:51:53 And I suggest to you, we have other hospitals in the city
07:51:56 and in the county, they do the same thing, but they don't
07:52:00 have to go into the neighborhood and beat up on the poor
07:52:03 little people, diminish the value of their properties so
07:52:06 that they can enhance it.
07:52:08 We came here with the same thing.
07:52:09 We a gentle named Ernest the Tampa Bay mall or Tampa mall or
07:52:20 whatever the mall that was there, and I asked them under
07:52:23 whatever circumstances you do?
07:52:28 Didn't go in that direction Y.?
07:52:30 Because that costs money.
07:52:31 There you may pay for commercial property by the square
07:52:34 foot. If they come in to the neighborhood and buy it much
07:52:37 less per square foot, it cost it is residences, it's
07:52:41 damaging their values, and they decide, well, we'll got go
07:52:45 in that direction.
07:52:46 4600 Habana.
07:52:48 That's where all the doctors are, and the hospital started
07:52:52 buying it.
07:52:53 They got virtually all of this.
07:52:54 Six doctors left there and they'll squeeze them out soon
07:52:58 because the restrictions are up in November of '14.
07:53:01 Let them build it over there.
07:53:03 Why do they have to come into the residential area and tear
07:53:07 it down?
07:53:09 These poor people.
07:53:10 Nobody wants that across the street from them.
07:53:12 Traffic with flashing lights at the crossings.
07:53:14 That might be great for the guy crossing but if you are
07:53:17 trying to sleep over at the other end, or you are watching
07:53:19 TV or whatever you are doing, that flashing light is not
07:53:22 going to be something you are looking forward to.
07:53:24 You want that as far away as you can get.
07:53:30 They are also telling us no additional traffic, all we are
07:53:33 doing is redirecting it.
07:53:35 Coming out of the parking garage and supposed to turn right
07:53:37 because that's the way it's directed even though I have seen
07:53:40 them turning left but it's on MacDill.
07:53:42 Now they are saying, oh, we need a waiver.
07:53:44 We want to go into the residential area.
07:53:47 And when they get out on Saint Isabel, don't worry about the
07:53:50 pedestrians because they won't run them over.
07:53:51 What about the residences?
07:53:53 What about the traffic just funnelling?
07:53:56 And I remember a Councilman talking about what are you going
07:53:59 to do to soften the traffic?
07:54:01 I suggest to you don't soften the traffic.
07:54:04 Leave it the way it is.
07:54:05 I showed you this map, when they added the old facility.
07:54:12 And as you will recall, the hospital, the entrance right
07:54:19 here, very close.
07:54:22 They subsequently came around and changed it to this.
07:54:24 Then they built this here, and they just wanted rental
07:54:32 And their parking garage, notice keep moving from Martin
07:54:37 Luther King down toward Lake Avenue where my people live,
07:54:41 where I live.
07:54:42 They keep putting the traffic in front of the residential
07:54:45 It is simply offensive.
07:54:47 It is unconscionable.
07:54:48 And they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
07:54:53 A very salient point that the traffic engineer brought up,
07:55:03 it costs $15,000 a space if you have a parking garage.
07:55:06 Much cheaper if you put that parking space in a residential
07:55:11 That's cheaper, costs you less.
07:55:15 An economic decision.
07:55:16 Not a special interest of the hospital, she says.
07:55:19 But what is it?
07:55:19 What is it?
07:55:21 They are going to put their economic bottom line ahead of in
07:55:27 saving a single-family residential area.
07:55:30 So I suggest to you that, in fact, what they are asking you
07:55:33 to do is to sacrifice the people that live in that area, the
07:55:40 people who live in this community, who go into their
07:55:42 hospital and pay them whatever they are charging.
07:55:45 They are certainly building all of their cost into the
07:55:48 I think we probably all have the experience of hospital
07:55:50 bills personally or family.
07:55:53 We do that's no cut rate bargain.
07:55:56 Let them pay for what they do. Let them buy 15,000 per
07:55:59 parking space, if that's what they need.
07:56:02 Not come in and buy it for a whole lot less, because they
07:56:04 are going to take the rest and diminish it from the
07:56:08 neighborhood value.
07:56:09 That's what they are asking you to do.
07:56:11 Sacrifice the neighborhood.
07:56:13 Get cheaper parking spaces.
07:56:15 It will work better for us
07:56:16 I don't care what works for them.
07:56:18 I care what the people who live in this community, who have
07:56:20 been there forever, I care about them and I know that you
07:56:23 will care about those in making your decisions, you will
07:56:26 weigh that very carefully.
07:56:27 And I request that you do that.
07:56:40 They did purchase this land in 19379.
07:56:43 Fortunately, for the community, for the neighborhood, they
07:56:51 had meetings to come here before you, for community service,
07:56:54 to point out the things that they perhaps lack, not that I'm
07:56:57 well qualified, but perhaps a tad better qualified than they
07:57:00 to bring this to you.
07:57:03 During the day it's extremely difficult for working people,
07:57:05 sick people, to come up here.
07:57:08 In the evening, you see you have a better turnout.
07:57:11 With more time we would probably have more.
07:57:13 The weather changed us a bit and so forth.
07:57:15 But these people never said, this is great, I agree to it.
07:57:19 If there's a mediated settlement, it wasn't with me.
07:57:21 I didn't agree to it.
07:57:22 Nobody came along.
07:57:24 Oh, I was invited.
07:57:27 Well, immediately after a hearing that we had here, three of
07:57:29 the ladies wanted to go meet.
07:57:33 I called the attorney.
07:57:34 She couldn't talk to me.
07:57:35 I called the staff, asked this they would come meet with us.
07:57:41 Oh, no, direct your communications to the attorney.
07:57:44 I'm very disappointed that my communication to the attorney
07:57:47 is construed in such a way that -- on behalf of who, I'm not
07:57:55 And read the letter.
07:57:57 She submitted them into evidence undoubtedly because she
07:57:59 wants to bring litigation and make her unsubstantiated false
07:58:04 statements part of something that just isn't.
07:58:06 I ask you to read that so that you will know exactly what is
07:58:11 in there.
07:58:12 Now, we talk about a development agreement.
07:58:14 And I urge you to turn it down.
07:58:16 Turn down everything.
07:58:17 When you talk about a development agreement that lasts for
07:58:20 30 years, it seems that it is infinity.
07:58:24 Well, let me tell you what. I have been fighting this for
07:58:27 over 30 years, and we are still going.
07:58:31 If they don't do anything, they want it all.
07:58:33 They are going to come in and they are going to take a
07:58:35 little bit.
07:58:36 And the minute they get that foot in the door, okay, I'll
07:58:38 take a little bit more.
07:58:39 And take a little bit more.
07:58:41 And they come back.
07:58:41 When they look at 30 years, I'm sure they feel by then I'll
07:58:45 be dead, and I probably will be, and perhaps many of these
07:58:48 resident will be too old or dead and won't be here.
07:58:51 So that's just we'll ultimately just beat them up good.
07:59:01 I just want to leave you with this thought.
07:59:05 This hospital, allegedly not for profit -- and I fully agree
07:59:10 with what Frank Miranda said -- if it's not the owner, it's
07:59:13 the operator, it's somebody, they are making money.
07:59:17 If they come before you, and they ask you for something,
07:59:20 they bring it.
07:59:21 Oh, that's what money can buy out of Miami.
07:59:27 I don't know what all that costs.
07:59:29 But I'm sure it's well above my figure.
07:59:32 They can come in and make these presentations over and over
07:59:34 and over.
07:59:36 Please understand, they could buy whatever opinions and go
07:59:40 out and get another one.
07:59:42 I'm not saying any of these are giving you the bad data.
07:59:45 They are giving the best data they can in their favor,
07:59:47 certainly not in favor of the neighborhood.
07:59:49 And as you make this assessment and as you make this
07:59:52 judgment, just bear in mind, they can afford the best of
07:59:55 everything, and the par neighbors in this neighborhood don't
08:00:02 have the money to invest in that.
08:00:04 All they can afford is me, doing it for no fee.
08:00:09 Please don't hold that against them.
08:00:11 Just think of yourself, if we had the money to hire experts
08:00:15 like they do, what would those experts be saying?
08:00:19 And perhaps you can balance it out.
08:00:21 I urge you to take care of the citizens over profits that
08:00:25 are being sought before you.
08:00:27 Hold their feet to the fire.
08:00:28 This is a residential area.
08:00:31 It is more than two blocks into it.
08:00:33 They have already taken Saint Isabel and you should hold
08:00:37 them like any other hospital in this city or in this county.
08:00:40 Keep them at two blocks.
08:00:42 Keep them out of our front yard and our backyard.
08:00:45 I thank you for your time.
08:00:46 And I hope you will do the right thing.
08:00:48 Thank you.
08:00:48 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.
08:00:50 >>HARRY COHEN: When Mr. Miranda gets his initial three
08:01:15 minutes, he will get an additional three minutes after that.
08:01:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much for this opportunity.
08:01:36 Not Dale Mabry highway.
08:01:37 Not Hillsborough Avenue.
08:01:38 Not Henderson Boulevard.
08:01:40 Not Kennedy Boulevard.
08:01:42 Not MLK Boulevard.
08:01:45 Other than in this location.
08:01:47 Do you find any property that I know of that changed so
08:01:56 Residential, good, strong residential neighborhood.
08:02:01 St. Joseph will continue through zoning practices to do
08:02:07 their own type of eminent domain.
08:02:10 St. Joseph owns other properties just north of the main
08:02:14 hospital at 4600 north Habana Boulevard.
08:02:17 They own substantial amount of doctors' offices that have
08:02:23 St. Joseph's will cause a lot of harm to the neighborhood
08:02:27 that's very stable.
08:02:29 When they talk about cost of building a parking lot, they
08:02:33 fail to tell you what the cost of the neighborhood advantage
08:02:37 is, what the cost of something that becomes 100% rental,
08:02:40 what's the cost of something that becomes despair and code
08:02:46 enforcement has to be there all the time?
08:02:48 St. Joseph could have bought the Tampa mall properties but
08:02:52 they chose not to do that.
08:02:55 I think Mr. Henry mentioned the comp plan.
08:02:58 Yes, the comp plan at one time was the center line of Saint
08:03:03 Not the center line of the property that we are discussing
08:03:06 here today.
08:03:08 In this meeting.
08:03:09 They changed that in the late 70s, early 80s.
08:03:13 Some time back in January, council member asked, do you have
08:03:17 a long-term plan? And they said, oh, no, we don't.
08:03:22 Well, if they don't, why are they doing all these things?
08:03:26 Some time back when you see what I gave you at the handout,
08:03:29 this little piece here says RS-50.
08:03:32 That was a residential nice home there.
08:03:35 Now that's in the corner of Gomez and Virginia.
08:03:39 That's a parking lot.
08:03:41 At that time, there was no parking lot.
08:03:45 Just north of the main hospital.
08:03:47 Now, I don't know how much is owed, but hold hundred cars,
08:03:51 and ten stories high.
08:03:52 They built that one.
08:03:54 They had the money for that one.
08:03:55 They had the money to do what they want to do for that one.
08:03:58 But they have chosen a way that is not the right way.
08:04:02 They have chosen a way to make sure that they get what they
08:04:06 want at the lowest possible cost.
08:04:08 They also mentioned seven residential driveways.
08:04:12 Remember that?
08:04:13 They did.
08:04:14 Guess what's there.
08:04:16 Not today.
08:04:20 Those homes vanished.
08:04:21 There were seven residential dwellings there.
08:04:25 But they chose to knock them down, to get rid of a
08:04:27 neighborhood and they are doing the same thing they have
08:04:30 done here for a long time.
08:04:32 When you look at this zoning map that I gave you, from
08:04:35 MacDill to the west, Armenia to the east, MLK to the
08:04:41 north and Lake Avenue to the south, what do you see?
08:04:46 You see very little RS-50.
08:04:48 In fact, really, two there, and I haven't even had a chance
08:04:52 to look at what's really there.
08:04:54 But everything changed.
08:04:55 But also when you look at the view corridor that they so
08:05:00 eloquently put up and you stand at the west end of
08:05:02 MacDill and look all the way to Armenia, you know what
08:05:05 you find across the street?
08:05:08 Not one change from residential dwelling.
08:05:15 This is the start of the beginning of the end.
08:05:17 This is the start, if this passes, to continue the greed to
08:05:24 get more and more and more and pay less and less.
08:05:27 First of all, I'm not represented by an attorney.
08:05:30 I never had conversations with any one of them.
08:05:34 Including my own son.
08:05:36 But I did say what I said, and I meant what I said, because
08:05:39 right here, I guess from what the attorney said from St.
08:05:42 Joseph, they don't want to have litigation.
08:05:45 Does that mean that they aren't going to -- if they don't
08:05:49 get what they want tonight?
08:05:51 That was a bold move on that person.
08:05:53 And I have to admit, to see where you were come from.
08:05:58 And I found out.
08:06:00 So I'm honored to be here.
08:06:01 I'm honored to live in that neighborhood with my wife from
08:06:10 her death four years in a neighborhood that was so stable
08:06:14 that hardly anyone moved out.
08:06:15 When I moved in, I was one of the youngest.
08:06:18 Now I guess I'm one of the oldest.
08:06:21 But time goes by real quick.
08:06:25 What has to happen is that St. Joseph has to realize that
08:06:29 they can do other things.
08:06:32 They can plan for this, they can plan to move to 4600 north
08:06:37 Habana where they own already a property, in fact half that
08:06:40 parking lot is never used.
08:06:44 In fact, even though -- I don't call people in code
08:06:49 enforcement, they had trailers and mobile equipment there
08:06:51 for years, in the same property that we are talking about.
08:06:54 Never once did I ever as a resident, which I had the right
08:06:58 to do, call and say anything about the hospital.
08:07:01 They got great doctors there.
08:07:04 But they have administrator that is second to none.
08:07:10 They have great people working there.
08:07:12 But those that represent where they want to go are not well
08:07:18 schooled in the human art area of life, something that their
08:07:23 doctors are very well trained in.
08:07:25 So I appreciate your consideration.
08:07:26 I appreciate your vote either way.
08:07:28 I know it's very difficult.
08:07:29 And thank you for your time.
08:07:31 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.
08:07:34 Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address
08:07:37 council regarding this matter?
08:07:41 If not, I think we will return to the rebuttal of the -- you
08:07:46 have a question for the petitioner?
08:07:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Actually, I have a question for Mrs.
08:07:53 Could you tell me -- the hospital owns this property, what I
08:08:03 am looking at, between Isabel, West Lake, North MacDill,
08:08:07 and North Gomez.
08:08:10 Can you tell me what the zoning is now, and what they can do
08:08:14 with that property if we deny them a parking lot?
08:08:33 >> If I may, you just described Gomez, Lake, where the
08:08:39 existing offices are RO-1, the remaining portion is RS-50.
08:08:44 So RS-50 would allow for residential single-family.
08:08:48 It would also allow for lower intensity congregate type
08:08:53 living uses.
08:08:54 I can go through each of the independent uses that would be
08:08:57 permissible there and then the RO-1 would allow for medical
08:09:01 office as one of the most intensive uses which is the
08:09:04 current use of the property.
08:09:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
08:09:11 >>HARRY COHEN: Are there any other questions from council
08:09:20 members at this time?
08:09:21 We would like to do those before we go to the petitioner's
08:09:30 How much time did the petitioner have remaining, by the way?
08:09:35 Ten minutes.
08:09:35 >> I will be brief because we have a couple of witnesses
08:09:40 within those ten minutes.
08:09:41 I am going to be very quick.
08:09:46 The professional staff of the city supports this
08:09:51 Support it even with the vacating petition.
08:09:55 And the only thing they have chosen not to support was
08:09:59 without the vacating petition.
08:10:01 It's not just the hospital experts that are here before you.
08:10:04 It your own paid staff.
08:10:05 The hospital didn't hire the Planning Commission.
08:10:08 He recommended it and found it consistent with the city's
08:10:11 Koch plan 19.8.1.
08:10:15 That's not something the hospital bought and paid for.
08:10:18 That's a comp plan policy that suggests this area, this
08:10:22 block needs to be reserved for hospital, medical uses for
08:10:26 this community.
08:10:27 It's a regional medical center.
08:10:30 So all of the assertions that this is an intrusion into a
08:10:34 residential area runs afoul of your own comp plan.
08:10:40 You know, that's to discuss what you should consider is your
08:10:43 own comp plan.
08:10:45 In terms of due process afforded to the neighbors, and Mr.
08:10:49 Sierra in particular, they were afforded written notice to
08:10:52 the FLEUDRA hearing and you heard him say he attended, and
08:10:58 anyone who attended from the hospital will testify as to his
08:11:01 recollection, but they have been provided due process all
08:11:08 Under FLEUDRA and my practice, we adopt do contract zoning.
08:11:12 This is a proposed settlement agreement that would only be
08:11:15 between the hospital and the city as a body politic.
08:11:19 No one has asked anyone to sign an agreement yet.
08:11:22 There were representations made -- and you will hear more
08:11:25 about that -- but there's been no denial of due process.
08:11:29 I do also encourage to you read the letters in the record
08:11:32 from Mr. Sierra to me after the November 21st petition,
08:11:38 called them for the first time indicated his clients wanted
08:11:41 money between 25 and 50,000 per household.
08:11:47 And I do encourage you to read that.
08:11:52 Haven't been invited to neighborhood meetings prior to the
08:11:55 January 2013 hearing, the FLEUDRA hearings and prior to
08:12:00 these hearings, or indications to neighborhood meetings,
08:12:06 both in English and Spanish, and those that intended to or
08:12:10 those that came and expressed no objection, and we had
08:12:13 testimony about that.
08:12:14 As far as litigation, the hospital has invested and chosen a
08:12:19 different path.
08:12:20 They have chosen the path of resolution and hope you will
08:12:23 walk it with them.
08:12:24 I have never met Mr. Frank Miranda.
08:12:27 I don't know what he's talking about, about litigation
08:12:30 I guess by virtue of the fact that I am a lawyer and I have
08:12:33 litigated in my career that means I have threatened.
08:12:36 We are here to resolve.
08:12:38 I think the city attorney -- and I know are both well aware
08:12:42 of the kinds of cases that could have been brought before
08:12:44 now but that is not the hospital's desire.
08:12:47 The desire is to resolve and that's why we are here before
08:12:52 I am going to call Mr. Tim McLaughlin, the hospital
08:12:55 administrator, and following him Mr. David with some brief
08:12:59 rebuttal testimony.
08:13:00 >>HARRY COHEN: Ms. Mandell?
08:13:17 >> I want to clarify something.
08:13:21 In response to Mr. Sierra that the neighbors have been out
08:13:25 time and time again, what would satisfy them, what would
08:13:27 satisfy their objections, they never mentioned wanting money
08:13:31 compensation until November 22nd, after all those efforts I
08:13:36 just mentioned to invite their comments and address their
08:13:40 And the concerns, they asked in the revised site plan
08:13:43 address the concerns, far exceed code requirements.
08:13:48 So it was distressing and surprising to the hospital to not
08:13:53 withdraw their objections unless each of Mr. Sierra's client
08:13:56 was paid between 25 and 50,000 per person.
08:13:59 And he's not denying that.
08:14:01 It's in the letters.
08:14:02 And --
08:14:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Can I apologize for one second?
08:14:10 The letters that wave in our hands do not mention from Mr.
08:14:13 Sierra a number, okay?
08:14:18 In the letter that I'm saying that you gave to us that was
08:14:21 put into the record.
08:14:22 And there's no mention by him of a compensated amount.
08:14:27 I understand that your a certification that the conversation
08:14:31 you had with him, that's when he made the assertion,
08:14:34 >> His letter concurs that he called on November 22nd
08:14:39 suggested a payment of money.
08:14:40 My letter in response to that asked for detail and I'm sworn
08:14:44 as well that during the conversation --
08:14:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I said what I just said.
08:14:48 I adopt think we are in disagreement about what I just said.
08:14:50 >> Okay.
08:14:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
08:14:53 And the reason I make that comment, because you keep
08:14:55 mentioning the 25 to $50,000 amount.
08:14:58 And the letter does not include an amount at all.
08:15:01 And I will say this, and I will read in that the letter from
08:15:06 Mr. Sierra dated November 26th of 2013, he said, I
08:15:10 suggested to you the hospital should recognize the financial
08:15:14 impact on each of these residents and offer compensation.
08:15:21 Whether a buyout was desired.
08:15:22 I haven't specifically asked that of the residents but I
08:15:24 feel they do not really want to move from their homes.
08:15:27 Again, I want to be clear about what you are stating.
08:15:30 You are saying that there is a conversation you had, because
08:15:33 the letters do not, do not say anything about 25 to $50 that
08:15:38 I just want to make sure that we are all clear about that.
08:15:40 >> I'm glad you mentioned --
08:15:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Several times because --your letter says;
08:15:46 his letter does not.
08:15:46 >> I'll be glad to be clear and answer that for you.
08:15:48 >> There is no answer.
08:15:50 I think you said it.
08:15:51 You are sworn.
08:15:51 You said what you said in the letter.
08:15:53 I'm saying his letter does not state that.
08:15:55 >> That's correct.
08:15:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I want to make sure what we put into the
08:15:59 Thank you, chair.
08:16:00 >> And my letter confirms that when they said they want to
08:16:03 be compensated, I said what do you mean?
08:16:06 And said no, I think between 25 and 50 would do it.
08:16:10 And he did say that he was suggesting that he didn't have
08:16:14 uniform authority from all his clients but he thought that
08:16:17 would satisfy them.
08:16:18 That is what was said.
08:16:19 All right.
08:16:20 Let me --
08:16:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And to that point, it seems to put us in
08:16:26 a he said/she said type of situation, because the way that I
08:16:33 read Mr. Sierra's letter in that same paragraph that
08:16:38 Councilman Suarez referenced, I read it in that you were the
08:16:44 one who inquired of him if a buy-out was being requested.
08:16:51 >> My letter was designed to correct that because I did not
08:16:54 ask him did he want a buyout.
08:16:57 I was asking him to explain himself.
08:16:59 So the honest truth is, this shouldn't even be a
08:17:02 consideration for the council.
08:17:03 Our point is letting you know all the good faith efforts the
08:17:07 hospital has made to address the concerns about buffering,
08:17:12 and the good faith efforts that the hospital made, and come
08:17:17 with requests for money.
08:17:18 But the merits of this proposal would be whether B whether
08:17:21 it's consistent with your comp plan, consistent with your
08:17:24 zoning and within the property right of the hospital.
08:17:25 I would like Mr. McLaughlin to come up now.
08:17:33 >> Thank you very much.
08:17:33 Jerry McLaughlin with St. Joseph's hospital.
08:17:36 I just want to clarify a couple of issues that came up
08:17:39 during the discussion, if I might.
08:17:40 First in regard to the adjacent property, where the Tampa
08:17:44 Bay Buccaneers facility is, I personally dealt with the
08:17:47 DeBartolo company when they initially owned or was brokering
08:17:50 the property, as well as the ownership group of real estate
08:17:54 for the Buccaneers, and we were not able at all to come to
08:17:58 any terms on leasing or buying property in that area.
08:18:03 So it was a very difficult situation for them.
08:18:06 At the same time they were announcing the development of
08:18:08 their facility there.
08:18:09 So we tried.
08:18:10 It didn't work out.
08:18:14 In April of 2013, the FLEUDRA hearing, Mr. Sierra did attend
08:18:20 as he represented with a couple of the neighbors and they
08:18:22 are the ones who did suggest the buffering, the additional
08:18:25 buffering, and provided us with some great concepts that we
08:18:31 And I think it was represented that they did not agree to
08:18:35 I don't think there was any agreement or disagreement.
08:18:37 They simply suggested what it would take to get them to
08:18:40 agree to this particular concept.
08:18:42 And we adopted those issues for them.
08:18:46 We gave the buffering 20-foot setback.
08:18:52 On point of clarification on the 501(c)3, the profits that
08:18:55 have been talked about in theory, 100% of those profits are
08:18:59 reinvested into the hospital.
08:19:00 There's no shareholders.
08:19:03 There are gains in a hospital like this, again they all have
08:19:08 to be reinvested in the services we provide and doing the
08:19:11 things we do to provide better patient care.
08:19:14 And then the parking lot footprint was a question in regard
08:19:19 to building another parking garage on it.
08:19:22 One of the things you heard us talk about was the
08:19:26 And that footprint just isn't large enough to build another
08:19:29 parking garage.
08:19:31 You would have the same problem and you couldn't meet the
08:19:34 standards of today's garage.
08:19:35 So we would love to be able to do that if it was possible.
08:19:38 But it just is not possible so when can't do it.
08:19:41 And finally, one resident who is here this evening, Mr.
08:19:45 David Lee, did meet with us in I believe it was December of
08:19:49 2012, after the first hearing, that got continued, and we
08:19:53 spoke with him, went over the plan with him, and he seemed
08:19:56 to be satisfied with everything that we provided.
08:19:58 So we were a little surprised to see him here tonight but
08:20:03 respect his rate to speak up on behalf of the residents.
08:20:05 We just want to clarify those points.
08:20:08 >>HARRY COHEN: Mr. Reddick and then Mr. Suarez.
08:20:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: Could you state your title?
08:20:16 >> Renal director for the development for the health system.
08:20:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: And you stated properties go back into the
08:20:29 >> Yes, sir.
08:20:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: Then I have a question for you.
08:20:32 Why not reinvest some of those profits into repairing that
08:20:35 >> That is one of the options that we presented to the
08:20:40 council in the past year, and that is an option.
08:20:43 But it cannot be --
08:20:46 >> Which council?
08:20:47 >> This council when we talked in the prior hearing about
08:20:49 what are the options for fixing the garage versus building a
08:20:51 new garage.
08:20:53 >> Shouldn't that be the hospital's determination to decide
08:20:57 whether you feel -- that's not a safety issue, for people
08:21:00 that are parking in that garage, when you allow people into
08:21:04 that structure?
08:21:05 >> Absolutely.
08:21:06 >> And so you have got a profit.
08:21:09 And it seems like it would be an investment on that property
08:21:14 to clear that damage, that destructive damage that you have.
08:21:16 And for the comments that I heard earlier, it's cheaper to
08:21:24 build a surface parking lot than to build the type of
08:21:28 garage, it seems to me that you are dealing with issues
08:21:39 that's less costly, and with all regard to people safety.
08:21:45 And that raises a major concern to me because I'm thinking
08:21:52 it's more than a year that I heard about structure damage at
08:21:55 this parking garage.
08:21:57 And to this day, no one has said you have done anything to
08:22:01 repair the damage out there.
08:22:03 So I'm pretty sure you have got structure damage you had a
08:22:09 year ago and you haven't done anything to repair it.
08:22:12 It's not getting better.
08:22:14 It got to be worse with the value of traffic you have going
08:22:16 in and out of that garage every day.
08:22:18 So I am just concerned about the safety issues and the
08:22:24 profit that you are making and the statements that you put
08:22:27 it -- that couldn't be a true statement because you are not
08:22:33 investing into the garage.
08:22:34 And then I think that's a safety issue.
08:22:40 When is the last time the garage was inspected?
08:22:43 >> I believe it's when we had the report done.
08:22:45 I don't know the date of that report.
08:22:46 You can reference your package.
08:22:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
08:22:50 All right, thank you.
08:22:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.
08:22:56 Mr. McLaughlin, how long have you been in your position --
08:23:02 it's a long title so what was that again?
08:23:04 >> Regional director of real estate development.
08:23:05 >> How long have you been in that current position?
08:23:09 >> Since about 2000.
08:23:10 >> 2000.
08:23:11 Can I ask you, and chair Miranda mentioned this, said
08:23:14 someone asked about the plan, that was me.
08:23:17 What was the plan originally for the hospital?
08:23:20 What was the direction for both acquisition, and then
08:23:26 development of the parcels of land, in addition, there must
08:23:31 be a business plan somewhere to say we expect to have X
08:23:34 number of beds for, you know, delivery of babies, for
08:23:40 operations, for other things?
08:23:42 I would assume that that's how even a nonprofit is run.
08:23:46 Are you familiar or know what the original plan was since
08:23:50 you have been there since 2000?
08:23:51 >> Well, the plans are fluid.
08:23:52 They change year after year after year, as you know.
08:23:56 >> Well, tell me what flow of the river are we at now?
08:24:01 What is the direction that saint Jo's is going?
08:24:07 Because I assume, you know, there is a lot of investment.
08:24:10 And I do not even have an inkling of how much money St.
08:24:13 Joseph invested in their property.
08:24:16 But you all must know what you want to do with your
08:24:19 So, you know, what is the direction that you are going?
08:24:23 >> Well, to be quite honest it's what we are here to present
08:24:25 to you and what we have presented to you tonight.
08:24:27 >> I apologize, any long-term goals, what is it that you are
08:24:31 thinking about in terms of acquisition of or property
08:24:34 acquisition or development or making the hospital bigger,
08:24:38 What is it that you are planning?
08:24:40 >> At this time, the hospital is landlocked.
08:24:42 We don't have any ability to acquire any additional property
08:24:44 with the exception of a few units that still remain at 4600
08:24:49 There are no other land masses that are contiguous with the
08:24:53 hospital, whether it be women's, or whether it be on the
08:24:57 main campus.
08:24:58 Our goal is get this parking lot done and replace the garage
08:25:01 and we have represented not only recently but prior that
08:25:05 that is our current plan, and that's what is on the books.
08:25:08 >> And I apologize.
08:25:11 I just wanted to ask you in terms of your now in a different
08:25:16 type of partnership.
08:25:19 It's on not just St. Joe's hospital anymore.
08:25:22 There's Baycare health systems, which is, I think, part of
08:25:25 what they have in St. Pete, also, or Pinellas County, that's
08:25:30 part of that group, correct?
08:25:31 >> That is correct.
08:25:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is that a combined nonprofit now?
08:25:36 Is that what it is?
08:25:37 Or is it a subsidiary or affiliation?
08:25:40 >> The hospitals that belong to Baycare belong to Baycare
08:25:46 through a joint operating agreement and approximately 12
08:25:48 hospitals that are member hospitals, Baycare the most
08:25:51 recent, added Winter Haven hospital, and affiliation with
08:25:54 Sarasota Memorial.
08:25:55 And all of these are not for profit hospitals.
08:25:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.
08:26:00 I do find it hard to believe that a business as large as St.
08:26:03 Joe's does not have any plan, and that it's nude.
08:26:08 I mean, it's fluid based on what is available, not fluid
08:26:12 based on what your plans are.
08:26:13 You know, we all have plans based on what we would like to
08:26:16 do, and I think that especially when you have an operating
08:26:19 agreement with another entity that it wants touch grow.
08:26:21 And I will tell you just for your own information that I am
08:26:25 an insurance agent.
08:26:26 And I know that hospitals now want to talk about cutting out
08:26:30 the middleman and actually providing coverages for people
08:26:34 and having the distribution point for health care, which
08:26:38 means that hospitals have some to expand, and that is
08:26:40 something I put in the record as my own experience, and not
08:26:44 impugning this witness or anyone from St. Joseph.
08:26:48 I'm looking for our attorney.
08:26:49 I was going to ask her a question.
08:26:52 I have nothing else of Mr. McLaughlin but I would like to
08:26:54 ask our attorney a question.
08:26:55 >> I believe she's right outside and she's back in.
08:26:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you so much.
08:27:00 You know, I don't know if any of the other council members
08:27:03 have any other questions but I would like to ask Mrs.
08:27:06 Mandela question.
08:27:07 Thank you, sir.
08:27:07 I appreciate it.
08:27:09 Ms. Mandell, thank you.
08:27:12 I had a question to you earlier about the standing of the
08:27:18 I think in legal lar lance they do not have standing in
08:27:21 relation to the agreement, for the agreement that we talked
08:27:26 about, the settlement agreement.
08:27:28 >>JULIA MANDELL: In relation to the mediation, which two
08:27:32 items are part of that potential settlement.
08:27:34 That's correct.
08:27:35 They don't have standing under the statute.
08:27:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have been doing this for only a short
08:27:39 period of time and I know you have been with land use for a
08:27:42 lot longer than many of us.
08:27:44 Have you seen a situation in which a neighborhood group or a
08:27:48 group that has been affected by a zoning decision has been
08:27:52 able to go and sue either an entity, or a private group that
08:27:58 is involved in the zoning decision?
08:28:01 >> There is certainly an opportunity for residents to bring
08:28:04 action if there's a decision on a decision that's made or
08:28:08 some other kind of land use decision that's made, they can
08:28:11 bring action against the local government for that
08:28:15 particular action.
08:28:15 There may be other positive action between private parties
08:28:19 that exist, but in terms of your decision that you make,
08:28:23 yes, there are opportunities for third party statutory
08:28:26 opportunities, and general appellate opportunities for our
08:28:31 third -- for third parties to bring action.
08:28:34 >> Thank you.
08:28:37 >>JULIA MANDELL: And when they are done with rebuttal if I
08:28:40 might have an opportunity.
08:28:40 >>HARRY COHEN: I am going to ask you.
08:28:42 Thank you.
08:28:43 Just for the record how much time is left of the
08:28:45 petitioner's rebuttal?
08:28:47 >>THE CLERK: 2 minutes 41 second remaining.
08:28:50 >> I am going to let Mr. Davis have most of that.
08:28:54 >> Good evening.
08:28:59 Richard Davis, 15310 Amber Lee drive, Tampa, Florida.
08:29:08 There are two direct documents.
08:29:09 First of all in preparation for these proceedings I did
08:29:12 examine the minutes of prior hearings going as far back as
08:29:17 And the hospital has never misled this council or the city.
08:29:23 The hospital has consistently indicated that they would use
08:29:28 this property, the plans were not formulated, but there was
08:29:33 always an intention to use the property.
08:29:35 And when you go back through these minutes, you will see
08:29:37 And the important, consistent thing is that even during the
08:29:42 January testimony, there was additional support, that the
08:29:48 property is important to the hospital, and the use that has
08:29:51 been chosen now is the use which is consistent with your
08:29:54 comprehensive plan.
08:29:55 It does comport with your Land Development Code.
08:29:58 And it reflects a present-day decision as to the use of the
08:30:02 property in a way that is critically important in the
08:30:06 overall operation of the hospital.
08:30:08 But what it's important -- what is important to note is that
08:30:11 in prior testimony hospital officials have consistently
08:30:14 indicated that this property is important to the present day
08:30:19 and long-term functioning of the hospital.
08:30:21 With that, council members, I will turn the meeting back
08:30:27 >> In closing we ask that you focus on what you are supposed
08:30:31 to focus, your comp plan, your zoning code, the fact that
08:30:35 the hospital has reasonable expectations of use here, that
08:30:39 they are asking just to pave it and use it for parking
08:30:42 that's needed to increase safety, protect patients and its
08:30:52 They have invited the neighbors repeatedly.
08:30:56 They in their planning accommodated what was requested, and
08:31:01 we ask you to recognize what's been accommodated there
08:31:03 through covenant running with the land, maintenance
08:31:07 agreement, landscape agreement, more than the hospital is
08:31:11 legally required to do but was most willing to do once they
08:31:14 listened to the neighborhood neighbors and when they came
08:31:17 and spoke.
08:31:18 So we ask that you focus on what you are supposed to, and
08:31:21 that is the property rights of the hospital, vis-a-vis your
08:31:25 code, and the comprehensive plan, and how the neighbors
08:31:31 asserted concerns have been addressed in the manner that
08:31:34 your own staff supports.
08:31:36 Thank you.
08:31:36 >>HARRY COHEN: Ms. Mandell.
08:31:42 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.
08:31:48 There were issues raised regarding discussions between the
08:31:52 attorney who represents -- who represents the council and
08:31:59 some of the neighbors.
08:32:00 First I want to say for the record, and I want to state that
08:32:04 she did point this out in addition, in her letter that she
08:32:08 sent to Mr. Sierra, for the record here, for anybody who
08:32:12 might be listening to this, or discussing any part of this,
08:32:17 Chairman Miranda, Mr. Miranda, was never part of any of the
08:32:21 That was made clear in the letters which are before you.
08:32:24 And I just want to make that extraordinarily clear for the
08:32:26 record, so that there's no confusion on that particular
08:32:31 The second issue I wanted to bring up is I am a little
08:32:34 concerned about those letters as it relates to the
08:32:38 conversations which may or may not have been heard between
08:32:41 Mrs. Boulris and Mr. Sierra.
08:32:44 However, that is not relevant for your conversation.
08:32:47 Your conversation is based upon whether or not -- and what
08:32:51 you should focus on is this came to you as part of the
08:32:54 mediated settlement, which is statutorily provided for, in
08:33:01 which the first part -- and that section of Florida statute,
08:33:05 which the first rule of special magistrate is to see if
08:33:08 there's an opportunity to facilitate a resolution of this ^
08:33:13 The first part of that was the vacation decision which you
08:33:16 denied, and the petitioner has chosen to come back in an
08:33:19 attempt to facilitate additional resolution, and this is
08:33:23 forwarded to you for that purpose.
08:33:25 So when you are analyzing this case and looking at this case
08:33:27 the fact that some of the conversations may have occurred
08:33:29 outside the scope of this process between the petitioner and
08:33:34 their representative of some of the neighbors, I just
08:33:39 caution you about the relevancy of those as part of this
08:33:44 But what is relevant to you in your analysis is what was
08:33:48 previously denied is facilitating resolution of that denial
08:33:54 as part of this process, and whether or not it's appropriate
08:33:57 for us to move forward with this resolution.
08:34:01 Alternatively if you decide it is not appropriate and move
08:34:04 forward with this resolution, we will be in the position of
08:34:08 going to the second part of the statute, which requires a
08:34:12 more full hearing that will result in a recommendation from
08:34:15 the special magistrate, that will then come back to you, and
08:34:19 the magistrate will look back at the original decision and
08:34:22 let you know after that hearing whether or not that decision
08:34:27 was in line with the statute in line with the law.
08:34:31 So that's where we stand.
08:34:33 And I just want to make sure it's clear for the record that
08:34:35 all that correspondence and all that conversation is not
08:34:39 relevant to the purposes upon which you are involved in this
08:34:44 Thank you.
08:34:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Mandell, I want to understand something
08:34:53 that you just said.
08:34:54 Are you saying if this were to be denied, then it would go
08:35:03 back to the special magistrate?
08:35:07 >>JULIA MANDELL: That's correct.
08:35:10 As in the previous proceeding.
08:35:12 >>JULIA MANDELL: So then the difference between what they
08:35:17 recommended now and it would depend on our decision?
08:35:22 >>JULIA MANDELL: That's correct.
08:35:24 The special magistrate is more in a steering-style
08:35:29 proceeding, and whether or not the decision that he's made
08:35:34 is unreasonable or unfairly burdens the real property, and
08:35:39 will make additional recommendations to you which will come
08:35:42 back to you.
08:35:45 >>MARY MULHERN: So recommendations, what does that mean?
08:35:48 >>JULIA MANDELL: What that means is basically outlines for
08:35:51 you whether or not in your previous decision unreasonably or
08:35:54 unfairly burdens the real property, make recommendations on
08:35:58 how you resolve that issue, and that special magistrate
08:36:02 report does become part of the record so if you get into a
08:36:04 litigation position, it will be the record plus his report.
08:36:09 So that will have some analysis that will be given in the
08:36:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
08:36:20 It just seems interesting to me that it wouldn't go to court
08:36:23 but go back to the special magistrate.
08:36:25 >> But that's how the process works, and that's why we are
08:36:28 in front of you.
08:36:30 The first role of this process is to be see if there's AP
08:36:34 opportunity to facilitate a resolution in all of these
08:36:40 We have had several of them that we have worked on, you
08:36:41 know, myself or other attorneys in my office, the intent of
08:36:46 the statute is to have an open mediation forum, profile
08:36:50 forum, where neighbors are invited in, their thoughts are
08:36:53 provided, whether or not they can be accommodated, because
08:36:56 part of the process, and then we come back to you with a
08:37:01 potential resolution.
08:37:04 Through the settlement agreement I know it got a little
08:37:08 This isn't a settlement agreement.
08:37:10 It's a potential resolution of a dispute from the decision,
08:37:14 which you denied, and now inclusive of the rezoning
08:37:17 application which is in front of you -- the rezoning
08:37:24 decisions in front of you, put that the way, as well as the
08:37:27 proposed development agreement.
08:37:28 And that's where this sits in front of you today.
08:37:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm reading from the decision of the
08:37:42 special magistrate, Charlie Siemens.
08:37:46 And I wouldn't call it a decision.
08:37:47 >> I think that's an important point.
08:37:50 That is part of his recommendation as it relates to the
08:37:53 settlement of this dispute.
08:37:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
08:37:58 The portion of the letter, recommendation, he says the
08:38:05 explicit reference to St. Josephs and the city's
08:38:09 comprehensive plan had all been ignored, had all been but
08:38:14 ignored by City Council, policy 19-point .1, permit office
08:38:19 development to in-fill on vacant parcels or redevelop
08:38:23 existing parcels in areas adjacent to St. Joseph's hospital
08:38:27 from the south right-of-way line of Martin Luther King Jr.
08:38:29 Boulevard to the south property boundary of those lots
08:38:33 fronting the south right-of-way line of Saint Isabel street
08:38:37 between Armenia and MacDill.
08:38:39 So that is from our comprehensive plan.
08:38:43 So the plan contemplates that parcel described within those
08:38:50 boundaries or number of parcels described within those
08:38:55 boundaries to have office development, and I think I
08:38:58 reference it back in the first hearing a way long time ago,
08:39:03 whatever date that was, that the development of a parking
08:39:09 lot is in office development, and the comprehensive plan
08:39:16 that the magistrate referenced states permit office
08:39:20 development to in-fill on vacant parcels.
08:39:25 So I'm a little conflicted.
08:39:27 And the other is the last sentence in the letter, states
08:39:32 that I respectfully recommend that the city accept the
08:39:36 proposed development agreement, but he doesn't state
08:39:41 recommending accepting the rezoning, the site plan to the
08:39:47 development agreement.
08:39:48 >>JULIA MANDELL: Well again it must have been a
08:39:54 misstatement on his part because they were all presented to
08:39:57 him as one, presented to you as one, why he doesn't say the
08:40:00 proposed development agreement versus the entire portion, I
08:40:02 can't speak to that.
08:40:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And his statement in the letter kind of
08:40:08 reads open -- some kind of --
08:40:11 >>JULIA MANDELL: Well, you have the right to take it that
08:40:14 I don't know that that was the intent.
08:40:15 But all that being said, it is what's in front of you, and
08:40:20 you are sitting here with a recommendation of a special
08:40:23 That's why it wasn't a decision, it was a recommendation for
08:40:26 the purposes of whether or not the action that you took
08:40:32 unfairly burden it is real property, which is the second
08:40:35 phase of what we would be going through should this fail
08:40:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It also contemplates Tampa vacation of
08:40:44 Saint Isabel --
08:40:45 >> That is no longer on the table --
08:40:50 >> And the applicant in order to continue, the resolution
08:40:55 comes back with a plan, which no longer includes Saint
08:40:59 Isabel but includes all the other provisions.
08:41:01 >> That's my concern that policy 19.8.1 states office
08:41:05 development to in-fill on vacant parcels, not parking.
08:41:09 >>JULIA MANDELL: Well, that was --
08:41:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I state again on the record how I
08:41:16 feel about parking --
08:41:18 >> -- and what your motion was, and part of what the
08:41:21 analysis was, and, you know, whether or not that, you know,
08:41:24 that ultimately would be the deciding factor, whether or not
08:41:29 that policy is interpreted and applied that way or not is
08:41:33 something that we will be dealing with in the future.
08:41:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I guess what I am saying though, Mrs.
08:41:41 Mandell, he states that we all but ignored that policy, but
08:41:46 I believe we discussed at length, me personally -- I can't
08:41:51 speak for the other council members -- but I think you and I
08:41:54 in this hearing room discussed at length whether this is
08:42:03 part of that comprehensive plan policy, because the policy
08:42:08 he's specifically referencing says permit office development
08:42:11 to in-fill.
08:42:12 And this is not office development, it's parking.
08:42:14 >>JULIA MANDELL: Well, that was a position that was
08:42:18 presented to him not just in the written response which I
08:42:22 provided, but also in discussions during the proceeding as
08:42:26 it led up to the discussion of potential settlement.
08:42:30 So as a special magistrate and in his power under the
08:42:35 statute, that was his position.
08:42:39 And, in fact, that, you know, is something that is part now
08:42:44 of the record.
08:42:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And one last point, is that the
08:42:49 comprehensive plan policy again stating permit, office
08:42:53 development, when I asked Mrs. Feeley what this could be
08:42:57 utilized for if we denied the rezoning, they still own the
08:43:00 property, they still have the right to utilize that
08:43:02 property, and I believe she stated residential, obviously,
08:43:10 but congregate living.
08:43:12 And that's not office development either.
08:43:17 So I guess I'm a little confused about the -- I can't think
08:43:27 of the right word -- parallel between our comprehensive
08:43:33 plan, office, and the ability to develop the property as
08:43:37 congregate living.
08:43:43 And of course I'm talking about the peace that is not zoned
08:43:56 Anytime now, ladies.
08:43:57 >> I'm sorry.
08:44:00 >>HARRY COHEN: We are going to give them a moment to
08:44:10 Can I go to Councilwoman Mulhern while they do that?
08:44:14 >>MARY MULHERN: I thought Mr. LaRocca could answer my
08:44:17 I'm trying to figure out why, when I look at the site plan
08:44:22 of the zoning atlas, where the existing garage is.
08:44:27 You know, you can't really see it on your site plan.
08:44:30 >> John LaRocca, Murphy LaRocca Consulting.
08:44:41 To answer your question, it you are correct, the footprint
08:44:44 is not on the plan.
08:44:45 I will place the tip of the pen
08:44:48 The garage is generally located in the area, the existing
08:45:00 four story medical office building.
08:45:02 >> South of the office building?
08:45:05 >>> South of the office building.
08:45:08 North of Saint Isabel.
08:45:09 >>MARY MULHERN: Then I don't know -- I don't know if this
08:45:14 is misprinted or what, but is it PD?
08:45:22 >> The current zoning except for that portion south of Saint
08:45:25 Isabel is PD, and not including the RO portion that's been
08:45:30 referred to on the south side of Saint Isabel.
08:45:33 Having else is PD.
08:45:36 Planned development tied to an existing site plan.
08:45:38 >> Okay.
08:45:41 Thank you.
08:45:41 >> I guess we are going to get back to the answer to Mrs.
08:45:51 Montelione's question?
08:45:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
08:45:56 Mrs. Montelione had asked what are the permissible uses in
08:45:58 the RS-50 district.
08:46:01 By right, and I have mentioned a few.
08:46:05 What I would like to do for clarification is to go ahead and
08:46:13 go down the list of alternate uses in the RS-50.
08:46:17 I think she was asking besides residential single-family.
08:46:21 So let me go ahead and --
08:46:25 >> Congregate living facility six beds or fewer is a
08:46:29 permissible use by rate particularly those located within
08:46:32 residential structures.
08:46:34 That's not to say that a residential structure could not be
08:46:36 constructed on this property and then utilized for six beds
08:46:40 or less as a permissible use by right without any further
08:46:44 consideration by council.
08:46:47 Residential single-family detached, to discuss a daycare and
08:46:52 nursery facility, limited to five children.
08:46:58 Public golf course, but just to make sure I identify uses.
08:47:07 Public use facility which would be like a pump station or
08:47:11 any of those.
08:47:12 Temporary film production.
08:47:14 And that would be it bit by right.
08:47:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So explain to me, or to those watching
08:47:25 at home, why the comprehensive plan says, contemplates that
08:47:34 paragraphs, or that policy 19-8.1 permit office development
08:47:41 in-fill on vacant parcels or redevelop existing parcels in
08:47:44 the areas adjacent to St. Joseph's hospital, and then it
08:47:48 gives the boundary.
08:47:48 >> The underlying land use of the R 20 will allow for
08:47:52 consideration of other zoning districts besides the RS-50.
08:47:56 That goes back to the original consistency matrix in the
08:47:59 front of the zoning code that says you can under an RS 20,
08:48:04 you can consider up to CN zoning district.
08:48:09 You may utilize a PD or planned development to get up to the
08:48:14 intensity or density of the CN use but never use the PD to
08:48:19 circumvent, says most intensive uses in the CN district.
08:48:22 >> So they could come in under the RN 20 and assume that
08:48:31 develop by right, and also of the CN, but it would require
08:48:36 consideration by council.
08:48:37 So -- and supporting that consideration understood potential
08:48:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Got it.
08:48:45 But even the CN zoning district with not particularly
08:48:53 intense use, what can be utilized in a CN neighborhood.
08:48:58 >> The commercial which you considered earlier this evening,
08:49:02 I had gone some of the uses so let me again go through them.
08:49:05 CN by right, that would be that you would have to come and
08:49:09 rezone the CN.
08:49:10 Then these would be permissible uses.
08:49:12 CN would allow bed and breakfast.
08:49:15 It would allow a cemetery.
08:49:16 It would have allow --
08:49:20 >> That wouldn't be good, but go ahead.
08:49:21 >>ABBYE FEELEY: A clinic.
08:49:26 A club.
08:49:26 >> Does it say the size of the clinic?
08:49:32 >> No.
08:49:33 That would be attributed to what could be accommodated.
08:49:36 And remember, CN would not allow for any waivers or
08:49:38 variances from the requirements of code.
08:49:43 Place of religious assembly.
08:49:45 Public cultural facility.
08:49:49 A public golf course.
08:49:51 A bank.
08:49:52 A catering shop.
08:49:54 Interim parking.
08:49:57 Office, business and professional.
08:49:59 >> It would allow interim parking?
08:50:02 >> Yes, it would.
08:50:03 As long as they met all of the criteria that goes along with
08:50:06 interim parking use.
08:50:09 So interim parking would be for a period of up to five
08:50:17 Personal services.
08:50:19 A pharmacy.
08:50:20 Public service facility.
08:50:22 A public use facility.
08:50:24 Recreational facility.
08:50:26 Which is typically like a dance studio, or a gym, a
08:50:35 >> I think we got the idea.
08:50:37 >> Retail bakery.
08:50:39 Retail sales.
08:50:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Got it.
08:50:41 Thank you.
08:50:41 >>HARRY COHEN: Ms. Mulhern.
08:50:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Feeley, I'm still confused.
08:50:47 Can you -- see that site plan up on the Elmo?
08:50:54 Can you take a highlighter, a marker or something and draw
08:50:58 the outline of the current existing garage?
08:51:20 Okay, I got it.
08:51:39 An aerial of the site.
08:51:40 >> We got it.
08:51:41 >>MARY MULHERN: So this is my question.
08:51:43 So what we are being asked to do, I think this is because we
08:51:47 didn't get your usual -- all your pictures you take of the
08:51:52 >> I'm a little concerned that what we are doing is
08:51:58 revisiting the previous approval.
08:52:00 You are here to determine whether or not this potential
08:52:03 solution facilitates the resolution of the dispute that came
08:52:07 out of your previous denial.
08:52:09 Your previous denial still stands.
08:52:11 It is still in existence.
08:52:13 And the question is one of, does this go to a place, and
08:52:20 this proposal go to a place, the resolution of that dispute,
08:52:25 and if it does, we can move forward.
08:52:28 If it's council's position that it does not facilitate and
08:52:31 does not cause a resolution of your previous denial, then
08:52:37 you say no and we go back in the process.
08:52:39 So I think.
08:52:43 >> I think we need to have reasons for whatever we say.
08:52:45 >> Well, the reasons, you say your original approval was
08:52:49 valid and that it's based on solid ground and we can read
08:52:53 that into the record.
08:52:54 But the bottom line is, it shouldn't be a decision of
08:52:59 revisiting the previous denial.
08:53:00 That is what it is.
08:53:01 Our record stay it is way it stays.
08:53:04 It's either resolved that or it doesn't.
08:53:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
08:53:07 But to make that decision we have to know --
08:53:10 >>JULIA MANDELL: I think it's appropriate for you to ask
08:53:12 why, but to go forward and ask --
08:53:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I think it really begs the question.
08:53:17 I got my answer so I'm fine.
08:53:19 >>HARRY COHEN: I have not spoken yet.
08:53:21 I just want to ask one question.
08:53:23 The issue of the comprehensive plan came up, policy 19-8.1.
08:53:31 And maybe, Ms. Feeley, you could just help me with this for
08:53:34 a minute.
08:53:36 When I read the geographic boundary that's being spoken
08:53:42 about, where office development in-fill is to be encouraged,
08:53:54 my read of it is that it only covers half of the site that's
08:54:00 being proposed here today.
08:54:03 The half of the site on the north side of the property is
08:54:05 not covered by that policy in the comprehensive plan.
08:54:09 Is that correct?
08:54:09 >> Actually, it goes to -- if you can see where I have --
08:54:16 the policy would speak to the rear of the northern parcel,
08:54:24 On the southern side of Saint Isabel, okay?
08:54:28 So it really comes along there.
08:54:31 In fact, we have done together, I believe, this PD here, the
08:54:38 year before last.
08:54:39 This is a medical office with access on the local.
08:54:43 This one here.
08:54:45 But herein lies part of the problem.
08:54:50 When this piece here was taken away last year and these lots
08:54:57 are in ownership were the same, they become one lot.
08:55:05 Because these have no frontage any other place.
08:55:08 How could they be developed?
08:55:15 But when consideration, the application came before us the
08:55:18 policy stopped at that back end, that south end of those
08:55:21 lots, that front on the southern side of Saint Isabel,
08:55:24 bringing that line back.
08:55:25 But in the reality of this case, this is a nonconforming lot
08:55:32 And because of its ownership with the northern pieces, it
08:55:36 becomes one building lot.
08:55:40 >> Wasn't the intention clearly not to extend that line to
08:55:44 the parcels that front Saint Isabel to the north?
08:55:50 Since they were so careful about making delineation where
08:55:53 they did, weren't they saying that's as far as it should be
08:55:57 able to come?
08:55:58 >> I don't -- when that policy was adopted, but the reality
08:56:09 in this case is that portion there then, because of the
08:56:18 action taken here, is nonconform.
08:56:23 >>HARRY COHEN: But the other two are included?
08:56:28 >> Here, yes.
08:56:30 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.
08:56:31 >> Leave that up.
08:56:34 >> And then I'll come back to you.
08:56:39 And anyone else.
08:56:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You said those lots, the ones that you
08:56:44 colored in with the pen, the ones that you just colored in,
08:56:50 would be nonconform because of the part that don't have
08:56:54 access but they do have access right there?
08:56:59 >> No.
08:57:03 On Gomez?
08:57:04 This one does.
08:57:09 You own this one.
08:57:10 And Mr., you know, Cohen own this one and Mr. Suarez owns
08:57:14 this one -- that then becomes the argument for then how it
08:57:21 goes with the portions and how it has to function that way.
08:57:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But because it under the same ownership
08:57:27 they would all have access on Gomez, which is a.
08:57:31 >> Which is a local street.
08:57:32 >> Well, it a local street.
08:57:34 It would be something that our transportation department
08:57:36 would object to, but it's not landlocked.
08:57:42 So that portion south of the line where the comprehensive
08:57:48 plan policy stops would not be landlocked.
08:57:51 They would have -- they would have access with
08:57:56 transportation labor --
08:57:58 >> If it's a minimum of 50 feet to meet the RS-50, it would
08:58:03 be 50 by 200 fate in depth.
08:58:07 >> The park is in city ownership?
08:58:09 >> Yes.
08:58:10 >> Could we not dedicate that back?
08:58:18 >>JULIA MANDELL: First of all you have to have a willing --
08:58:22 what you heard at the first hearing even though I was hoping
08:58:24 we wouldn't go back there, but what you are hearing from
08:58:28 Mrs. Feeley right now -- what you are hearing from Mrs.
08:58:32 Feeley right now is the fact that those lots, when the 50
08:58:42 feet was given to the city or dedicated to the city -- I
08:58:45 can't recall exactly how it came to the city -- it is wholly
08:58:48 within city ownership.
08:58:50 Those remainder parcels were no longer parcels and as a
08:58:58 result that policy does not have the same application as it
08:59:02 probably would have had, as it probably intended, and that
08:59:07 is something that was a constant part of this discussion,
08:59:12 which was formulating some of the basis upon which this
08:59:17 facilitated resolution was brought back to you, on the part
08:59:21 of St. Josephs, in attempting to at least maybe not get to
08:59:26 that 100 fat buffer but to a 70-foot buffer, but whether or
08:59:29 not City Council believes that facilitates the resolution of
08:59:33 your original denial is what you are keying in on.
08:59:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Before we close the public hearing.
08:59:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize.
08:59:53 I had a legal question for Ms. Mandell.
08:59:59 Let's walk through the process in terms of where we are at
09:00:01 now, okay?
09:00:03 We have the recommendation of the mediator.
09:00:06 We have a negotiated agreement that if we go forward and
09:00:13 agree to it, then we get -- excuse me, not we, but the
09:00:19 agreement would be that that linear park is extended, in a
09:00:25 development would go vertical.
09:00:29 How many feet?
09:00:30 >> 70 feet from the right-of-way line of Lake Avenue.
09:00:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Now, if this application is denied tonight,
09:00:39 okay, the process is it goes back to mediation.
09:00:42 Does it go back to the same mediator?
09:00:46 >> Yes.
09:00:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Now, if the same mediator comes to the same
09:00:51 decision as he did before, and in fact can he go back to
09:00:53 what the original denial was, or can he not?
09:00:56 >> No, that's what he would go back to.
09:00:59 The question before the special magistrate at that point is
09:01:02 whether the original denial, the real property, and we will
09:01:12 present evidence on that, can --
09:01:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Hang on.
09:01:15 Let go in small bites.
09:01:17 So the next step would that we would have to negotiate,
09:01:22 again, or --
09:01:23 >> No, not really.
09:01:24 >> Or straight back to council?
09:01:26 >>JULIA MANDELL: What happens at that point is after
09:01:29 proceeding in front of the special magistrate, they call it
09:01:33 a rental.
09:01:33 It's a recommended order indicating his position on whether
09:01:37 or not the original denial, and he may make additional
09:01:44 recommendations on how we can cure that, and that's
09:01:47 something that he can consider or not consider.
09:01:52 Once we get to that, we are outside of the mediation part of
09:01:55 it, the facilitation of the resolution part of it.
09:01:59 >> And again, but the process, talking about getting back to
09:02:02 the process, which is it comes back to us to come up with a
09:02:08 resolution based on the recommendations of the mediator
09:02:11 >> You are not obligated to.
09:02:13 You can if you wish.
09:02:15 And give another opportunity to facilitate the resolution.
09:02:20 But once we get at the end of this, we are kind of over the
09:02:23 facilitation part of it.
09:02:26 And we are in the position of being reactive.
09:02:28 And, no, we are not going to a recommended order, yes we
09:02:35 are, we want to mach changes.
09:02:36 >> Let's get to the next step then.
09:02:38 If we say we are not going to accept the recommended order
09:02:41 because it's so much against what we have already tried to
09:02:45 decide in the past hearing, what's the next step then?
09:02:49 >> Whatever litigation action they wish --
09:02:55 >> Litigation action.
09:02:57 Let's go to the next step.
09:02:57 The next step is if they want to litigate they want to
09:03:00 litigate in what court?
09:03:01 >> They could file a writ of certiorari which is an appeal
09:03:05 >> Which court though?
09:03:06 >> That would be in state court.
09:03:07 >> State court.
09:03:08 And then if they win in state court it comes back to us,
09:03:12 does it come back to us with a court order saying that we
09:03:16 need to follow these particular guidelines, or do we have
09:03:18 any other recourse after that?
09:03:20 >> If we lose in appeal it comes back to you and depending
09:03:27 what the court orders you need to react to the court order.
09:03:29 If the court says we have no basis for your denial then you
09:03:32 will have to react to that.
09:03:34 And it's really hard for me to advise where you end up --
09:03:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No, Mrs. Mandell, the reason that I am
09:03:42 asking is because we have to weigh -- the decision that we
09:03:46 make tonight versus what will happen tomorrow, because when
09:03:50 we are dealing with an applicant, that is as deep pocketed
09:03:55 as this one is -- and I do believe that they are more deep
09:03:58 pocketed than other applicants we have had in the past, just
09:04:02 my sums, know it based on any other information than what I
09:04:06 can ascertain.
09:04:09 So to me, we have to measure that in some way.
09:04:12 And this is what makes this case different, because we have
09:04:15 a mediator making a recommendation, okay?
09:04:18 And that's the only reason I wanted to walk you through,
09:04:20 because in my mind, we are adding different levels than we
09:04:25 were or would have been in any other kind of land use case.
09:04:28 >> That's correct.
09:04:29 You are not facing the first decision.
09:04:34 This is a mediated of the previous denial.
09:04:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
09:04:40 That answers my question.
09:04:42 I just have one thing to say.
09:04:44 There are several things that concern me deeply about this
09:04:46 particular case, and in particular there are a couple
09:04:50 Council for the applicant made a closing discussion saying
09:04:55 that, let me tell you what you need to do, and reiterate the
09:05:01 three factors that we need to look at.
09:05:04 But yet she has put into the record a letter disputing a
09:05:07 conversation that she had with another attorney.
09:05:09 I have no idea why that was brought up.
09:05:11 I have no idea why that was in there other than it's in the
09:05:14 reputation -- to impugn the reputation of the lawyer at
09:05:18 And in addition I think that that is a little bit -- I'm not
09:05:22 really happy with that, and I don't think that gamemanship
09:05:25 is really necessary.
09:05:28 If you are going to present your case, present your case and
09:05:30 tell us what we need and what we can do for you.
09:05:33 Now, the second part of this is that we have a
09:05:36 recommendation from the mediator.
09:05:38 Fish we do not agree with those recommendations -- and I am
09:05:44 having a lot of trouble with making the decision about this.
09:05:47 I don't -- because of what I just mentioned I have a lot of
09:05:52 problems with what St. Joe's has presented to us.
09:05:55 Mr. Davis came up to us and said that they have no, since
09:05:59 2000, about this property, and about the land surrounding
09:06:02 the property, and then when I asked their administrator, he
09:06:05 said everything is fluid, we don't know what's going on.
09:06:09 And I'm telling you, and I know it has no bearing on this
09:06:12 case, but it does have bearing on what I expect from a
09:06:17 member of the community aspected as St. Joseph's when it
09:06:21 comes to their hospital.
09:06:22 And I'll tell you what, I don't like making these type of
09:06:25 decisions because I do believe that St. Joseph's has been a
09:06:30 net positive for our community, and I think that I talk for
09:06:33 many of the people here.
09:06:34 I know I was born there.
09:06:35 I know Mr. Miranda was born there, not chair Miranda, but --
09:06:41 yeah, so, anyway, again, I do think that there's too much,
09:06:47 there is too much discussion about other processes and not
09:06:52 what the real issue at hand is.
09:06:56 I have a fear that if we don't make a decision based on the
09:07:00 recommendation of that we are going to be in a worse
09:07:03 situation with this particular zoning, with this particular
09:07:07 piece of property, and I say that on the record because, you
09:07:10 know, these type of decisions are never brought to us as --
09:07:17 these are much more confusing than other land use cases that
09:07:20 we deal with.
09:07:21 Because now we have a third party outside of the neighbors
09:07:24 that's telling us what the law says.
09:07:27 We don't even have a right or direction as to what we decide
09:07:30 what the law is, because there is always a third party
09:07:33 that's going to decide.
09:07:35 Now, the neighbor can sue and may come out and actually win
09:07:39 a case.
09:07:39 I don't know if that's possible or if it isn't.
09:07:41 But we have a responsibility both to the neighbors and to
09:07:45 the city, and because of that balancing act it makes it
09:07:48 extremely difficult for wash we need to do.
09:07:52 I'm going to choke on my words in terms of whether or not we
09:07:55 should -- we should accept the recommendation.
09:07:58 Excuse me, Mr. Shelby, I am not saying anything that is
09:08:01 messing up the record and please do not interrupt me.
09:08:03 Let me finish.
09:08:04 Let me finish.
09:08:06 If we don't accept this, we do could be in a position where
09:08:09 the vacation comes back into play at some point, they ask
09:08:12 for it and they get it.
09:08:14 Other parts of the original decision that we have decided
09:08:19 that we did not want may come back in and may get agreed to
09:08:23 or at least we might have to because of a court order.
09:08:27 And I don't take those things lightly.
09:08:30 So my guess is that we probably should accept it, even
09:08:34 though I don't want to accept it.
09:08:36 And I don't nobody the best way of saying it other than, you
09:08:38 know, we are not only splitting the baby, we shall sitting
09:08:42 it into 16 parts.
09:08:43 That's all I have to say.
09:08:44 >> I'm told by our counsel that we have to give the
09:08:50 petitioner an opportunity to rebut just the testimony Mrs.
09:08:53 Feeley offered when she was answering our questions, if they
09:08:56 would like. If not we are going to go ahead and --
09:09:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: How many?
09:09:05 >>HARRY COHEN: Very briefly.
09:09:06 I'm just affording process on the advice of counsel.
09:09:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: I don't know if we can hear much more.
09:09:13 >> Mr. LaRocca will address those comment with respect to
09:09:19 the application and how it is consistent with the --
09:09:23 >> And we need to keep this to three minutes.
09:09:25 >> Very brief.
09:09:27 John LaRocca.
09:09:28 With regard to the land use policy and the relationship to
09:09:32 that block south of Saint Isabel, north of Lake, in our
09:09:37 case, east of MacDill, west of Gomez, I concur with
09:09:41 Abbye's interpretation.
09:09:42 Again, my position on this matter as a professional planner
09:09:47 is to look at that policy and look at all the criteria into
09:09:52 complementing the future land use plan.
09:09:54 I think it's important to note that when the linear park was
09:09:57 designate add long the southern portion of the property it
09:09:59 created lots that fronted on Saint Isabel that met that
09:10:04 With regard to the uses that are permissible by that policy
09:10:07 in terms of the long-range goals, objectives and policies,
09:10:11 of the plan, parking is ancillary to the office use as
09:10:15 contemplated surrounding the office.
09:10:17 So as I stated in the original hearing, and it was affirmed,
09:10:23 if you will, by the Planning Commission staff at the time,
09:10:26 that's the reason why we looked at that early on in terms of
09:10:30 consistency with the comp plan.
09:10:32 I concur with how Abbye presented in more detail on the
09:10:35 Thank you.
09:10:36 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you. All right.
09:10:38 Mr. Reddick, I thought you were about to make a motion.
09:10:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move to close.
09:10:43 >> Second.
09:10:44 >> Motion to close by Councilman Reddick, seconded by
09:10:47 Councilwoman Montelione.
09:10:48 All those in favor of the motion please indicate by saying
09:10:50 aye. Opposed? All right.
09:10:54 What is the pleasure of council?
09:10:57 Councilwoman Montelione.
09:10:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mr. Chair, taking the word of Councilman
09:11:05 Suarez, I agree with him, but I also know from experience
09:11:16 with these type of -- sorry about that -- these types of
09:11:20 zoning cases that we probably will end up in court if we
09:11:27 were to deny.
09:11:31 And being stewards of the city's finances, and we talk about
09:11:35 how strapped we are, and many of our sessions, I am going to
09:11:41 move to approve the request by the applicant on first
09:11:45 reading consideration.
09:11:50 I am reading item number 5.
09:11:54 An ordinance for first reading consideration, an ordinance
09:11:58 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3030 west Dr.
09:12:01 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, 4102, 4110 and 4220 north
09:12:06 Gomez Avenue, 2902 through 2908 and 2905 through 2907 west
09:12:15 Isabel street, 2905 west Lake Avenue, and 4201 through 4215
09:12:23 north MacDill Avenue, in the city of Tampa, Florida and
09:12:26 more particularly described in section 1, the from zoning
09:12:30 district classifications RS-50 residential single-family to
09:12:32 RO-residential office and PD planned development, hospital,
09:12:37 medical office, parking, to PD, planned development,
09:12:39 hospital, medical office, surface parking, providing an
09:12:42 effective date.
09:12:43 >>HARRY COHEN: Do I hear a second?
09:13:00 Motion dies for lack of a second.
09:13:02 Do I hear another motion from council?
09:13:04 >> I guess it's gambling night tonight here.
09:13:12 I make a motion that we -- I make a motion that we deny the
09:13:22 petition, the applicant's petition for rezoning based on
09:13:28 waiver number 1 -- excuse me.
09:13:33 Waiver number 4 concerning commercial traffic to a local
09:13:41 street and waiver 3 in its under section 27-246-J-1 and
09:13:49 waiver number 3 to reduce the required number of loading
09:13:52 berths from 5 to 2, section 27-283.14, specifically the
09:13:58 commercial traffic access is what gives me pause as to what
09:14:02 the development will do to the neighborhood.
09:14:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.
09:14:05 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Suarez,
09:14:09 seconded by counsel M.A.P. Reddick, a motion for denial.
09:14:12 All those in favor pleas indicate by saying aye.
09:14:15 >> Nay.
09:14:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent,
09:14:21 Montelione voting no, and Miranda abstaining.
09:14:25 >>HARRY COHEN: Ms. Mandell?
09:14:31 >>JULIA MANDELL: You the development agreement needs to be
09:14:36 It's not in front of you for action.
09:14:39 So I would just say to deny the development agreement and
09:14:47 ask to be removed from the agenda.
09:14:52 >> So moved.
09:14:53 >>HARRY COHEN: Motion from Councilman Suarez, seconded by
09:14:59 Councilman Reddick.
09:15:00 Motion carries.
09:15:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: And I make a motion to remove item number
09:15:05 7 from the agenda.
09:15:06 >>HARRY COHEN: To remove the second reading of the
09:15:11 subsequent agenda.
09:15:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: So I make that motion.
09:15:16 >> We have a motion from Councilman Reddick, seconded by
09:15:18 Councilman Suarez.
09:15:19 All those in favor pleas indicate by saying yay.
09:15:24 Do we have any information reports or new business tonight
09:15:29 on the eve of the new year?
09:15:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: I do have.
09:15:32 Oh, I'm sorry.
09:15:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I will steal chair Miranda's thunder and ask
09:15:41 for a commendation for Tony la Russo who just got elected to
09:15:45 the baseball Hall of Fame.
09:15:47 I'm sure Mr. Miranda will come up with a much more eloquent
09:15:50 way of saying it but let's give a commendation for Mr.
09:15:55 LaRussa to be presented at a future time.
09:15:58 >>HARRY COHEN: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:16:00 All those in favor pleas indicate by saying aye.
09:16:05 Councilman Reddick?
09:16:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
09:16:09 I want to request a commendation for Mr. Robert Allen who is
09:16:13 one of the most celebrated highwaymen, and sad the 14th
09:16:25 from 1:00 to 5 p.m. requesting a commendation in that
09:16:30 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Reddick.
09:16:36 Thank you.
09:16:38 We have a motion from Councilman Reddick, seconded by
09:16:41 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:16:43 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
09:16:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: And the second thing is the East Tampa
09:16:50 partnership is having its tree lighting celebration tomorrow
09:16:54 night at the pool, 5:30 p.m.
09:16:59 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:17:03 Councilwoman Montelione.
09:17:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I do.
09:17:05 I was hoping I would have the names of the individuals in
09:17:07 front of me, but I don't.
09:17:16 At a date mutually agreeable to those that I am going to
09:17:19 mention, but I would like to present a commendation to
09:17:23 individuals on the staff of CH2M Hill and to -- here we go,
09:17:33 thank you very much -- the principal Susan Persbacker, the
09:17:38 assistant principal Dina Myers and social worker Erin
09:17:42 Saunders for the effort that they made at Witter elementary.
09:17:49 I was there in between the first and second sessions of
09:17:53 council today, or CRA and council, and what they did for
09:17:58 that school is nothing short of amazing.
09:18:04 They have been working as you know in that neighborhood, the
09:18:07 donut pond, for well over a year, on 30th street, and
09:18:13 one of the gentlemen from CH2M Hill, his name is David, gave
09:18:18 a little bit of his speech that almost moved me to tears
09:18:21 watching those kids go to school every day, walking down the
09:18:23 street, and almost feeling like he's become a protector of
09:18:31 those kids, just concerned about their health, safety and
09:18:35 Not only are they participating today, adopting a Wildcat
09:18:40 program, they collected $4,000 from their employees, they
09:18:45 made a $4 that you donation to the school, and they have
09:18:48 pledged to continue to volunteer there throughout the year
09:18:52 and mentor some of those children who are in desperate need
09:18:55 of positive role models.
09:18:58 It was a wonderful event.
09:18:59 Thank you.
09:18:59 >>HARRY COHEN: So we have a motion from Councilwoman
09:19:02 Montelione, seconded by Councilman Suarez.
09:19:04 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
09:19:09 If there is no further business come before council, we
09:19:13 thank you very much.
09:19:14 We have a motion from Councilman Reddick, seconded by
09:19:16 Councilwoman Montelione, in a very close vote with
09:19:19 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:19:20 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
09:19:23 Opposed. All right.
09:19:27 We will see everyone next week. Thank you.
09:19:32 (City Council adjourned)
This file 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.