Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, July 28, 2005
6:00 p.m. Session


DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this transcript may have been 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.

[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order. The chair will yield to John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's my honor this evening to have Reverend David Grove of Port Tampa United Methodist church.
He's becoming a regular here and we enjoy and appreciate his assistance.
We'll have the invocation and then we'll have the pledge of allegiance.
Thank you.
>>> Reverend David Groves: Let us pray.
We thank you, O Lord, that men seek to live in peace, that we seek to work for the good of our neighborhood as we seek solutions to problems, that we seek to search for creative ways to work and share, and to acknowledge errors and mistakes.
We seek to ask forgiveness when wronging another, to be thoughtful and generous with our gifts.
We seek to pay taxes that our infrastructures will be secure.
We seek to be prompt that Thy work will go well.
We seek to be appreciative of services rendered, and to be polite or even courteous to others.
And we seek in our nation to educate all children might learn.
And so we ask, O Lord, that you will guide our efforts this evening, that you will help us to be accurate in our expressions, that we might be thoughtful in our deliberations, and that we will be soft spoken even when we disagree, so that all that we do will be for the benefit of the communities we serve, the benefit to the people with whom we are responsible, and that will give us our joy of serving in your holy name.
Amen.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Reverend.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (No response.)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response.)
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shawn Harrison will not be at the meeting tonight.
He's at an MPO meeting.
At this time we go to Catherine Coyle to go through our agenda so we can clean it up.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development. I did provide with you a doctored version of the agenda telling you which cases have requested a continuance through my office, which ones need waivers to site plan guidelines and so on.
The first one, item number 2, 05-04, staff is requesting a continuance until 10-20-05 at 6 p.m., the first available slot to review a site plan and review our DRC meeting.
Site plans came in after the 13-day deadline. This one is going to have some technical issues to resolve.
It is on Bayshore.
We perceive some issues with transportation potentially, other technical issues.
Staff will need time to review this case in-depth and hold a new DRC as well.
We have DRC's scheduled for the September 22nd hearing.
They are already scheduled and already noticed.
Those are full.
Two weeks following are the ones for the October 20th so we have no slots to put this petitioner in for a new DRC and staff has not had time to review any site plans at this point.
I believe the petition worry like to address you on that.
>>> Truett Gardner, we have one very big problem with this.
The contract, or the contract purchaser, does not have until October 20th under his contract.
We have been in the process for a year. The original contract purchaser had to bail out. A new one came in.
We missed the site plan deadline because we were doing some additional notes with the neighborhood.
The neighborhood is fine with it.
As far as transportation is concerned, it's currently zoned for a 56,000 square foot office building so the traffic impact would be considerably less.
Realizing the situation with the DRC meeting, we would be more than happy to go to each and every different agency and show them the site plan.
The site plan should have been distributed to them.
And we just ask for any relief possible.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What option does we have?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: To put it on record as far as the site plan, when they come in after the 13 day deadline we do not accept them.
That's the policy set by council.
We cannot accept them and distribute them.
The next available hearing where there is an open slot is September 8th.
There is one available opening on that date.
I don't know that that is enough time at this point.
But -- we're asking for October 20th.
He's available what available slot.
For the DRC meeting to actually occur.
We would have to schedule a special DRC meeting and call all the agencies together and review the site plan.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I make a motion we make it 10-20.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Before we move -- can I?
>>> What I'm saying, I know it would be difficult to get all the different agencies together.
I and my client would be happy to go to each of the agencies individually and address your comments.
We simply under the contract can't wait till October 20th.
The reason we were late on submitting the site plan is we were working everything out with the neighborhood who is now in support of the project.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to hear from legal.
I don't know.
Would that be a possibility?
>>> Julie Cole: That's a requirement of the code to go through the DRC so you have to waive that requirement.
I'm not sure it's something council has ever done before.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Or the DRC could call a special meeting if that's what it wishes.
But I don't believe it would be appropriate to have the petitioner at each individual department.
>>> In fact with this project there were modifications made in the site plan was sit submit -- submitted late but we have been to DRC once.
The comments were addressed.
I'm sure there will be new comments on this new site plan.
But we have been to DRC.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said September 8th.
You said October something, 20th.
They said September 8th.
Is there another date in September?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The 22nd but there are already 13 case that is night.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we switch one of the September 20th cases to September 8th?
>> For September 8th you have to schedule today.
>> But you said there's one slot open.
So if you take one from the 22nd --
>>> well, you're cutting two weeks off of the case at this point.
We are going to DRC next week for that.
It's difficult to shorten the time of a case that hasn't gotten through.
>> There's no simple case?
>>> I can't say just by looking at the numbers which ones they are.
We are in transition now, too. These are new planners that are just starting taking these cases over.
I don't know what these cases are in particular.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think in light of that, I don't have a problem with waiving our rules and adding an extra case to the September 22nd.
I think that solves the problem.
It gives everybody enough time to have a full DRC meeting and it gets their case in, hopefully before their contract runs out.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Based on the extenuating circumstances, if that would help you I would support what he's suggesting we do and I don't normally do that.
>>> I greatly appreciate it and I apologize the situation is like it is and we're doing everything we can to get it done as quickly as possible.
And I appreciate it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I believe that you are.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If council is going to waive their rules, obviously we need a unanimous vote to do that.
But we would support a special DRC at that point.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to be clear.
So I understand it -- and hopefully -- then if you schedule it for the 22nd, it will be necessary to call a special DRC meeting?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Right.
>> Will that be accomplished to be able to accommodate the hearing by the 22nd?
>>> I would imagine we could fit it in.
I would hope so.
For the people -- for the agencies that come out of town we would still get written comments from them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move we continue --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just wonder if there's anybody in the audience that wants to speak particularly to the continuance.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We put the motion out, so there's a motion on the floor.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The vote has to be unanimous on that, to waive the rules, correct?
>>> It has to be unanimous.
>>> I was going to say a potential solution where we wouldn't have to waive the rules at all.
She said there's one more slot available on September 8th and also she said we are going to have to have the special DRC meeting.
So why can't we have the special DRC meeting and have the hearing on September 8th and you wouldn't have to waive the rules?
>>GWEN MILLER: Is that okay with you?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I would say anything is possible.
It's a shorter amount of time.
And I don't know what the issues are.
Look at the case number.
Z 05-04.
This came in in Octoberish of 2004.
It was Angela Hurley's case at the time, transferred to Gloria.
Gloria's date was October 20th because she received the plan late.
That was the date that she was requesting for this.
It will be transferred then to a new planner, whoever's date you put it on.
So it's gone through several hands.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have to accommodate staff, too.
So does staff have a preference?
Coyle Kohl I would say the 22nd, the later date would be better.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That would be my motion then, to waive the rules, switch it to the 22nd.
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion to waive the rules.
Get a second?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I combined it.
Didn't I combine it?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I think it's separate.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Now motion to continue to -- waived the rules.
Now motion to continue to September 22nd.
>>GWEN MILLER: September 22nd at 6 p.m.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want top see if there's audience?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience to speak on item number 2?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Number 3 is requesting to be withdrawn.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 6, 05-78, to place this on the October 20th, 05 agenda 6 p.m.
They did have a new site plan.
This will give them time to schedule for --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Can't be heard.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 6.
05-83.
Misnoticed case.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wait, you said 6 before.
>>GWEN MILLER: That was 5.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item 6.
This was also requested to be placed on the October 20th, 05 hearing at 6 p.m.
They do need to revise the site plan and attend a DRC meeting.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 7.
Petitioner is here if you have any questions, Z-05-94.
There is a misnotice that needs to be rescheduled for 9-22-05.
Except -- oh, that was the 13th case.
So there is a slot for that one.
The 9-22-05.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing on 7.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: No, it was misnoticed.
It was discovered at the end.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Which date?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: 9-22-05.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item 9, 075-97 is requesting a continuance to August 25th, 2005, to work on preservation some of trees.
They are going to be working with staff.
There is an available slot that night.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we need to continue.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Should we see if there's anyone in the audience?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public to speak on item 9?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to continue to August 25th, 6 p.m.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item 10.
05-27. I did speak with Mr. Robert Allen this afternoon.
Mr. Michelini was here as well.
Mr. Michelini submitted a request to continue to 8-25-05 at 6 p.m. for minor site plan changes.
They have been working with the neighborhood, submitted a written letter stating that was fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: There are a few available slots that night.
Item number 11.
05-28.
Petitioner is requesting continuance as well to 8-25-0 40th 5.
They are requesting 10 a.m.
Would you need a unanimous vote to waive the rules on this.
At previous hearings on this particular case there was no neighborhood opposition.
To that.
I don't know if Mr. Michelini is here for that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is petitioner here?
Need to waive the rules.
Do you want to waive them?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: This was the townhouse development at Dale and Horatio church.
It's just northwest -- it was a five and six-story building at one time, and now it is two-story townhouses.
Here's the architect.
>>> Joe Toph.
The owners of developing this, and this is directly across the street from them.
What's happened is one of the parcels that they thought they had acquired for this, the deal has fallen through so the land is no longer part of this development effort.
So we can redesign to the take that particular line out so that's what's happened.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you think you can accomplish it this quickly?
>>> Well, what happens, this is the second time we have continued it.
We had it initially.
We came before you with a larger building.
Then we had some opposition on that.
But at the same time he negotiated this deal for this additional piece of property.
So now we are going back to the original property, which we were developing at one time.
So we have quite a bit of work done on it already.
So yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to schedule this for 9-8 at 6:00.
Wrong one, sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to waive the rules.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to waive the rules.
>>KEVIN WHITE: To a night meeting?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had it totally wrong.
>>GWEN MILLER: Morning meeting.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anyone in the audience to speak to that?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience to speak to number 11?
We need a motion to continue to August 25th at 10 a.m.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item 12.
05-112.
This did come in as a special use, was then changed to a rezoning.
This petitioner has submitted a site plan after the 13-day deadline.
The original DRC, the only DRC so far was held on May 31st. The deadline for the site plan was July 15th.
There was a significant gap.
The plans we have received after the deadline as Gloria mentioned, they are a special use plan.
They still did not address the rezoning issues.
There are many site issues.
They are waiving 70% of their parking.
There are some stormwater concerns with this particular site.
They do need potentially another impromptu DRC meeting or at least several meetings with transportation, zoning and stormwater to resolve the issues.
They do need to get awes new site plan as well.
The next available night hearing is the one slot that's available on September 8th.
I do believe the petitioner is here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Dick La Rosa, here representing new life Tabernacle.
When the revised plans came in, I believe about 30 minutes past the deadline, and when I spoke on the phone to Gloria, it's my understanding that the hearing could continue with the special use plan.
The original plan that was submitted for the special use has not changed.
I'm here to present evidence to those to support our request.
Pastor Davie of the church is here as well as a significant number of the members of the church.
If at all possible, we would request that we at least get an opportunity to present.
If I would have known that we were going to be continued, I would have informed pastor Davie so he would not have rounded up the church members to come tonight, and waste and evening. This is news to me that we are going to perhaps have to get this continued.
Like I say, I have evidence to back up and meet basically all transportation -- present evidence to demonstrate we can meet transportation issues as well as stormwater's and all the issues that came up at the last DRC.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It was my understanding that Mr. La Rosa understood that he was past the deadline. If council wishes to waive the 13 day deadline, staff has not reviewed the site plan.
It was not distributed.
Gloria had mentioned they were past the deadline.
So they can certainly present to you if you waive it unanimously to hear it.
There is no ordinance prepared.
You can't move forward tonight.
We don't have any comments at this point.
We have a staff report with a list of objections, based on the original site plan that was submitted.
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Except sewer and water.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I got distracted.
>>GWEN MILLER: Waive the 13 day deadline, September 8th.
Staff has not reviewed the plans or anything.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Petitioner wants to go forward tonight?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: There's no ordinance prepared.
Staff has not reviewed the site plan.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's contrary to our rules to proceed without the -- if they missed the 13-day deadline.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: What you do not have, you do not have the ability to have staff reviewed and made the presentation.
So it has to come back anyway.
>> There is no ordinance prepared so you will not have a first reading.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there an overwhelming reason why we should be proceeding?
>>> Basically the planning staff has reviewed and the objections on the initial review are exactly the same to the second review so these objections -- the objections that they have on the special use plan are the same, I believe, or very close to the objections that they have for the rezoning plan.
Basically, I will be here to address the rezoning plan that was submitted.
>>ROSE FERLITA: This body is always willing to be helpful and cooperative when it comes to issues of church, et cetera.
But I think we are handicapping our staff.
They don't have anything new to visit.
And I think we're not prepared to go forward.
If this in fact requires a unanimous vote, then I've taken care of that because I'm not going to support it.
I just think that this is absolutely -- it flies in the face of what we say about what our staff needs to make appropriate decisions and comments and take positions.
And based on what I'm hearing from Cathy Coyle, I can't support it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to continue.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue item 12 to September 8 at 6 p.m.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 18.
The last one.
05-80.
In addition to my conversation with Mr. Robert Allen about the earlier case, Mr. Mike Conner has met with Mr. Allen and they are also requesting a continuance to August 25th.
This will fill the last slot that night at 6 p.m.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
Would anyone in the public like to speak on item number 18?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
We go back to number 1.
I would like to introduce some special guests we have in the audience tonight.
We have Mr. Curt Jones, who is the president of the J&T foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to building youth exchanges and supporting our public schools, Cam-Tam recently visited with Camden community leaders.
Would you please come and introduce your students, please?
>>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
To members of City Council.
Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to speak to you tonight.
Special thanks to councilman Dingfelder and his staff for arranging for us to come tonight.
Again, I'm Curt Jones, president of J&T foundation.
I'm very pleased to be here tonight with some very fine young ladies who, as Mrs. Miller mentioned, traveled to New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey, my hometown, and made a tremendous impact on the people there.
Standing to my immediate right is Kendall Johnson who we affectionately call sunshine.
To her right is Aliana Franceska, Hillsborough, and she's at sickles.
Everybody knows Tampa Bay Tammy.
This is Kendall's mother.
These young ladies participated in a program we call Cam-tam, Camden and Tampa.
Last year we had students from New Jersey visit Tampa, and they met the mayor.
They met Mayor Iorio, the mayor's youth core, and did a wonderful job here for four days.
So Kendall was so interested in the program, she said, I want to go to Camden last year.
And I was immediately impressed with her.
And she did a great job up in New Jersey.
And I'm going to let her talk to you a little bit about her experience there.
I'll turn it over to her.
Thank you.
>>> Good morning, council.
Good afternoon, good evening.
However you want to refer to it.
Good afternoon, good afternoon.
I'm Kendall Johnson.
They call me sunshine.
And this is one of my very good friends, Arleanna.
When Mr. Jones presented me with the opportunity to go to Camden, New Jersey, automatically, I'm an opportunist.
I know that things don't always come your way.
So when something as good as a free trip, sponsored, plane ticket, and lodging and everything, I have to get that opportunity.
Sometimes you don't realize living in Tampa how privileged we are.
But one of our experiences that we had when we went to Camden was going on the campaign trail.
When we were on the campaign trail, it's like Camden kept saying, we're going to make our city more like Tampa.
And we're like, what's so good about Tampa?
And I guess we don't realize living in such a beautiful city how blessed we are and how privileged we really are.
And it was just an eye-opening experience.
And just to know that Mr. Curt could do this for so many people, for just three students, he doesn't even realize how much it changed our lives.
We met the only female boxing promoter ever, and her name is Ms. Michaels.
And she said some very strong and powerful words to us.
We got to actually share strong and powerful words with some middle schoolers there.
It was weird, because for once we got to be the ones talking.
We got to be the ones sharing our knowledge.
So that was another good experience.
If you notice I say three girls and there are only two of us.
We are missing one, and that would be Jeanette Horge.
She's got a dance team and she's the captain, so she couldn't miss her practice.
But another thing that we did, every time that we went around Camden, was we sang.
And she and I used to be in this program that was also broadcast on this channel called children against drugs.
Yes.
So every time we went to visit the elderly, every time we went to see the middle schooler, we always sang a song called Heal The World, and it goes like this.
(Signing)
"Make a better place for you and for me."
(Singing)
Thank you so much for this opportunity.
>> Let me close this out by saying they represented Tampa very well.
Camden was number one for crime, they said.
We couldn't see how but they said that.
And the row houses and poverty there was nothing like Tampa.
Tampa is beautiful.
You all are doing a beautiful job.
We want to thank you for receiving the other girls who came before, and thank you for encouraging these girls.
I also found out from Curt that he was a member of the City Council there.
So that's why we were so well received and so well connected.
Curt was pulled from the City Council there to active duty with MacDill Air Force Base.
So I don't know the whole story, Curt when he came to town, when he came to town he contacted us, and he became active with us, helping us.
And from that we have become affiliated with the newspaper that's in Camden.
And Curt has made a great difference in his community up there, and I'm seeing that he's trying to -- he's exhibiting an effort here to make a difference, too.
So thank you all.

>>CHAIRMAN: Hold on one second.
We have some comments.
Hold it one second.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ma'am, none of us as we know, know the whole story about Curt but what we see so far is great.
Thank you for visiting our council tonight.
I'm Hope only hopeful that when you come the two young ladies are not quite so shy.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We would like to congratulate you all and continue doing the work you're doing and keep us posted.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I wanted to say to Curt and to Tampa Bay Tammy, it is remarkable what you all continue to do in our community to inspire all of our young people to be all that they can be, and to you young ladies, when American idol duo comes to Tampa, you all need to try out.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time, we have a resolution this morning we need to pass.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Set a hearing?
>>CHAIRMAN: We didn't have the resolution.
The public art.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
That was yours.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, so moved.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Simply from the position that I took this morning that we were not going to accept walk-ons unless it's health, safety and welfare, that statement made, nothing against the art, but my position is still no.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We also have to move the reso for the Tampa firefighters for the-.
>>THE CLERK: That was the one that was continued for tonight for legal to present the resolution.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we need to open item number 1.
I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Snelling, are you going to sing, too?
>>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination, here this evening on the East Tampa overlay district and its visions that have been underway for quite some time.
The handouts that you have are basically the map of the area.
In the green, as you can see, is the existing Tampa overlay district.
The area outlined in the orange, should look familiar to you, it's actually the boundary for the CRA, the revitalization of the community development agency area within the East Tampa area.
The only difference is -- and I'll explain these differences -- between the actual CRA boundary and the new East Tampa overlay district boundary is a small cut-out right here in this area here, which is actually part of the Ybor City historic district which has YC designated zoning, and this corner up here on the north, the northwest corner up here, which is actually part of the Seminole Heights overlay district.
The reason these two pieces were carved out of this overall expansion of the district is that each of these districts have slightly different requirements and guidelines that are applicable here, and by changing those districts, it would have meant some of the things in their area noncompliant and some of the provisions wanting that area changed and they did not want to do that.
So this was the area that we finally decided on.
And I talked most about that, because on the surface, that is potentially one of the most significant changes to the East Tampa overlay district that you have before you.
And it was felt that the East Tampa revitalization partnership felt very strongly that what they were trying to do was achieve some level of uniformity between a lot of the efforts that are ongoing with the CRA district, the CRA area, starting to support and to mirror some of the same kinds of things that take place in the overlay district.
So we felt very strongly as they move forward with their entire neighborhood revitalization program, whatever facet that ends up taking is that these boundaries ended up being the same, instead of so different as you can see they are.
So what you have before you tonight will adopt the enlarged areas.
The remainder of the changes directly relate to the other pages, most notably west Tampa.
Some of the things that they wanted to start to incorporate into the East Tampa overlay district was improved aesthetics standard, a little more design elements being included in the East Tampa overlay.
As the discussions went on, they felt that if something was not very desirable in one particular area of town, it also applied to another area of town.
So some of the changes I want to walk you through very quickly on the document that I handed you, if you go through to page 4 under item C which is compliance, there's a sentence, each application for residential or nonresidential projects which require approval by the City Council or the Variance Review Board through a public hearing process is required to submit for review but to the East Tampa community revitalization project.
This is the same as in the west Tampa area, so that now it brings this group to the table a little bit sooner.
They are looking at the site plans a little bit more thoroughly.
And they bring small communication with my office in terms of what's going on with different kinds of public hearing processes.
You have seen Dr. Michael Fisher up here talking about west Tampa.
It puts them in the identical kind of position that exists in west Tampa.
That's one of the changes that was made.
If you go to page 5, some of the design changes that were incorporated into this overlay district had to do with item C which is front yard setbacks.
What we started to do is to start to do individualized kinds of setback requirements so that the precedent pattern of that particular neighborhood, or the adjacent blocks, will dictate what your setbacks will be.
That's being done in virtually all of our historic districts as of right now, and the fact they wanted that same kind of ability and privilege in East Tampa overlay as well.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who makes that determination under this code in terms of the administration?
Is that a zoning determination?
Or is that a building department determination?
>>THOM SNELLING: Plan development coordination.
>> Is that clear enough in here?
>>THOM SNELLING: Well, it says may begin by the zoning administrator.
>> That's the variance.
I'm talking about the actual averaging.
Who does the averaging for that determination?
>>> Specifically, Gloria and I do.
We go out to the field.
We take a tape.
We measure it.
We get the average.
Is that called out in here?
In this particular sentence it's not.
It's not specified.
>> I think as we progress that it should be called out but it's the zoning department, just because, no offense to anybody, but I trust you guys more than anybody else to do that.
>>> I won't take offense to that.
But, no, that's a good point.
And that's part of the other goal here, too, is to start to clarify all of the same kinds of things that are applicable in each of the overlay districts, to make sure that they are all very clear.
And a lot of that stuff can take place, too.
I'll touch on it very briefly, as you know September 1st we are having a lot of changes in the zoning code which will come before you.
That could be a very simple thing to fix right there, to add that and clarify that for all, not just this.
>> The other question I had about front yards, Thom, you and I talked about what I referred to as perhaps a front-porch initiative, and a way -- and I'm sure in East Tampa, as in other parts of town, that especially have some older -- older homes or nicer homes, where there are front porches, we could do a better job of encouraging front porches.
And I'm just wondering right now, it appears under this sort of averaging approach, that's where your house is going to start.
And I'm just wondering if we want to make some accommodation to allow an open, never to be enclosed front porch, to possibly extend out beyond the average setback line.
>>THOM SNELLING: Setbacks are typically measured to include porches.
And I understand what you're saying.
One of the things that is currently under way -- I don't know if you have had a chance to meet Shaun West, the division manager for housing.
And they are crafting a lot of design criteria that's applicable for houses that are going to be, you know, be built by not profits on city-owned property.
Those kind of design criteria, we have had conversation with Shaun, talked with Tony and some of the other individuals in these Tampa community partnership about looking at those design guidelines and further incorporating them into this document.
At the time they felt that time was some of the essence, and had to get something on the table.
We have had that conversation, talking about more design kind of features.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I'm getting at is not necessarily just design.
But when I ask developers, why don't you include meaningful front porches?
Because a lot of developers don't.
They say, well, we have only got this footprint that we can build in.
And if we give up six feet on the front for the front porch then we lose air conditioned space in that footprint.
And a lot of times they want to maximize that air conditioned space.
So what I'm saying is instead of a bonus trying to encourage front porches, they say, why don't you go X number of feet, four, five, six feet, beyond the setback line sole lit for the purpose of a never to be enclosed front porch.
I think the front porch is not only gad aesthetically but the security perspective.
The more you have front porches the people are sitting on the front porches and they are watching the street and watching what goes on with the kids and that sort of thing.
I think from police and that issue, that's a good point.
Maybe some sort of drafting this, and we're in the process of adopting it.
Maybe we could throw something like that in.
>>THOM SNELLING: I think that would have to be advertised.
I believe we would have to readvertise because that's not something that was advertised.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It not a greater restriction.
>>THOM SNELLING: You're actually making a change.
I'll have Morris or Julie answer, to talk about that.
But again, in September, we're like six weeks away from a huge initiative to do that.
And it would be very simple to bring that in there.
It's up to council how you want to deal with it.
There's neighbors here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you assure me it's something we will take a serious look at in six weeks, obviously we can wait six weeks.
>>THOM SNELLING: I will absolutely take it very seriously.
And again, we'll continue.
Because we have had some of those kinds of conversations already.
Not only with just you and I, but with the neighborhood groups as well.
>> I would like to create a real bonus situation.
Frankly I would like to do it all over the entire city to encourage front porches.
And --
>>> and that's probably a good point there, councilman, is in September you can say, let's do it, and all six overlays or city-wide, versus just a small thing here.
And then this is one more thing we have to go back and capture.
But absolutely, a point well taken.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>THOM SNELLING: Item D, the other change.
This has a lot to do with orientation of corner lots all had a lot of discussion over the years about corner lots, people flipping the lots, reorienting them differently and all of a sudden what used to be everybody's front yard and rear yard and they were kind of matched up that way, the person on the corner flips it.
So now the backyard is now to this other person's front yard, and it's taking things out of skew and out of character what's already there.
This establishes a precedent grid pattern that really needs to stay that way.
Eights small change and it has some very specific applications that we thought was a pretty good one.
Garages, this is the classic anti-prohibition, the thing that sticks to the front most part of your design has to be your house and not your garage.
This is the provision that everybody talks about.
They felt very strongly about that same kind of design criteria being applicable in the East Tampa area as well.
If you go over to page 6, this was one of the other changes.
This was the item that we had conversations with before about cars pulling into the front yard and the driveway kind of goes right into their bedroom and stops at that end.
This prohibits that design from happening and hopefully will encourage people to have more use, for cars to pull in and get to the side of the house and potentially encourage different kinds of designs so the cars again at the front yard is not given to the garage as a snout house design but it still doesn't give it to the car by having the car be the most dominant feature, hopefully would encourage folks to use the side yards as far as where their cars are, and not prohibit that as well.
Those are the changes that are taking place.
There will be more at another time, I assure you.
But this was -- the neighborhood felt very strongly that they wanted to get something moving forward as symbolically as reality, to make sure that some of the opportunity they have right now, because as you see a lot of activity happening in west Tampa, East Tampa is undergoing a lot of development pressures, and that's only going to increase, which is a good thing.
But I think this takes us back towards getting a handle on some of that kind of stuff.
Tony Watts is here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say I think this is really excellent.
One of the things that makes me particularly happy, Mr. Snelling, is on page 7, number 10, chain link and wooden fences are prohibited in the district except during construction.
>>THOM SNELLING: And I forgot that.
That is one that also talks about incorporating CPTED against city-wide.
This council has been very supportive of all the CPTED initiatives and this is one more piece of the puzzle, accepting CPTED, hiding behind solid block wall and things like that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there anything in the commercial and nonresidential standard?
>>> We did not make any changes to the commercial at this time.
>> Even though it's underlined it's not moot?
>>> No, correct, sir.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Does anyone in the public like to speak on item number 1?
>>> Good evening, council members.
Phyllis Fleming, Planning Commission staff.
I just wanted to let council know that the Planning Commission did unanimously approve this request, and chose to forward it to council for their review and approval at their June 13th hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, would you read the ordinance?
>> Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida pertaining to East Tampa overlay district design guidelines restating section 27-465, City of Tampa code in its entirety, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Need to open item 4.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, the rest of the evening are quasi-judicial hearings.
I would ask at this time --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Wait for the staff to come in.
They have to be sworn in, too.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
I would like to ask that all written material relative to tonight's hearing available to the public in council's office, you receive and file into the record at this time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Receive and file all the document.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Finally, in addition, if any council member has had any verbal communication was the petitioner, his or her representative or any members of the public in connection with any of the petitions that are going to be heard tonight, that a member of council should disclose the information, the identity of the person with whom the verbal communication occurred, and the acceptance of the verbal communication.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to have to swear everybody in who is going to speak on items 4 through 17.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: When you state your name, please, I put a little sign up there, state for the record that you have in fact been sworn.
Thank you.
>> Heather Lamboy, land development.
The site is located at 1204 east McBerry street, on the north side of the street between north ALMA Avenue and 12th street, the petitioner wants to rezone the property from RS-60 to PD to accommodate the development of three single-family detached dwellings.
The existing historic two-story bungalows on the site will be retained and preserved.
>> Did we open this?
This is continued?
>>GWEN MILLER: No.
Go ahead.
>> 15 front, 7 feet side, 20 feet rear for the main structure. The existing historic building is set back from the street 96 feet -- quite a ways -- and has a 10-foot rear setback.
A 0-foot rear set back and 5-foot front set back would be proposed.
Land development staff objects to the to this petition on the following:
The property is located within the Seminole Heights overlay district and does not comply with the following premise.
The front setback where the new construction does not meet the setback average in the block of 62 feet.
This is a better view of that particular block.
The existing house has a driveway and parking at the front of the house, and the regulations require driveways lead to the side or rear yard.
The 48-foot lot width is out of character with the development along McBerry street.
This is a separate site.
And as you can see along the streets there are larger lots, especially in this particular lot.
The property to the west has a 6 oh-foot width.
The proposed development could encourage nine parcels along the various streets.
You will probably see a request for rezoning of parcel parcels.
The recreation division states that the revised plan does not address comments regarding an off site grand tree.
Stormwater has submitted a review which I've handed out that has a protest.
The petition der not comply with a stipulation, more than one residential dwelling, under section 4-C, retention of one half inch of rainfall for each property, noted for existing structure.
Therefore, staff has objections to the proposed petition.
And that concludes staff's report.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the summary sheet of the various steps it shows an objection of parks and rec, Land Development Coordination.
It says stormwater has no objection that. Seems inconsistent with the letter.
>>> That letter was provided after the staff report.
>> So stormwater should be moved over in the objection column?
>>>Yes, that's correct.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Let me first of all show you future land use map for the surrounding area.
Development is residential 10.
There's a subject property on east McBerry street.
I would like to also submit to you the area of the site to give you a context of the area.
As Ms. Lamboy stated there are lots in the area and different size houses so this I think goes out to the variety of the area, the uniqueness of the southeast Seminole Heights area.
I will tell you, this was a difficult one.
I didn't have the opportunity of having the site plan initially when I went out to the site so I did have some concerns about it.
I was able to secure it in time.
I actually submitted a report.
The report you have in front of you is a revised report.
After looking at the site plan and seeing what is being submitted by the applicant, and driving the site once again the second time, we felt that this was more in character with the vision of what they potentially wanted in this particular area of Seminole Heights.
They will have three lots of approximately 48 feet in length.
However, they do meet the growth area requirements of over 6,000 square feet to the RS-60 standards.
The site is in character as it is developed with single family detached units in the area.
Also, I think by doing the PD, I do not believe that it can be said that this will actually set precedent for the area because one of the things she will describe to you is there will be preservation of an existing structure on-site, which I think is the edge of the project or the structures in the 1920s.
I think the uniqueness will be that you will preserving a structure in the area that contributes to the area that's basically situated right in the middle of the subject and then you will have a watch on either side to show that I think it is in character with the area.
It could be argued that this unit or this particular project would not set a precedent.
Also, this neighborhood association is very vigilant and projects that go on in their area.
And I do believe you will have represent from the neighborhood here this evening that will basically give you their take on how they feel regarding this particular project.
But basically, after a second look, we felt strong enough to race our assessment and looking at the over all area.
We feel because of the potential of developing many underutilized lots in the area, that this will also contribute to the up-and-coming development potential for the southeast Seminole Heights area, which as you all know is a very up-and-coming area in the city.
Thank you.
That concludes my present -- presentation.
>> Based on the site plans we have here, not that I'm making any conclusion at this point in time, trying to see whereby you were come with this -- and I live in this neighborhood, and I don't see other homes with this particular character in this neighborhood, two-story home but especially with this type of elevation with a more Mediterranean type looking look with garages and things of that nature.
Most of the things -- I'm just wondering --.
>>> To answer part of that question, if you notice on the oversight plan, it is consistent with Seminole Heights area.
So I think that's a feature they were shown.
>> I thought it was just a flat garage door.
I'm sorry.
>>> The only issue was they do block averaging.
If you are going to do block averaging --.
>> You how would you fit aside loading garage on a 48-foot wide lot and meet a turning radius?
>> I think that's something else you have to ask.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> Joe Toph, and I have been sworn.
The special circumstance here is initiated by the Orlando farm house that's located there.
I guess there's some question as to exactly how old it is, but the suspicion is that it's quite old, and it looks it in it's current condition.
So that's really what kind of drove the whole design here.
And I think it's also driving the economic solution which is creating three lots, saving the building in the center.
It's creating an economic situation where the developer feels it necessary to develop it to adjacent parcels to economically revive that building, because it's a small building, we're not going to do any kind of additions to it necessarily, we are not going to put a garage there because a garage would just be horrible putting a garage in front of that thing.
We just couldn't bring ourselves to doing that.
Although I will go over some issues discussed at the neighborhood meeting last Saturday.
But we are leaving the house exactly where it is and where it has been built.
Again, the developer didn't think that it was -- it's in such rickety condition they were afraid to move it, and we are concerned by moving it, it mitt fall to pieces and lose the whole thing.
So they are desirous to leave it where it is.
And we understand that that kind of breaks the rhythm of the historic character of the street.
But their concern was to leave it where it is.
The adjacent and new development on the adjacent two lots, what we did was split these lots too into equal 48.3, 48.3, 48.3 lots, and Mr. White, to answer your question, certainly did not put the garages on the front.
The garages are detached, pushed towards the back, and each of the two new houses on the side where you would drive underneath through and then back to the garages in the rear, and there is sufficient area to have a backout and be able to come back out.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Could you show me that?
>>> On this house on lot 5, which is this house, you come underneath here, and then the driveway slides over and comes back and here's the two-car garage.
And then there's enough space to come all the way out and back.
The same thing happens on this side, although this garage is pulled a little further, creating a little garden area.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a picture of that?
>>> No, I do not.
>> It's going to have the three-car?
>>> Yes.
Both of these houses have a portico to share.
There's still room to have a small room up there.
And then part -- you see both of these garages drawn over.
The idea is pull them over until they get a little extra space in the back so you can have the big great room, living room, even kitchen, and that sort of area back here.
And then we're showing pools.
I'm not sure the pools will be going in initially.
But obviously under the PD considerations, we need to show if we are ever going to have it so we're showing it now.
The house in the center, again we are leaving it where, and we just could not put a garage in front of this thing.
What we're showing is a single drive coming in, and then we are going around a landscape feature area.
These stars and stuff is some kind of paving pattern like pavers, brick pavers in the driveway.
So the car will come in and go around this.
And there are two parking spaces here where you would come in forward, back out that way and go back out that way.
So that's the parking for this house.
And there's only ten feet here.
There's no way to the side or in the rear and there's no alley in this section.
This goes through and around the landscape here and this is the existing house now.
After the neighborhood meeting on Saturday we were discussing this.
And we kind of settled on eight conditions to impose here.
And one of them was, we kind of collectively thought it would be nice to build like a trellis over the parking spaces, not a garage, but some kind of a landscaped trellis, like a 3-tier thing like you have probably seen before, and plant a hedge around the front which we did not show in this particular version, but plant a hedge around it hiding the parking, and then the Pagolla thing over the top of it.
Traditional elements there that doesn't impede the view back to the house or a solid mass there.
Also, the front setback issue.
McBerry, as you come off of Nebraska, is a very -- it's a great street right there.
It has a lot of rhythm to the.
Almost every house on the south side of the street is 15-foot setback.
On the north side of the street, they are all pretty much 20-foot setback.
Almost all of them have porches.
Our thought here, we have a 15-foot front porch set back.
And then in this particular driveway, we were showing a 20-foot building setback.
Again one of the conditions that we discussed at Saturday morning's meeting was, they wanted the front porch to make sure that was a real front porch, so we stipulated that the front porch would be a minimum of feet deep, and both of the new houses.
So what we are requesting this evening is the front setback is 15 feet for the porch and then the building proper would be 23 feet.
And the logic behind that is trying to create that porch culture that you were talking about for the East Tampa overlay. If we went with the street averaging setback here this would be kind of like Carrollwood.
As soon as you get on this block, the fabric falls apart.
There's buildings built in the '60s and '
70s, that suburban thing, and there are a couple of the older nice houses up at that 15 and 20 feet. The house right next door to us is 15 feet proper.
So that will still be -- if we were at the 23, we are still going to be consistent, we think, with that.
So maintaining the porch culture condition is what we were after with the 15-foot front knowing it was in violation of the setback averaging because it just kind of falls apart, and we wanted to get into really what created the nature of this neighborhood district.
The other conditions that we discussed was double the City of Tampa tree requirement, better than is required.
So we agreed that we would double the number of trees required by the City of Tampa.
On the property here.
Number 2 is we would have the minimum porches at 8 feet.
Number 3 is that we would do that trellis or Arbor over the parking spaces for the trysting old house in the center.
Number 4, we had not put on the notes here before that the roof pitch would be 6-12 which would be in keeping with the overlay guidelines in the district.
Number 5 is we will incorporate where the driveway is as much as possible.
I didn't show them on this initial site plan.
But we would incorporate -- there are a few places where we can do it where it's not going to work but there are a couple of places where we can incorporate the driveways.
The exterior of the buildings, we discussed that.
And they have agreed to allow these buildings to be a textured style building but in a very traditional and detail that we are going to have exposed rafter ends, and that we would have wood porches, and some brick elements.
So the intention is absolutely absolute to make these very traditional style character buildings but we, the architect, wanted them to be something other than wood.
Because wood is a big maintenance issue, and we didn't want make-believe wood, aluminum or vinyl or concrete that looks like wood.
We wanted to go ahead and be honest and do -- but a very traditional style.
They would be very traditional buildings.
And part of the agreement of that is we will allow the neighborhood associations to review the plans prior to going so they can give us our blessings and agree they are in the spirit.
And number 8 is another issue with the neighborhood associations that the finished floor would be a minimum of 18 inches above grade.
Do you have any questions?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have you written those eight positions and given them to Cathy?
>>> I have them on stickies.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Are you saying you were trying to go away -- want to keep the tradition but you want to go away from the traditional -- you know, they make hardy board and things of that nature which are almost undestructable to wood look-alike what I would consider in character for the neighborhood instead of concrete-concrete.
But what was the rationale behind that again?
>>> Again, we're trying to follow kind of a pure architectural belief that you don't mock materials, that you don't fake wood by having either vinyl aluminum or even concrete that looks like wood.
But to do a traditional style building with stucco, which is done every day, and is very compatible with the neighborhoods and will be detailed in such a way that it will fit right in.
>> Would real wood be cost prohibitive?
>>> Not cost prohibitive.
It maintenance prohibitive.
>> Don't tell me that, I just did it.
>>> Be ready to keep up on it.
You know, obviously, there's so many wood buildings in Tampa but Tampa is a --
The more serious and the more substantial and the important buildings, even at the turn of the century when this neighborhood came around, they were always a brick or block or some kind of masonry building.
And the brick buildings, ones that were really important, are always stuccoed.
And the ones that they couldn't afford the stucco, brick.
But that's the logic.
>> Let's go to the public.
Would anyone in the public like to speak on item --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The issue of stormwater, did you address that?
>>> I never received that memo from them.
I was under the understanding they had no objections.
And whatever it is, I'm sure -- because this is not a tight site.
There's plenty of room to meet whatever kind of oh potential requirement.
>> Well, they are asking you to do minimum retention of one half inch rainfall for each property.
I don't know.
Since the PD, maybe you can do it communally.
>>> I don't think that's going to be a problem to me.
>> So if you stipulate to that, Cate can add it to the record.
I'm sorry, Heather.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Okay.
Let's go to the public.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 4?
>>> Good evening, council members.
I'm Beverly Morrow.
I have been sworn.
I reside at 1106 East Ellicott street.
And I'm currently serving as the president of southeast Seminole Heights civic association.
I just wanted to basically say, as we understood from discussion and further e-mails to kind of revise some of these points, this is what our understanding is.
And we met as Mr. Toph said July 23rd.
Several members of our association as well as members who are directly adjacent to the property.
They reside at 1202 McBerry.
We met with Gary, the contractor, and the architect, Mr. Joe Toph.
We reviewed the PD site plan and discussed several changes that we wish to have incorporated into the project.
We believe we have agreed to the following changes, which Mr. Toph e-mailed me on the 26th of July.
If you need to see the e-mail, I do Vermont.
The developer will plant double the required number of trees as according to city of tree landscape code.
It will extend across the entire front of the proposed houses.
A wooden trellis, Arbor or Trevella will be built in the middle of the old farm house of that we are really in favor of keeping.
It was built about 1905.
It will be a minimum -- the Arbor will be a minimum of 10 feet in height, and not to exceed or be a maximum of 15 feet in height.
Vines will be planted to grow on it.
And a screen the cars.
Because on the old farm house there's no way to access the back.
So there will be parking on the side but we want to screen them.
The roof pitch will be 6-12 as far as the old Seminole district guidelines.
We understand about the hammer head to do the turnaround.
Textured stucco with exposed rafter with wooden porches and include some brick elements.
The southeast Seminole Heights civic association shall review the final plans for the proposed houses prior to construction to ensure compliance with conditions.
Finished height shall be a mechanism of 18 inches above grade as indicated or dictated by the overlay.
But we did stipulate that that measurement will be from the finished grade of the proposed home, not the center line of the road.
If we can secure a binding agreement to these specific conditions, the civic association will not oppose the petitioner's request to rezone from RS-60 to the proposed PD.
And do you want copies of any of this?
>>GWEN MILLER: Give it to the clerk to be filed.
(Bell sounds)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Typically you and the association members are we support it or no we don't.
You say you won't oppose it.
Does that mean you won't oppose it because you are not totally in favor of but it's better than the project going forward without that?
I have just never seen you take that position.
>>> I understand.
And I appreciate your asking for that clarification.
There are some things that we would like to see.
But we realize that it may not be possible to do them.
We also realize in asking for some of them, we may end up losing the old farm house, and therefore losing the PD, which is a little bit more binding.
What we perhaps get if the farm house goes, they divide into two properties and build.
We would have a little less.
We wouldn't be able to do this, basically.
And so we feel like given what the options are, that if we can get these things incorporated into their plan that it will be an attractive and certainly pleasing to the eye, the two new structures, and they are going to totally rehab the old house.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for that clarification.
I appreciate it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>> Andrew baker.
911 east McBerry street.
Just want to touch on a couple things.
The house was mentioned earlier, the neighborhood did have an opportunity to meet with the developer of the property and what we really wanted to do -- and a lot of dialogue did occur as you can tell from having 8 conditions that have been placed on the project.
Councilman White, I had the same question about the exterior building materials.
We did discuss that.
We tried to incorporate compatibility, the elements that will make it compatible, and that is the elevation, and they will have the steps.
That is the detached garages.
Those things will help make it compatible so even the depth of the porch making sure it's usable as a porch, the columns, those types of things make it compatible with the neighborhood.
We thought it was important to preserve the farm house and to do that.
Then you would have to go with the PD.
And we were able to place conditions on the project.
My house, which is on the south side, is 15 feet set back from the street.
Some of the houses are set back from the alley.
When you try to use averaging, it skews the averaging because some of the houses are placed on the alley.
In this particular case, we figured we'll be compatible with the stipulations.
So we are excited about the opportunities for new investment coming into the neighborhood.
And we think it's going to enhance our community.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thanks.
Anyone else like to speak?
>>> Mike Ferlita, 1012 east Chester street, and I have been sworn in.
Just a couple of quick comments.
Just to bring this home to everybody.
Who knew five years ago that we had people coming into our neighborhood willing to pay $300,000 for a house?
I bought my house for $60,000 just under five years ago and it's worth about $200,000 on the market now.
We are excited to know we have a developer coming into our neighborhood that's willing to invest this type of money into a project, consider our opinions, and put them into place in an important project in our neighborhood.
You don't see projects like this anywhere else that I've seen in any other neighborhoods, except maybe South Tampa.
Years ago people didn't want to live north of Swann in Hyde Park or the Boulevard.
Now we have people actually crossing Nebraska Avenue which is a huge hurdle that the city has needed to accomplish, and we're doing that.
You know, the civic association has fought long and hard to make small step by step gains.
And I personally visited a number of the community and we are very excited to see this project go forward.
We met, had a very serious discussion with the developer and the architect.
Mr. Toph has a very good reputation, I might add, around the community.
And we are very confident that this project if it goes forward is going to be to the great benefit of our community.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: staff has realized in the notes that were received this evening from the neighborhood, the wooden trellis that's proposed, the property with the historic residence, would be considered an accessory structure.
Section 27-126 of the code requires accessory structures be located 60 feet from the front property line.
So this creates, if the council adopts this addition, this creates a waiver request.
And so therefore the waiver would be reduce the accessory structure setback from 60 feet to 30 feet from the front property line.
And also a condition of the approval if the council is heading that way to have the petitioner acknowledge the water requirement as well.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for bringing that up.
In this case it's the front.
But it sound like a very attractive solution.
I mean, none of us like to see cars sitting in front.
So this I think is a much more compatible with the neighborhood kind of solution.
And I think I would suggest maybe that in the future a drawing to show what it's going to look like from the side.
What this discussion most reminds me of is in-fill in a place like Hyde Park and I agree it's exciting to have this level of scrutiny in a neighborhood that hasn't had this previously.
I move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
I would be happy to read this.
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1204 east McBerry street in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential single-family to PD residential single-family, providing an effective date.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there was a request of staff to have stormwater -- do you request to have that on the record?
>>GWEN MILLER: Come to the podium.
Petitioner?
Come to the podium.
I believe it was a request of staff to have affirmation with regard to the stipulation to address the stormwater requirements and overcome those objections.
Is that what staff requested?
>>> Yes.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's the petitioner's stipulation?
>>> Yes.
>> Would that be a note on the site plan as well?
>>> Add that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor.
(Motion carried)
Need to open --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I want to ask Mr. Toph something.
Are you not the nonparticipant that sent this let ber the Kress project?
Is that you?
>>> Oh, the --
>> I just want you to know that it passed this morning 7 to nothing, just because you were interested in our comments.
And I'm interested in giving you the findings of the report.
>>> I tried to attend but time wouldn't allow.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 8.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The subject site is Interbay Boulevard at 5811 and 5815 fifth street on the west side of the streets.
The existing -- located on this site, the two one-story single-family detached residences.
The petitioner proposes to rezone the property at the subject site from RS-60 to RS-50.
And the existing property size is 154 feet by 149 feet.
The petitioner proposes three lots on the site.
At the 50-foot width by 145 foot depth, the lot area would be 7,450 square feet.
The property is located within the zone 2.
MacDill Air Force Base has not indicated an objection to this request.
You can see this particular block that many of the lots are nonconforming to the existing zoning designation of six feet.
This is the subject property.
And those areas that are hatched in blue are nonconforming.
And those hatched in red are conforming.
Really large lots.
Staff has no objection to this petition.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
This one is pretty direct.
Located in the South Tampa area, about three quarters of a mile south of Gandy Boulevard, just north of Interbay Boulevard, lies on a dead-end.
Ms. Lamboy has already told what you the request has been of the applicant.
The predominant land use category, Interbay Boulevard and CMU 35 along South MacDill Avenue.
Planning Commission staff has no objection to the proposed request of the applicant.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Good evening.
Scott Brown, 100 South Ashley Drive, suite 2200.
I have been sworn.
I don't have a lot to add to staff. The request is consistent with the neighborhood pattern.
Before we filed the petition, we spoke with Tony at Mack MacDill and looked at this and he was fine it with.
And it does line the EPZ-2, not 1.
And we didn't receive any phone calls or objections.
And I'm available for any questions you may have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 8?
>> Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have motion and a second.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move to approve an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5811, 5815 south fifth street in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60, residential single family, to RS-50 residential single family, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Item
13, continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Many of you are probably familiar with this site when you drive down Bayshore, this petition is to rezone property at 5,000 south Bayshore to construct an addition to an already existing building, 1,094 square feet, one story without storage to an existing real estate office.
The existing office contains 2213 square feet.
The total square footage would be 3307.
The south elevation of an existing building is shown on the site plan.
No additional parking is necessary for the proposed addition.
Stormwater retention is also shown on the plan, as well as all the proposed existing vegetation, multifamily high-rise, RM-24 lies to the north, strip commercials and CM lies west.
And townhouses that are zoned PD lie to the south.
Under staff findings, the only comment from national resources section, parks and recreation, was that says that parks and recreation will review and approve the permitted plan that comes through.
There are some comments in addition from greenways and trails, just noting that this is a segment of the adopted master plan and there are some notes requesting, not mandated by code.
The petitioner can go into anything about that.
And transportation planning staff, their objections have been removed.
There were some minor corrections that needed to be noted on the site plan which you can see on there.
The calculation originally showed three spaces per thousand square feet.
It's really 3.3.
So I just hand corrected some of the notes on the plan.
Under findings of fact I did give you the statements of purpose for approving the site plan control district.
Just going to the zoning atlas really quickly, I noted in my summary where the zoning district are around there.
Across the street.
This is the Interbay side of the site.
This is the corner.
There's chub Y's.
I don't know if anybody has been there.
This is the parking lot along the Interbay side.
Then looking along Bayshore, this is where the addition would be.
The front of the building.
And then that is out at the corner.
We have no objections.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
I have the future land use map on the overhead.
Residential 20.
CMU 35 is the land use designation for the current site.
Here's an area.
Quite a bit of residential over the last decade.
The request is for an expansion as stated by Ms. Coyle.
Planning Commission staff has no objections.
Just want to add the chub Y's across the street has pizza.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Garcia continues to prove that Planning Commission continues to prove they do have sense of humor.
>>> I'm her on behalf of the other family and not chub Y's.
But Cathy stole a little bit of my thunder in terms of sharing photographs.
And I think everybody is familiar with the property.
I'll put it on the Elmo.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe I can assist. Is there anybody up here to speak on this petition that might help you?
That might help you in the length of your presentation.
>>> I'll tell you that attorney Steve mill der come to the meeting and did not have any objections.
My partner did send out personal letters to everyone in the area.
We did receive a couple phone calls and no objections.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak on item 13?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a second?
Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning the property in the general vicinity of 5000 Bayshore Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification OP office professional to PD and business professional office, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Item 14 is a continued public hearing.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development, previously sworn.
The south side of the street on Marlin Avenue between 6th streets and Sheridan road.
The applicant -- the petitioner is proposing a rezoning from RS-50 -- I'm sorry, RS-60 to RS-50 to accommodate an additional single-family residential lot.
As you can see, the development plan, primarily it is 60 foot or greater lots that is outlined in the red.
The blue lots are those lots that are nonconforming and are 50-foot lots.
This subdivision as originally platted as 50 foot lots.
However the development pattern is 60 foot or greater.
So therefore came out as RS-50 for this particular area.
The housing in this particular area is a mixture of historic homes and more modern construction.
This is immediately across the street.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you go back to the last picture and just clarify?
On the several blue lots that are adjacent to this property, do you know are they developed -- how many feet?
>>> At 50 feet.
>> And there's four of them?
>>> Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>> Of staff has a technical objection in that the 125 lots, only 25.6% were found to be nonconforming.
However, with the physical development and the character of the area, it is a technical objection only.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
A few more comments to Ms. Lamboy's.
CMU 35, Gandy Boulevard, residential 10 to the north and south of Gandy.
Let me show you quickly, this one a little bit more clearly illustrates, I think if you were concerned, Mr. Dingfelder, with development on the site as far as some of the houses.
These houses, we have these houses developed in close proximity, very similar style to the site.
We do know that it's going to create a single RS-50 zoning district in the area.
But based on a couple of things, basically this is almost on the periphery of the neighborhood because you're very close to Gandy Boulevard over here.
Also we think it going to be a significant contribution.
You are going to create to the housing stock in the area for this particular area which has been finished for quite awhile.
So we think it will be an improvement.
We don't think it's going to be an adverse impact for the area.
Planning Commission staff has no objection to the proposed request.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were you going to reference the barbecue -- the BBQ nearby?
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Good evening.
I'm Shaun Latrell.
I'm not a developer, so please bear with me.
My first presentation in front of council.
Shaun Latrell.
What I can do is produce you with some photo imagery so you can get a better idea of exactly what we have.
Three bedroom, two bath.
All of the houses were originally parcel of 50-foot lots.
The right-hand is my neighbor behind.
You can see some of my pine trees in the back yard there.
I know this isn't all that pleasing, but I just want to show you the general character of the neighborhood.
My particular house, the subject house, as well as my neighbors, on the upper left-hand corner that is my property, 3202 west Marlin.
My house is considered my adjacent lot, it's just land at this point.
To the right of that, of course, would be my neighbor to the west.
Again, my neighbors directly east is the corner lot, so of course it's a slightly larger lot than the 50 foot that you see along the street.
In the upper right-hand corner again it kind of shows in the back, you can see that over there.
Also, the house directly across the street is located in the bottom left-hand corner.
It's on a 50-foot lot as well.
I didn't see it on the projection earlier on the reds and blues and the image.
Next door neighbor has a 50-foot lot.
I would show you some of the development patterns of my neighborhood.
Didn't go beyond two blocks in any direction from the house.
Marlin falls one block south of Gandy, one block west on MacDill.
So if you cross over those areas they won't pertain to this project.
What happened to the east is my neighbor at 3117 Marlin, a new house built in the past two years on a 50-foot lot, 3210, which is three houses directly west, same side of the street as the new house built on the lot.
A two-story house also on a 50-foot lot.
Again two blocks south is another house on a 50-foot lot.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Can you go back?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to inject myself.
A see the two story house in the bottom left corner?
See the little porch there, like a meaningless porch?
It's about a two-foot depth porch.
Keep that in mind when you have the porch discussion.
If we give them some relief, they could have extended that porch forward and made it into a six or eight-foot porch.
It wouldn't hurt anything.
This has nothing to do with you.
(Laughter)
But it wouldn't hurt.
But I just wanted to point that out because those are the kind of porches that their stupid. Anyway, go ahead.
Thank you.
>>> I tend to agree with that statement.
In studying the houses, I have lived here for five years.
And the only development has occurred in the past two years.
For the past three years it was stagnant.
For the past three years, essentially, I've seen nine gnaw houses go up within a two-block radius of my house.
Seven of those are on 50 foot lots.
Only two conform to the RS-60 standards.
I don't mean to scare with you this image.
But this is a development just two blocks to the east on the other side of MacDill.
The two mega mansions on top are 101 feet.
Not that I want to build anything like this on my lot but I want to show you, it's easy to accommodate my modest house when you see houses like this.
The lower image is way call the evolution of the neighborhood.
You see the two-story house on the far right.
One of the older houses in the neighborhood in the middle.
To the left is construction on a new house.
All these lots, by the way, are RS-50 foot lots.
In conclusion, this is a neighborhood that has been distressed, and rezoning and subsequent redevelopment of my parcel of land, I think, would be a positive contribution to the neighborhood.
Again, with Mr. Dingfelder's statement earlier, I do plan on a large front porch.
Also attached garage is the appropriate way to build especially in this neighborhood.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that would like to be speak on item 14?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3202 west Marlin Avenue, city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential single family to RS-50 residential single family, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item 15 is a continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
This petition is to rezone the property at 6510 south Himes Avenue to construct two single-family residential dwellings on lots measuring 52 by 120.
Each stands 2 stories tall, maximum height 35 feet with a front porch feature and a detached two-car garage.
Maintains 25 foot setbacks as required under the RS-60 zoning district.
The plan is in compliance with zoning transportation, landscape, sidewalk and stormwater regulations.
The front building elevation has also been incorporated in the site plan in the lower right corner.
You will notice on your zoning -- your basic zoning that I gave you, this was town homes, on the eastern side.
This large RS-75 piece you will note on the area, that is a Hillsborough County nature preserve, zoned RS-75 but cannot be developed.
When you look at just the zoning, excuse your idea of what the zoning is.
We are trying something new.
I know you saw the last one.
I overlaid the red and blue map on top of the aerials.
You can see both at the same time.
I don't know if it's confusing.
I wanted your feedback on that.
What we'll do is on the map, give you this information and we'll put it in the border so it all on one page.
>> Give us a legend to remind us what's blue and what's red.
>>> I'll go into the actual development category quickly and then go back to the objection that's on file.
You'll note that this lies mid-block, virtually the entire block are nonconforming lots.
Over half the blocks to the north are 50 foot lots and across the street all but one is a 50-foot lot.
You'll remember along Anderson and Elrod the last couple of years you had a couple of 60 foot lots in the area and a 50-foot lot in this particular area.
This is the subject site.
But these are across the street, a mixture.
Some are new, some are old.
The particular elevation is quite pleasing actually.
It's a nice looking house on the plan.
Now, the objection that is on file is from the Parks and Recreation Department.
There was a removal of a grand tree on this site.
I want to be very clear, if you read the paragraph here the ownership has changed.
This gentleman purchased the property after the violation.
He's stuck with the violation, because it runs with the land.
That is the objection on file.
The petitioner is here to address any additional comments.
Under fundings of fact I know that 81.25 of the lots are nonconforming in size.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
Just a few brief comments.
Primarily residential 10 in the area, intersection of Interbay and pines, directly to the west.
A lot of housing stock in the area, lower income, that primarily is for base housing approximately 30 years ago.
This will definitely contribute to the housing staff in your area.
Planning Commission staff has no objection to the proposed request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> James Packer, 3314 south Harrah Avenue.
They pretty much addressed everything that I had said.
Or was going to say.
Cathy did point out that the one note was removed.
Because I knew I was coming here tonight and everything was coming up, I talked to the Parks Department, Dave Riley at the Parks Department, and think approved me putting in nine four-inch caliper oak trees, which I have done.
And I can show you where they are placed so that -- that's three here, three here, and three across the front.
So it will work with the new development.
I think our home will enhance the neighborhood as well.
I also have a photograph of the house.
That's the basic plan of the house.
It will be very similar to that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>> Good evening.
Steve Graham, natural resources, Parks and Recreation Department.
And we are objecting to this rezoning from RS-60 to PD, because in February of this year, a grand tree was removed from the property.
And I would like to show you a series of visual aids.
To illustrate the significance.
This is the existing site now of Himes.
And you see there's one existing one-story frame masonry structure on the site, and two lots that the structure is going to be -- what they are asking to do, they have already shown you a proposed site plan.
What they are asking to do is now create two buildable lots, and in order for that to happen something had to change.
And here's the grand tree that was removed in February.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you show us the first site plan, and where the base of the tree --
>>> if you look at this, the point of reference, here, I put the existing site plan that picks up pretty much the orientation of the tree.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point to the.
>>> Here's the concrete walkway mentioned.
The tree would have been about in this area.
In fact, I kind of approximated the footprint of the proposed structure.
You can see the grand tree is virtually having a footprint, proposed footprint.
And that led to the eventual removal.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, my gosh.
>>STEVE GRAHAM: I believe it is gone now.
And Cathy is correct, the ownership has changed.
And so we haven't really had resolution of the violation.
We're open to bring them to code enforcement.
They have replaced the tree.
The current owner has replaced the trees, as he indicated.
And that part of the violation is satisfied.
But replacement is something that we require.
So in the event a grand tree is removed without permit we have taken it to code enforcement and there's penalty that can go up to $15,000.
So that's what we're hoping to see.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question and sort of comment.
Just as an editorial comment, what's really tragic about this is the fact that it appeared that there might have been enough depth in the property behind the tree that the footprint could have been moved.
So, in other words, if the petitioner had come to us with a PD -- not you, sir, but any petitioner stuck in this situation that had a tree that they thought was in the way, could have come to us with a PD that said, well, I got a big tree, so I need to put the house behind it, and I need some setback variances, and this counsel or even the VRB could have possibly considered something like that.
>>> We encourage that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Of course.
Just sort of an editorial comment to anybody listening in an attempt to do this type of butchery.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Who was the previous own er? Who owned the tree?
>>> I believe his name is tutor.
>> Do we have a sense of him like trying to pull permits and not being able to and then destroying the tree?
Or do you have a sense of chronology?
>>> There was not an attempt to pull a permit.
I really don't know --
>> Did somebody turn it in?
How did parks find out about this?
>>> I don't have those details.
I just know -- oh, maybe I do. Maybe I do have a report in here.
Okay, here we government in February 24th of this year, complaint received by inspector Al Perel, a 37 inch grand oak had been removed without permit.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So who gets taken to code enforcement?
The former owner or the current owner?
>>> They were scheduled for code enforcement this week, and Richard tutor showed up, it wasn't heard because there was some confusion about whether or not they are in compliance because the trees have been replaced.
And so we are going to have to bring him back to assess the fine.
>> So the answer is, the perpetrator is the one that gets brought in front of code enforcement?
Or the current owner?
>>> I'll have to defer to legal on that.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Chapter 13 is rather broad in who we can bring before the Code Enforcement Board.
If the Code Enforcement Board does determine that a violation of code occurred, however, and the fine is not paid, and the remenial action that's ordered by the Code Enforcement Board is not taken, then the Code Enforcement Board could force a lien on the property itself so the property owner is linked into the code enforcement action.
Chapter 13 is broad about who we can bring before the Code Enforcement Board.
We can bring the contractor, the arborist, we can bring the perpetrator, we can bring the property owner, all of those before Code Enforcement Board.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 15?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
Mrs. Alvarez?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say, I think the zoning request before us is a reasonable request.
I just am very uncomfortable with the fact that this grand tree was removed.
And I wonder -- and I guess I look to Mr. Shelby to say, is our -- would our support for this rezoning in any way exonerate the person who took the grand tree down?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I defer to Mr. Massey.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: My advice to council is it would not.
There is a pending code enforcement action before the Code Enforcement Board.
Don't think council's action tonight has any bearing on the prior act that occurred.
You are dealing with a new owner who apparently was not involved in it.
I think council should take that into account.
But I do not think council's action tonight should be viewed as exoneration of that, or in any way affecting the code enforcement action that's been brought.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Massey, I don't know if you can answer this, but just from curiosity standpoint, does anybody know when the tree was cut down and when the new owner purchased the property?
Any vague idea?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Through the staff report?
It's the paragraph at the bottom.
I wanted to be abundantly clear, it happened February 24th, I think.
24th is a violation.
They purchased it March 5ish.
I don't have it in front of me.
It was within a couple of weeks of each other.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Well, I'd like to ask the property owner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to reopen.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I guess gentleman was sworn in, was he not?
>>> Yes, I was.
>> Question, sir.
When you bought the property, was there any relationship between you and the previous owner?
>>> No.
>> That caused you to wait to buy it till after he took a chance of cutting it down?
>>> No.
>> Did you know him?
>>> No.
>> How did you go about buying this property?
>>> I bought some properties in South Tampa.
And some friends said there's a property to do what you want to do in South Tampa.
I never saw it.
They told me the price.
I said, let's buy it.
And the man told me, Mr. Tutor, that Mr. Was a grand tree -- I'm sorry, did he not say that. He said there was a tree that was diseased on the property and he was going to get it removed.
And I said, fine.
When I finally saw it, it was a picture of the stump.
That's all I saw, when I saw it.
And I realized that was probably not the truth.
But I'm not in judgment.
>>ROSE FERLITA: First of all, I'm under the opinion that if somebody else commit add violation against code, then obviously they are the ones that are the violators.
But it appears interesting to me or curious to me that there was just such a short amount of time between when he decided to cut the tree and you decided to buy the property.
And this is speculative.
I'm not making any accusations.
>>> That's fine.
>> But that transaction was very close.
>>> We closed very quibblingly after discussing with him purchasing the property.
>> When he told you he was going to cut it down, had he cut it down already and you said do what you want to do?
Tell me a little more about what went on there.
>>> I guess I didn't see it as a standing tree.
I never saw the property.
As we all know, South Tampa property is very valuable.
>> What I'm saying is, I guess maybe I'm getting too into too much depth here.
>>> I'm sorry.
>> When he said, I have this tree and I'm going to cut it down.
>>> He said there is a diseased tree on the property.
That's what he told me.
And I had not seen the property at that time.
>> At the time that you first saw the property, the tree was already cut?
>>> Yes.
>> Never saw it in full bloom?
>>> Never saw it as a tree.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to say, this makes me really uncomfortable.
It's kind of incomprehensible that you could buy a piece of property and close within a week.
Every time I've closed on something, it takes longer than that.
And if you look at the map here, we see that 39% of the lots are nonconforming, but 87% of the lots are conforming.
And I think that -- I just am not comfortable with this.
I really feel like your desire to purchase this property had a lot to do with that grand tree being illegally butchered.
And that makes me feel very uncomfortable.
I'm not saying you did it.
I'm saying if he could do it for more money with two houses on it he wouldn't have destroyed the tree.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What exact date did you make an offer on the property?
>>> I'm going to say mid February if I remember correctly.
We closed within a month, on March 8th.
>> We appreciate your frankness.
And do you live in the City of Tampa?
>>> Yes.
My address is 3314 South Hale Avenue, which is in South Tampa.
>> I know where south Hale is.
You live less than five miles from this parcel.
>>> Absolutely.
I wasn't in town at that time.
I had a friend, we buy houses together and he told me about it and I said, sign the contract.
>> Did your friend go look at it?
>>> I don't know that for sure.
I know he had seen the property.
He didn't mention to me about the tree.
The only person that said anything to me about the tree was Richard tutor on the phone.
>> But your friend went and loot at the property.
I mean, you're not going to buy it site sight unseen.
I mean, I'm saying it could be under water.
>>> Oh, moo.
>>.
>> Somebody is going to look at it before you spend thousands of dollars.
>>> Absolutely.
>> I have a little bit of problem going forward with it right now.
Mr. Graham indicated this has gone to code enforcement Wednesday?
I don't know if I feel so strongly about it just to deny it outright.
But when is this going to code enforcement?
>>> Actually was scheduled for this week.
>> When will it be back?
>>> We'll have to go through the renoticing process.
At least a month.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This council has discussed if somebody takes down a tree can they say it's affecting a house, and then they take down the house, so it's obvious that wasn't really the issue.
But we would have a couple of years moratorium.
I think I would rather continue this for 60 days till after this goes through code enforcement -- what's it, code enforcement?
And I assume people are sworn before code enforcement to tell the story of what really went on.
I would be interested when this comes back to have a transcript of that.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If it is continued from this evening it will not come back to you.
It in the APZ-1 area and next week you are doing the second reading for that abate.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But I thought if it's already in front of us, wouldn't it be grandfathered?
>>> The interpretation that Morris Massey gave -- I'll let him say it.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: This was filed before the administration even came before you to discuss whether we were going to have an abatement period.
This is the only one that we have allowed to go forward because they were filed and in process before even discussed with council that we were contemplating a proposed abatement period 12 months.
On that basis we felt comfortable with it going forward tonight.
It becomes a little more problematic the more delayed it becomes.
But, you know, I think legally we can make an exception if council chose for this one since it was already in process at the time that we announced that we were going forward with the proposed abatement.
>> I think which we have the 80% rule, it's sort of a similar situation, and we kind of let those projects kind of ride through, and --
>>> we tried to do one more because of MacDill Air Force Base, but yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm going to make a motion for denial --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, we don't want to close.
Well, we need to close if you want to deny.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there a second?
Motion and second to close.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman?
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm looking at a map of this neighborhood.
To the east of this property is a large nature preserve.
And the predominant pattern, which is what we usually use, is out of 87 lots, 39 are nonconforming.
So that means --.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The 81.25% is the correct number.
I threw the wrong number in there.
I apologize. The blue is the nonconforming.
And that's the precedent pattern.
81.25 is nonconforming.
54 lots.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I don't know.
I'll let another council member take a stab at it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6510 south Himes Avenue, city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential single-family to PD single family residential, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
All in favor.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I didn't second it.
>>GWEN MILLER: No second?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll make an attempt.
I move for denial of this petition based on -- this is an area where we're working very closely with MacDill on minimizing the density because it's in an ACZ zone, whatever, and because I think that the disappearance of the grand tree is very suspicious.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
For lack of a second, may I make a stab at it?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree with you, it's suspicious.
I also think that this needs to get flushed out at the Code Enforcement Board.
So I'm going to move to continue this --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have to reopen the public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to reopen.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move to continue this for 60 days.
At that time, I would like staff and tree staff to come back with a full report on the code enforcement status, and we'll go from there.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Can we do this in the daytime?
Because you're full -- we're full in 60 days.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You could make an exception to what Mr. Massey says, grandfathered in, if that's the motion on the table, I suspect the motion, maybe as a predicate to allow the grandfather on this particular --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe we can address that when we draft the ordinance.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The ordinance --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I meant the ordinance for this rezoning.
Maybe we could justify in the ordinance itself.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I think the direction from council is that applications within the APZ-1 zone that were in process at the time, prior to the time that you all made your announcement that you were considering this proposed abatement period, it would still be considered by council for public hearing process.
If you want to consider it, if you want to consider it at that time.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be okay for council to vote on this motion that's on the floor?
That's a good motion?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Continuance?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Continue to a daytime meeting.
>> September 22nd.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: That's what I was going to say.
>>GWEN MILLER: 10 a.m.?
Do we have a second?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we need to waive the rules to have it in a daytime meeting?
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, is September 22nd at 10 a.m. in the morning okay with you?
That's a Thursday morning.
>>> That's fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to waive the rules after we take care of the motion or before?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Let's move to waive the rules.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to waive the rules to a daytime meeting.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Continue to September 22nd at 10 a.m.
>>CHAIRMAN: Second on the motion?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Would you state again the reasons why you are moving for continuance?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As Ms. Saul-Sena said, it's highly suspicious.
There's some scoundrel at work.
And it's highly suspicious what happened to this tree.
I would like it to be flushed out a little more in the code enforcement process.
And we can see if this petitioner had any involvement through that process, and also if staff is going to get a full fine of $15,000, which I think would be appropriate, assessed against Mr. Tutor and/or the property.
All those things need to be flushed out.
I think a 60 day continuance is appropriate.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Obviously we are not making any accusations.
We just want to see where it goes at that point in terms of what has been done in terms of due pro -- process.
I certainly support it.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 16 is a continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
This petition before you is a second rezoning of a property.
This is where Newks is located.
We have this hearing approximately six and a half months ago.
It is to a CDBG 2 zoning district to construct a 38-story high-rise.
Mixed use residential structure.
Access is located on Nebraska Avenue.
The loading dock delivery area is located on Brorein.
It will contain up to 300 residential units.
The unit size does range from 1500 square feet to 10,000 square feet according to the site plan.
16,590 square feet of retail, and 661 parking spaces.
The plan complies with all regulations including CDBG for streetscape in public art and public space, an entrance located on Nebraska Avenue. The existing grand live oak tree is shown and replaced with a 300 gallon specimen tree, magnolia in this particular case is listed on the plan, or approved, or as approved by the city through permitting.
There are required replacement trees with removal.
Those trees that cannot be planted on-site will be -- will be placed in surrounding parks.
There is a technical objection from parks and recreation for the removal of the on-site grand tree.
Petitioner will go into detail as to why the T tree needs to be removed for this particular development.
This is a picture of the tree.
This is along the perimeter of Nebraska and Channelside.
This is the side view.
If you recall the previous site plan noted compliance with chapter 13, that they were going to save the tree.
They got a little bit further into the architecture and design and realized the tree was going to be removed.
The reason they are back before you, not only for the tree removal, is through substantial review, we left the heights open, as determined by the FAA and through the permitting process, but they had stated on the plan that they were going to be 28 stories.
Through substantial change review, staff can only give two additional stories.
They came in with 38 which requires them to come back before you.
Mr. Smith is going to show you basically that the height of both structures is approximately the same as well.
If you have any questions of Mr. Graham, he is in the audience.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did they provide us with sort of animation that we have been requesting to show the scale of this surrounding proposed developments?
>> Dade Smith, 401 East Jackson Street, planner for the petitioner.
We have not provided that at this time.
The tree issue kind of caught us by surprise and we intended to bring a model of the property for you.
What we have provided is a contextual display of what is currently there.
When you look at the handout that we provided you, it gives a view of building in downtown.
What's coming up in addition to that, though, is that we know -- I don't want to start the presentation now.
You just asked me a question.
But there's a 40-story building to our immediate east and 30 story building, 27, 30 story buildings immediately to our west.
So there were no existing buildings to provide a model for context at this time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What council has begun doing is asking for a proposed development in the context of other approved developments in the area, because while there's virtually no surface parking there now, we know there are they're about 3,000 people there in six years.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
Well, this is really a technical change, not changing the approval. Project because of the height.
The and the height could be the same.
The floors were the only designation being changed.
So the context of its original approval some six months ago is the same.
So that's why we didn't really think of a modeling as far as context.
That's just a thought process.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Just several comments to make, let Mr. Smith get onto the more detailed presentation.
It is within the central business district, the proposed project is.
It's located in the southeastern part of the central business district in close proximity to the Channel District.
Let me put a another one on the he will movement this is the CDBG.
It's just northeast of the St. Pete Times Forum.
This is the project that was recently approved, 27 stories to the west here.
And of course the 02 project that Mr. Smith alluded to to the northeast of the proposed site in question.
This site is consistent with the central business policies, active pedestrian front, 24 hour downtown, and does support the concept of a dense urban environment, which is the central business district.
Land use category that you have for the city.
Planning Commission staff has no objections.
We do realize there is a technical issue regarding the grand tree and I'm sure the applicant will try to address the issue within the presentation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street, 33602 I'm a plan we are that firm for the petitioner.
What I have handed out to you is a packet of information that reflects some of the boards that we also have to review.
As kind of alluded to in answering councilman's Saul-Sena's question, the purpose of the application was to take the existing approved project and to ask for additional floors due to the technicality that they only asked for 28 floors.
We needed 38.
And the reason we needed 38 floors was in reviewing the existing design of the project, we discovered that the project was underparked because we had less than two parking spaces provided, that it was underelevatored, it had one elevator for the property, that the amenity package was problematic, and also that the units, while they were going to have very high, high ceilings, were too small for the market.
So because of those factors, we said, well, let's come in and propose to go to 38 floors, which would be basically within the same height range that was anticipated at the original.
The context is that the developer was talking about 15 to 20-foot floors spaces between the floors.
The concept being even if 24 to maybe have loft style units looking out this multi-story building.
It was an interesting concept but when you get down to the units are very narrow and very tall and we felt this scale and size, it was not a marketable product.
So I was contacted to re view the application for the height issue and all the other factors in the previous approvals had been addressed.
This project, I want to get through to the features that we changed before we get to the big issue of what we discovered during the review.
This is the site plan for the project that was submitted with the application.
And what we have done is taken the existing footprint of the approved plan, and slightly smaller in this area than the approved site plan, and did not alter this building to change the views whatsoever.
So the ground floor is essentially the same layout, same configuration.
However, what we did do was we had elevated banks, we provided for mezzanine level, to provide more retail and more value in the retail investment areas, provide a more viable front to Channelside and so we can have possibly a two-story restaurant, potentially two-story, and also bringing that around to the Nebraska side, so the retail orientation is still to Channelside, and to Nebraska corner, and we also incorporated a series of -- series of pedestrian friendly elements.
We added much more seating in the areas along the perimeter of the project.
We provided shade canopies, all the way down not only along the activity area of the forum and coming down the side streets, but also along Brorein street, so that we have canopies coming out, seating along what is really limited access roadway.
If you recall, the area is limited to service access.
Because technically it's limiting the access from that area to service.
The access points are still the same places as they were before, at the narrowest point of the site leading into it so it can ramp up into the building.
At least the core of the building where the tower and amenity package still is functioning, and provides for a marketable product that we feel is necessary.
As you notice, there's I might mention the developer that's looking at this is part of the developers of Trump Tower.
They are here to stay for the long time.
They are going to develop these projects.
And they are serious about this, spent a lot of money in a short time working on the site plan to make it better.
These are in your package this provides a view of coming down the side street with the canopies, the trees, the cafe seating outside, their outside dining, providing for atmosphere, so we don't just have buildings right up against the street, glass and concrete.
This provides for a nice corridor to this area.
I think a complimentary package to the forum right across the street.
Again, if the easel doesn't fall over, this provides another view again of the seating provided providing for running down the side street.
What street is this?
This is the Brorein street side, yes, ma'am.
>> What's the sidewalk?
>>> Ten feet.
>> And the other side?
>>> I think it's ten feet.
The way the building has been stepped in, we actually end up with greater than ten-foot sidewalk area, and I think ten foot is the minimum required around the building.
Additionally, I'll show you one more, which I think you do have in your packet as well.
This is the corner looking at Nebraska this way, and Channelside goes this way.
Looking at the corner, again bringing in the awnings, and the features to provide an inviting atmosphere for people walking around the area.
The larger boards that -- trying to use to address the concern that, yes, we did have a model because it's an existing approved project.
What we tried to do was set it into context.
Here's the forum.
Here's the building set in it's location, with the existing sky rise, of skyline behind.
Where the blue awnings are, that's 02, which is scheduled for the 42-story development, and eventually a few other things.
But we know that the towers are approved.
The crescent is just on the other side of the forum in this area here, which is only about a block, relatively half block away to the west.
You can see the elements.
This is a graphic presentation so it doesn't really show well the pedestrian area.
But because of the way the building has been shaped, it does provide for pedestrian area walking down Nebraska that would normally be expected.
The closer view gives us the context.
Looking a little more direct on the building, providing for some interesting in the parking structure, trying to find some relief.
We are going to be working on this with Wilson top provide a little bit more as we can during the design process.
But the bottom is greatly enhanced from the original approved project.
The original approved project was very sketchy as to what happening at the ground level and a lot of concepts.
That being said, the one issue that we did run into, as we went through the review process, we did receive comments from parks and recreation.
And it was at that time discovery of that original application, although it said it was going to preserve the grand tree, and initiated the technical reviews and detailing the parks and recreation to identify the canopy, the productive zone for the canopy and how that would interplay and interface with the building.
So we immediately undertook, had an arborist, we scheduled meetings with parks and recreation commission staff on several occasions, we met them in the field, we had a bucket truck on-site, we had the canopy surveyed, we had an aerial taken of the canopy of the tree, and the net result of all our efforts were that we identified a perimeter buffer that indicated we could only trim or prune nine feet of the eastern canopy, plus we would have to have a five-foot buffer after that occurred.
And where the tree trunk was located, there were no negative impacts, because we had already identified that area for plantings anyway, and that's where the tree was going to be and it what I will hand you at this time are some pictures to give you the current environment of the tree.
The effort that we went through with the Parks and Recreation Department, once we established the drip line, where the pruning could take place, what the significant structure was, the root structure on the tree, we then had the architect go back and look at redesigning that end of the building to try to accommodate the setbacks and the drip line that had been identified.
It was during that review that -- and during the whole process is that parks and recreation, and I think Steve Graham will attest, is that basically said if you don't make an appearance that you save the tree if you can't save the tree.
It's better to ask for the tree to be removed than to try to work hard to do it knowing full well that in the end the tree is going to be damaged and it's not going to survive.
So we continued to work to move the parking drive as far to the east as possible within the property, and to get around -- that is necessary to get around the tree canopy.
It was at that time that we discovered there were two constraints that we could not get around:
One, in order to make the turn, the access point coming up the ramp to make the turnaround that radius, we could not provide them after the pruning the protective buffer radius around the end of the tree limbs.
They identified these tree limbs as very significant.
I would like to point out that this tree is located in a position to where it's about 95 or 96 feet wide at that point of the property.
The tree from the western property line to its most eastern canopy covers about 53 feet of the site.
So we don't have a whole lot of room on that one site coupled with the fact this is a triangle piece of property so it's at the narrowest point of the property, and it's also covers over 50% of the width of that end of the property.
So we had a lamp that had to come up plus we had columns holding up that end of the structure.
So we got to work on those limitations and determined that we have two major seven-foot diameter caissons coming down through the canopy of the tree.
Plus we would have no buffer in order to allow for us to have a two-way ramp, which is required to get up into the building, two-way traffic, to get up into the site.
I'll put the site plan back up.
The area talking about on the site plan, the actual location of the grand tree is an X marked right in the middle of the site plan.
The radius for the upramp as indicated, the ramp comes out.
It provides us with two-way traffic.
And as the columns are moved as far as they can move to the east, but still will come down well within the drip line of the grand tree.
This ramp radius here, because of the canopy, which this radius was created by the outside canopy of the tree, doesn't provide for the 5-foot minimum buffer between the end of the tree limbs and the eastern extension of the tree.
We also discovered that we focused heavily on this branch out to the east, but there's also significant branch that goes to the north towards the 02 project that runs right into these columns that would require greater pruning than they were going to allow on the 90-foot.
So this area became a problem.
And I can tell you that the last thing I wanted to come to council to do on this petition was say that we can't save this grand tree on this site.
But we have spent a lot of hours and a lot of money with the staff, architects, arborists, landscape architects, surveyors, identifying actual limits on what our constraints are, and it's just very tight.
We also don't have an alternative as far as access, because this takes up about 20% of our land area site for this tree canopy.
You end up with a small square that doesn't allow you to corkscrew up into a residential structure.
And it's like going over to the Bank of America building and pulling up in the growing up in the parking garage.
The residential owner, they aren't going to want to the go up in a corkscrew.
The cork screw ramps take up a lot of room.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me ask you a question.
The 300 pound magnolia, is that your entire mitigation?
>>> Oh, no, sir.
I was about to get into that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you do, what has your arborist told you is a 300 gallon magnolia?
>>> If I can get Karen Taylor from Phil Graham, she's done the calculations on it.
Our intent is, and as she comes up, our intent is to fulfill our mitigation as much as possible on the site, put a note on the plan that indicates that any additional inches that are required would be placed in a city park in the adjacent -- in the area, and the additional -- to indicate our plan regarding this issue is that we have also recognized that these are important issues for the community.
With our request, we have an additional note we would propose to add to the plan.
In addition to satisfying all mitigation requirements related to removal of the grand tree provided for Land Development Code the developer committees as additional mitigation $25 that you to the City of Tampa for the city's use in purchasing and installing additional shade trees and landscaping within the central business district.
This developer should provide funds prior to building permit issuance.
I think we're not taking this lightly.
I mean, the fact is that there have been actions in the area with grand trees that have been damaged that were supposed to stay.
We have taken steps to see if we can save the tree.
We have determined that we are not.
We want to come forward and tell you that that's the case.
And that we believe that under the provisions of the code that the reasonable use of this property is definitely impacted, that the odd-shape of this site contributes to the problem.
The position of the tree, you can look in this area, there are very few trees, because you look at the photos, has been impounded between a paved driveway, and city street and Nebraska Avenue for as long as it's lived.
And all the roots have been bound and cut, and it actually leans to the east.
And we have looked at it with our arborist.
If we can meet the protective radiuses, cabling it, feeding it, protective barriers, issues during construction.
But all those things, we don't want to fool anybody.
Things happen during construction.
Sites that are this tight with trees that close, things are going to be damaged.
And we don't want to have to come back to you and say, oh, the crane fell on the tree, or the boring happened, and come back and ask for forgiveness.
We'd rather come up and take our medicine and get your approval.
The landscape architect.
>>> Karen Taylor, Phil Graham and company, landscape architect.
I have been sworn in.
The $300 magnolia tree has a 6 inch caliper, is 15 feet tall to 16 feet.
It's also possible to get a larger, 670 gallon tree which would give us 18 to 20 feet in height and another 2 inches for a total of 8 inch caliper.
As a specimen tree to go in as close a proximity to the tree as is proposed.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this a giant magnolia so it won't branch out?
>>> We're proposing a brax and brown beauty magnolia which is also a compact.
You're your point is taken that a gem magnolia would be a good selection.
We would need to check on availability.
>> I think it's not a good selection because it's really compact.
I mean, it kind of depends on what you're trying to achieve here.
And this magnificent tree, it would look so puny in comparison.
But it wouldn't mess up the parking.
I don't know.
Isn't this painful for you to be talking about?
>>> No one likes the loss of a grand tree.
The developers are proposing many options and alternatives to forgive the removal of this tree.
We're proposing 48 new trees on the site, both palms as well as spruce trees and other ornamentals.
>> Weren't those trees part of the original site plan?
>>> The issue is that the replacement, what we would normally be required to do and we have to do anyway, the replacement for the grand tree results in additional trees on top of those.
So we're not taking those and saying those are our mitigation.
What we're saying is that which the code requires anyway for normal landscaping will be done, and in the form of larger trees or additional trees be placed on-site, and any shortfall in its replacement will occur in a public park in a downtown area as directed by city staff, and plus we're throwing in more than what the penalty bow would be for -- as was discussed earlier, the penalty for doing something illegal.
We want to be totally up front with this.
It is not a pleasant request for us.
But it's a necessary one for the project to move forward.
We don't want to hear any more reports of projects not moving forward downtown.
These folks are ready to do the project.
And this is what they are for.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
>>STEVE GRAHAM: Parks and recreation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know the difference one magnolia to the next.
Or if a magnolia is a viable alternative.
Will they provide it for event wall growth?
It might be nice mitigation for a grand tree or what?
>>STEVE GRAHAM: that's kind of difficult to answer because of the nature of the structure.
It's so large and encompassing, other factors become limiting.
It's almost like fishing in an aquarium.
They are limited to environment.
So whatever tree that's used to plant there.
And unless you plant a small magnolia, there are some small species, not grand florals.
But you're going to have some of those issues of trees expanding, because that's how they are.
They don't stay static.
If they are not growing, they are dying.
But you can do some directional pruning.
And I think the magnolia is a lot better selection, because you can control them to a certain extent.
>> Anything else to suggest there?
>>> Karen mentioned briefly, we had conversation earlier today about the possibility of something majestic like a Magio palm, that very definite and space requirements, and yet would have a pretty good statement.
Anything next to a high-rise structure is going to be dwarfed.
But still the ground level perception, it will work.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question.
I don't remember seeing this rendering at the first presentation.
At first, it doesn't do much for me.
At the ground level, I think did you a very thorough explanation, you know, that the ground level, this project probably works.
But then the next eight floors, they have the garage covering.
I don't know.
That's weird.
>>> I'll let the architect speak to it.
>> I don't know.
Tell me about it.
>>> Good evening.
The nature, I would agree with it rate now this is a very conceptual computer animated rendering of it.
It's a first draft version.
These things take a little time.
The system for the building itself is, we're looking at a variety of stones at the base, base for several feet.
We're going to have lots, articulation at the pedestrian scale.
We are going to have recesses for planting.
We are going to have canopies.
We are really going to have really enhanced pedestrian volume.
As you move up into the upper stories, it is primarily a stucco style building.
There are going to be some aluminum details that are going to be part of it.
And, unfortunately, part of the rendering that -- it doesn't come across that we do have kind of an attempt to make the verticals of the tower, the wall sometime down into the middle, and other sections of the tower itself.
It is minimal at this point, and it does require some additional work.
We hope to do an architectural model that is going to show you the exciting massing of it.
But because of the tree issues, we, as Steve Graham will tell you, the way the facade is detailed it is a combination of stucco, and window wall system, and terrace system, cascade, and they kind of peel back.
So it doesn't your basic box extrusion that many condominium developers do to maximize income.
This is really they are trying to do it on a first class building similar to Trump Tower.
>>> It's like the last petitioner that came forward about six months ago.
We have been working with Wilson Stair discussing further illustration of the parking garage in order to give some relief to it so it's not as much of a big mass.
And we commit to do that when we get into permitting.
That is the same thing that the previous developer had indicated in his presentation, is that the urban design aspect of it as we go to permitting is work with Wilson to provide additional illustrations and additional relief to break it up.
So it's not just a blank wall.
>> You said the last one.
You mean this afternoon?
>>> No, I'm sorry.
I'm talking about the original approval of this.
>> Wilson is here.
Wilson, on the Kress plaza, we had built in a three or four-phase review.
Is that right?
And is that included in this proposal?
>>WILSON STAIR: Urban design manager, the city.
I have been sworn in.
No, sir.
We have not done that for this particular project.
But I will say that a very good idea.
And I did see the black and white sketches.
But I think we need to pump up the color and work with the facade, of not only the pedestrian area, but the parking garage itself.
And if they'll agree to --.
>> Where was it at Kress?
>>> 30, 60 and 90%.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So if you have no objection to that, I think I would --
>>> can I confirm that with the developer?
Our intent is to make this a good project for the city and us, not to have any issues or shortcuts on this.
So we definitely agree to that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 16?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
I'm sure -- across the street from the Ice Palace I am often stopped in traffic.
Now, immediately across the street from here is 02, down the block is a tower for Channelside, and I need some reassurance that our transportation people have done a projection that when all these high-rises are built that things won't be at an absolute dead halt.
Because I'm not at all convinced, given that they are at a dead halt now, that anybody other than pedestrians will be able to get around.
And for pedestrian, frankly, ten feet is not such a generous sidewalk, for outdoor seating, tree grades.
I'm really concerned about this.
And I know that you already got your approval for this.
But since you're back it's an opportunity.
David Smith.
In discussions with transportation staff, transportation indicated they had no issues with respect to the transportation flow circulation, and we further already agreed to the signalization when warranted of two intersections to provide for and ensure that the circulation is appropriate in the area, and than is the two intersections that are immediately to our north and to our south.
>> Well, our transportation people love to get money for signals.
However, I just want to feel assured that five years from now you and I can sit in this patio and not die of fumes of traffic that hasn't moved in ten minutes.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.
I did hear your question.
The developers that are coming into downtown area, all do traffic analysis.
One of the unique things about residential in the downtown, the most desirable trip, operates from what our typical peak is, in the downtown area, anything that comes into the downtown area.
You have residential here, and you work downtown, that's a walking trip.
If you work anywhere else, you're traveling opposite.
So you're traveling on a portion of road that doesn't get used only in opposite direction.
So residential downtown is a desirable trip.
And, yes, we are looking at it individually as they come in.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I was just going to tell Mrs. Saul-Sena, it doesn't matter what transportation says, to console you, it's still going to be gridlock because we are not doing anything to the roadway systems.
It is directly across the street from the Ice Palace.
I am for the project.
I have no problem with that.
But with growth comes traffic comes gridlock comes congestion.
We're fooling ours ifs we sit here and say that it's not or that we hope that it's pie in the sky and that it will not.
It will be absolute gridlock.
And I don't see why anyone would buy there other than the amenities of the project itself.
But if they are looking at traffic congestion.
But I think it's a wonderful project.
I'm going to support the project.
But I think traffic is going to be a huge problem with any of these towers that we're building.
And we're talking about the trips compared to the Kress plaza.
We were talking about the -- I forgot what the terminology they used, but the working class, so to speak, the 600 square foot units, these are starting -- workforce, thank you, Madam Chair.
These will start out at 15, 1600 square foot and go to -- so these are going to be people that are commuting.
So we will have more and more traffic.
So I assure you there's going to be more traffic.
Don't care what the trips generate.
When we are putting thousands of more people downtown, which is what we say we want to grow in the city, along with growth comes congestion and traffic.
Go to any major city and try to make your way through downtown at rush hour traffic.
It's gonna happen.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Ready to close the public hearing?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close the public hearing.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 502 and 504 Channelside Drive and 903 Eunice drive in the city of tap from zoning district classification CBD-2 high-rise residential to CBD-2 high-rise residential, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a second?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion second on the motion?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second I have a question for Ms. Coyle.
Did the petitioner write down that they would agree to architectural review at 30, 60 and 90%?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I did.
I added it to the plan.
They agreed to it.
So I wrote it down.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only other condition that I thought I heard offered was the larger magnolia.
I can't remember --.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: 675 gallon or something?
>> We committee to whatever parks and recreation recommends or council.
>> I think a larger tree is better than a smaller tree and you go from there.
How many gallons was that you suggested?
>>> Sir, 670 gallons.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So put that on the site plan.
Kevin, I agree with you wholeheartedly, you said it very well, if they are going to have traffic in there.
The only thing I would disagree with transportation about is, looking at this aerial shot, and realizing where this is, you know, ten month of the year, that's not walking distance to downtown, because it's just too hot.
And most people are not going to get out of that building and walk if they work downtown.
In the traditional part of downtown, they are not going to talk.
They might take the trolley, I hope.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried, Ferlita, Saul-Sena no.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to explain.
It's nothing personal.
I just think this is a very tight site notary public a very important place. This building is absolutely -- I think the loss of the tree is very unfortunate.
I appreciate your candor about it.
But when we approved this initially that was part of the deal.
And my feeling is, you all should have figured this out before you came to us the first time, because the tree was there.
This tree is a survivor.
This tree has survived buildings being placed by it, traffic, all this stuff.
And I just am concerned that after this is constructed, it's the experience of being in front of this building on Channelside, I know ten feet is a wide enough sidewalk but I think you have done what is minimally required because you have such a small site.
I think it's very challenging to get as much as you want to on this site.
And I'm just very concerned about what the quality of the experience is going to be, not only for folks who live in the building but the people who are walking by and driving by and hopefully using the retail cafes and shops.
And I really hope I'm totally wrong.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
We intend to make that as pleasing as possible.
Obviously when Newk's comes back, he's going to have as many grouper sandwiches as possible.
Thank you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
This rezoning is located at 5107 South Westshore Boulevard for a PDA zoning district to construct 1,000 residential units, 13 thousand 750 square feet of professional office, 131,250 square feet of general commercial uses, including boat sales, service and repair.
The plan depicts Bridge Street being extended as a 50 foot right-of-way, Tyson Avenue.
Zero setbacks on the northern property line and the southwestern corner of the parcel.
The subject property lies immediately south of the Imperial yacht basin property, east of rattlesnake channel and west of the Westshore Boulevard.
This project is essentially the second phase of the yacht basin project.
The project in its entirety is shown on page 2 of the site plan that you have before you, will be controlled to maintain the development district.
The objection noted on page 2 from stormwater has been alleviated.
Those notes are noted on the site plan.
Other findings of fact, I noted the purposes for site plan control districts.
You will note this is the large piece.
This PD-A is the Imperial yacht basin. This is Tyson.
This is the aerial that I provided.
This is the property here.
There are eight waivers listed for technical requirements.
The CDB agreement, you will note on page 2 as well, some of the conceptual drawings that they have shown.
If you read the language on the plan as well, they are actually planning to commit to things much more enhanced than what the code requires.
Special pavers in the right-of-way.
There is a cross section of Bridge Street located at the bottom of the plan.
You will note under page 4, there are not objections from the Parks Department.
But as in the previous rezoning there are comments.
There is a portion of the greenways and trails program within Bridge Street.
There are large easements on either side of the right-of-way shown in the cross section on your plan for sidewalks, and the trail system.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is the plan?
>>CATHY COYLE: I gave to the Mr. White.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is Channelside.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Ms. Saul-Sena took it and left.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The majority of staff members are here for questions on technical issues.
>>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
I have been sworn in.
Future land use map this channel area, the Gandy development corridor as referred to in the City of Tampa comprehensive plan, one two of waterfront redevelopment corridors identified.
Land use category nor quadrant located in the southeast and south west corner of the intersection of Westshore Boulevard and Gandy for mixed use 60.
There's a little tiny piece here that's still in the process of being changed, but that would be the little piece here on Tyson that was changed to UME 60 from heavy industrial that will ultimately be integrated into this project at some point in time in the future.
Here's an aerial of the proposed site in question.
As you can see, the residential character changes significantly once one goes west of Westshore Boulevard, and goes from there.
The being the heavy shipyards conversion into mixed use will reduce any kind of impacts that have been produced in past shipyards operation.
There are still several heavy industrial uses that are still in operation to the west which do consist of warehousing, dock construction, chemical facility.
The single family detached neighborhoods are predominantly located to the east side of Westshore Boulevard.
It is consistent with this is a development trend that has been occurring over the last five years in the general area.
Of course, the request must be sent to the property utilization of existing potential resident work.
In addition to the Imperial yacht basin project have made commitments to the improvement of Bridge Street as a north-south thoroughfare and connector to Gandy Boulevard.
The land use designation of UME 60 is consistent with the existing mixed uses as I said.
The CMU mixed 35 to the south, and of course the existing UME 60 which surrounds this current area and which is also the current land use designation for this site.
The proposed request of 1,000 residential units is significantly under what can potentially be developed on the site, as it is a 30-acre site, and when do you the math, 30 acres by 60 you could potentially do 1800 units on-site.
So the request for 1,000 -- yes, Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It may be fewer units but they have asked to waive all minimum tree requirement, reduce the size of parking widths.
So did you take that into account?
>>TONY GARCIA: Sure.
But remember, this is a PD-A.
So it's conceptual in nature.
But if we look at it holistically and just look at the pure land mass that you have there, when it initially was brought in, the land use development potential, which is what you have to look at total buildout potential, because you can also look at from the an FAR basis too as far as how much commercial could be built on the site.
We're not looking -- we're looking at potential, what potentially could be built on the site.
What would a developer take.
You could have another PDA come into the site.
So you're still talking about a potential 1800 that could be initially proposed by the applicant when they first came in.
But that is not the case necessarily.
You have significantly less units.
But I know what you're talking about as far as what they're asking for on the site.
But still, what potentially could go here is much greater because they could still go higher than what they are potentially going right now and still stay within their standards.
So I think what they are asking for, what they could potentially do, they could still -- potentially do on the site.
Planning Commission staff has no objections regarding the proposed request.
>>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner.
>>> Vin Marchetti, Tampa, representing Ecogroup, the developer on this project in question.
I have been sworn, by the way.
With me tonight is Ed Oschlager, as well as engineer from project engineering, and Randy Coen.
We are seeking approval of PDA allowing for 1,000 residential units, 13,750 square feet of office and 131,250 square feet of commercial, and a 32-acre parcel located south of Gandy, west of Westshore, commonly known as the Henry parcel.
It is highlighted in green of the aerial.
The PD property is part of an exciting waterfront, mixed use project being created called new port Tampa Bay.
The property is in the UME land use category as mentioned and this is 32 units per acre as it's currently situated which is far less dense, as Tony mentioned, than what could be considered on the comp plan category for a 32-acre tract.
The Planning Commission has found our rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City of Tampa and does not object.
Planning Commission has also sited numerous in-fill and urban redevelopment, policies of the comprehensive plan, that support our request to convert and redevelop the vacant industrial uses to a high quality mixed use waterfront project.
The property is also in the Gandy redevelopment Gateway area which also promotes redevelopment into mixed use projects.
In the site plan we developed 47 very detailed notes and conditions in working with city staff diligently on this project, taken months and months to deal with every department that's a reviewing department for this petition, to ensure that in fact we are consistent with city regulations, and Mrs. Saul-Sena, you mentioned a couple of waivers which we are seeking, and those are because of the fact we are promoting a unique project which we'll discuss in a moment with you and show you.
While the staff report indicated that stormwater had objections, you just heard from Cathy those objections are withdrawn.
We have taken a week's time between last Thursday evening's agenda and this evening's in which we have addressed the department considerations from transportation as well as stormwater.
Parks has also commented on the petition.
We provided a 12-foot trail, which is consistent with what the yacht basin provided to our north.
They have also asked for additional considerations which we believe would not be at all beneficial to the project, and would in fact create in essence a taking of our property for what they are seeking.
They are seeking additional sidewalks, and also areas for bikers outside of the 12-foot trail area.
So we take issue with that.
It's not a negative comment necessarily on a report, but parks staff has commented and put them as notes as considerations.
They also, however, recognize in their report that we've worked extensively with parks to address their issues, and although they would like to see additional considerations, we believe we have gone far above and beyond what we would normally be required to do.
Let me turn it over to Ed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me ask about the parks if I could.
It appears on their note -- maybe I missed this when Cathy was saying it, on staff's note they want the trail to come up Bridge Street, or next to Bridge Street.
Is that what their saying?
And their client is opposed to that?
Or what are you saying?
>>> It's actually run ago long Bridge Street.
>> And do you have a problem with that?
>>> No, we provided a 12-foot trail.
>> What do you take usual you with then?
>>> Well, if you look at their notes, for example, they are requesting --
>> We are looking at staff report?
>>> Yes.
I'm sorry.
Under number 1, revised cross section, looking for five-foot bike lanes, and/or wideout side lanes, middle 14 feet in width.
They are also looking for under number 4, page 5 of the report, a minimum 46-foot wide unobstructed clear zone, full safety zones on each side for a total easement of 20 feet.
These are two points which I've discussed also with Morris Massey.
You know, Mary Helen, I think she's doing her job but I have to be honest with you, we have had numerous meetings with parks, and it seems as though she keeps regurgitating the same comments, and in fact in this case between the last hearing and this hearing, there are actually six different notes that represented, within a week's time, on the parks issues, and I don't believe she's here tonight to present her testimony on the matter.
But we certainly want to work with parks, if you look at our notes.
We have indicated we want to work with parks and signage.
The design of the trail.
>> Your alternative in lieu of her suggestion, her recommendation, is what?
>>> We are providing a 12-foot wide trail.
>> Is it going to be improved by the developer?
Or is it going to be just left vacant?
>>> No, improved.
And it's going to -- Ed is going to be referring to it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>> For the record, Ed Oschlager, 309 Inner Harbor Circle, I am the president of Ecogroup, the developer of this project.
I'm very happy to be before you this evening to have the opportunity to share our enthusiasm for what we think to be a wonderful project in addition to the City of Tampa.
Ecogroup has been headquartered in Tampa for 18 years.
We're in our is 19th year now.
I resided in the City of Tampa for that time period, total of 19 years.
We have only done one other project in Tampa.
It was a small project back in the late '80s up in the Newtown area, Tampa Palms.
Most of our work has been on the west coast of Florida, down in Naples, all those years, Sarasota, Longboat Key, Sanibel island.
The only project that we have done in this area that some of you may be familiar with is the Tides beach club over in north Redington beach.
We did do that a few years back as well.
But I am extremely excited about an opportunity to do something in Tampa that I believe is very, very important to the City of Tampa and will enable us to make a contribution in such a way to reinvent a very, very important waterfront area in the City of Tampa.
Let me give you a sense of what our vision is for this project.
And why we are here this evening to address the Hendry property.
I thought it would be useful and helpful to understand what the vision is for the integrated unified plan of development for the property, which is the 52-acre parcel, which includes the Imperial property as well as the Hendry property, and subsequently the moody property, which we'll be coming before council in August.
New port is a modern interpretation of the classic waterside village set on the shores of Tampa Bay, and it presents a vibrant destination, the likes of which really haven't been seen in this region.
It is an enclave of 52 acres of reinvented waterfront.
New Port will blend private residential offerings with resort style and with contemporary city amenities and public attractions.
While providing a tranquil enclave for residents to live, work and play, new port will invite those from the surrounding area to experience the delightful sights and sounds of this unique waterfront destination, featuring restaurants, waterfront restaurants, cafes, public land, public art, one of the deepest yacht harbors on the west coast of Florida.
Centered around a yacht harbour, New Port will capture a sense of the community with the color spirit of Florida coastal living and the charms of a seaside city.
I wanted to show you briefly what the property, in particular now the Hendry property, for 60 years -- yes.
Go ahead and submit that into evidence. The Hendry property as some of you may be aware has been an industrial site for the past 60 years and a family owned business.
It blends in the dredging business and ship repair business.
We are in the process, we are going to show you the few examples of what the existing conditions are.
You can see that it's in pretty poor condition, and really needs to be reinvented in a major way.
And these are just samples.
The other issue that I think is important to understand is the environmental conditions that exist on-site, or did exist.
We have spent in excess of $600,000 to clean the site, and we will continue to be spending probably another 2 to $300,000 before we are finished to complete that task.
The contamination is both water and soil contamination of petroleum based products, primarily, so it is something that is manageable, and we are already well under way to bringing that property back to an acceptable condition, and importantly, the conditions that have existed for all of those years will no longer be polluting the bays over the water.
This project is a gateway to South Tampa, and I don't say that lightly.
We accept that as a very heavy burden of responsibility.
And you have our assurance that we recognize the importance of that and we will deliver accordingly.
The property runs, as was previously mentioned, from the north on Gandy down to Tyson.
It's a half a mile, just under a half a mile of waterfront property.
The property consists of -- let's put the master plan up, please, the concept plan.
This is very difficult for you to see.
I apologize.
But let me briefly tell you that along the waterfront, there is an esplanade that will run the entire length of the waterfront, from the north to the south.
It is a linear park.
The entire parks within the community total about 5.5 acres.
But this ends up being a linear park that will invite the public -- it private property but the public will be invited back to the waterfront to enjoy the shops, to enjoy the restaurants.
It's going to be pedestrian friendly, and exposed to the marina.
As we have mentioned, if you go down Bridge Street, you'll come to a retail village.
The retail village, which is where the round-about is, then you will go to the west, and the retail will wrap around on the waterfront as well, with the cafes and restaurants and the other amenities that will be provided.
As you go out the peninsula, there's a marina club.
Well, let me start.
There are two restaurant sites initially.
And then as you go further west, you come to -- this is the marina park which will be a public park for events, festivals.
Adjacent to that out to the west is the marina club, which will be available to the residents of New Port Tampa Bay.
Then the last piece is a residential property.
But as you go down Bridge Street, right now, it's a 50-foot right-of-way.
It is going to be expanded to a 76-foot right-of-way.
It is going to be less rail landscaped.
It is going to have streetlighting that is going to be decorative.
I share an enthusiasm for what this is going to look like, because it's going to be marvelous.
The scale of this property, as you walk down, is intended to be a pedestrian-friendly community.
And the way we are going to achieve that, because we are going to have some high-rise buildings, and those buildings are going to be ultimately determined in terms of the height by the FAA.
But there will be some high-rise buildings.
But the scale of those buildings will be brought down by what we call lighter town homes to essentially try to create similar to in concept a Georgetown feel where there will be walk-uptown homes that will be attached to the high-rises.
You won't see the parking structures.
But it will have a very pedestrian feel to it, for the entire length of Bridge Street.
The residents here will share a passion for the urban culture and waterfront living, and they will seek a sense of community, they will support community theater and arts, they value the pleasures of waterfront living and appreciate the convenience to the workplace, recreational, shopping, dining, cultural and entertainment facilities.
At this stage, we have some vignettes that are simply to give you a sense of the life-style that we're trying to create and capture.
And this is one of the esplanade which shows the -- which is about an 18-foot boardwalk, and then the esplanade is further to the east, in this case, with the marina being to the west.
This is the marina park, which is on the peninsula, again, just a vignette with the marina in the background, as you look through what is intended to be a sail feature, but that that is the Central Park of the community.
Then lastly, this is a view down Bridge Street toward the round-about.
However, there is a sail there.
We do not anticipate doing the sail, because we don't want to visually block the view that we will be doing a very attractive fountain, water feature, as part of that roundabout, with the decorative paving and all of the other architectural treatments that go with that.
Just go ahead and put the master plan back.
The other thing that's important to bear in mind, we are petitioning the city for a community development district.
It is coming before you next month, I believe, on the 11th.
That district allows us to do a few things.
Most importantly, what we intend to do is build all of the infrastructure in one continuous effort.
Ordinarily, this would be a phased project.
But the CBD allows us to come in and build the road, extent Bridge Street, redevelop Bridge Street, in essence from Gandy all the way down to Tyson.
With the underground utility, with the landscaping.
We will be replacing all of the entire sea wall on the entire waterfront property.
So that's a huge undertaking.
That is also part of that CBD effort.
So that's the purpose of the CBD.
The community is going to benefit from that in a couple ways, one, because the street will be built, and will be built and available prior to the time of certificate of occupancy on the first structure, and then also the water, surface water management system.
We all know that there's flooding issues in South Tampa.
I live there and know we have it every day.
We are going to be part of the solution.
We are not the problem but we will be part of the solution.
We can't solve it but we can certainly be part of the solution.
That infrastructure is one of the major keys to addressing those concerns.
I'd like to also, if I may, briefly refer to and enter into the record the letter that the Gandy civic association addressed to the chairperson dated July 20th, and Ecogroup's response dated July 26th.
We have been working with the Gandy civic association, as well as five to six other civic associations, resident associations, excuse me, since January.
We met with them before.
We actually submitted the application to rezone the Hendry property.
And we have given them all of the information that they have asked.
We have answered their questions and have met with them extensively during those periods.
We have had two neighborhood meetings that were open to the public in the neighborhood.
One most recently in July was a joint meeting with both Port Tampa and the Gandy civic association.
One of the things that the letter -- that Mr. Stein son signed, first of all, we appreciate that it acknowledges that they really don't have a problem with the proposal.
But they have asked that we limit our development to 1,000 units for both the moody parcel, which is not the subject of tonight's hearing, but will be come before you in the next two weeks.
But that we limit that on a combined basis to a thousand units.
It is our intention, and wee we agree to do that.
So technically, tonight, the way -- I can't bind you in any fashion, and you can't bind me with respect to the moody parcel, but as it relates to this parcel tonight, we can agree to reduce the 1,000 units to 850 units, and then coupled with the moody parcel that will be come back to you in a couple weeks, that will get us the thousand units.
So that is the request of the community association, and we are in agreement with that.
I would also like to submit two chronologies that outline the communications that we have had with the Gandy civic association in particular, and secondly the other chronology of the Tampa civic and other groups that we have met with.
We have met with the neighbors in terms of the residential neighbors.
We have met with the business community, with the Bayside marina folks, with west brier properties, with Kearney construction, we have met with Dynergy, and of course we met with several other associations, Bayshore Beautiful, Westshore, Fairoaks manor civic associations, as well as T.H.A.N..
We met with those folks as well.
So we have really reached out to the community over the last seven months to communicate what our plans are, to listen to their concerns, and we have to the very best of our ability addressed those concerns.
Lastly, I'd like to briefly talk about the economic impact of this project as a whole.
We can break it out in Hendry.
But I would like for you to have a feel as to what it is that we're talking about in terms of the benefits that this project has for the City of Tampa going forward.
Approximately $232 million over the next 20 years.
New Port Tampa Bay will create 3800 new jobs.
That's direct jobs and indirect jobs.
It will generate $243 million, in average annual sales for the Tampa region.
And
It will generate $107 million average annual payroll, if you will.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How did you or why add these economic benefits?
>>> We commissioned Hank Fishcock -- that name may be familiar to some of you, but Hank worked with the State of Florida in developing what's called the fiscal impact analysis model, and that is the model that was used to protect the economic impact of this project.
It is also a model that has been used by the county and other counties, Hillsborough County, as well as many other counties throughout the state, to project accurately the economic impact of proposed developments.
>> But you say $243 million in average annual sales.
>>> That's the turnover of money.
That's the money that the people will be spending that live in this project on an annual basis.
>> How many people will be living in this project?
>>> We will have 1750 units as a maximum on the density if you choose to approve the thousand units.
We don't anticipate that we'll build that many but it's going to be close.
>> And so that's 1700 units times --
>>> 4,000 a year, something like that.
4,000 people.
>> Do you have backup materials for these things?
>>> We do.
As a matter of fact, we have made the study available to the Gandy civic association.
We've made the conclusions available to the city staff.
But we would be happy -- we could make the entire study available.
The ultimate conclusion is clear that New Port Tampa Bay will have a fiscal benefit for both the city and the Tampa region and will lead to enhanced life-style benefits based on bringing the bay back to the City of Tampa.
At this time, I would like to introduce Rhonda Nelson from king engineering to address the stormwater issues.
>>> Good evening.
Rhonda Nelson, 3921 memorial highway.
I have been sworn in.
I am the project manager for the civil engineering component of this project.
The project currently is in the design stages with planning.
We have had multiple meetings with not only City of Tampa staff including Alex, Sea Crest, and Chuck Walters, but also met twice now with the southwest water management district to review the methodologies that we will be using to move forward on this project.
We recognize that there have been historical stormwater inadequacies in this area.
The residents have complained to city staff, I think, on occasion, in regards to flooding in the area.
There is currently an existing ditch that goes through the Hendry parcel that is poorly maintained ditch.
And as part of this project, we will be again in coordination with the city, providing a bypass of the existing stormwater drains through that property into a culvert system which will be much more efficient conveyance for that drainage.
We will also be required to meet the stormwater requirement for the City of Tampa and SWFWMD for treatment of the proposed drainage that will be coming off of when you put a site as well.
It is the developer's intent to meet all of these requirements, although we can't commit to solving any of the problems that already exist there.
We do commit to not adversely impacting our making worse the conditions of any conditions that do exist out there.
So there will be a combination of on-site treatment vaults and retention pond to handle the drainage that will be proposed from our site.
And there are several notes in the conditions, notes 34, 44 and 45 that that were in direct correlation to our coordination with the City of Tampa staff to address some of these concerns and some of the residents' concerns.
And if there's any questions.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Has there been any discussion -- I think Mr. Awad is here somewhere.
Where is he?
Here he is.
As there been any discussion with city staff about oversizing your facility, perhaps at some expense to the city, to assist the city in some of our problems along there?
>>> There have been some conversations in regards to trying to accommodate some of the supposed drainage on Westshore Boulevard.
We have actually agreed to provide a half inch of treatment for the expansion of Westshore Boulevard, two lanes, one north, one south, wide pavement for the future expansion of Westshore Boulevard.
That treatment is going to be occurring.
>>> Alex Awad, stormwater, I have been sworn in.
We have not done any systems to accommodate other projects.
What they are committed to doing is the conveyance of the ditch system that exists on their site to take the water from the east side of Westshore directly to the bay.
The restrictions on-site, a couple of 40 inch pipes and a 36 inch pipe, so hopefully when they take the water directly to the bay that should solve the drainage problem that we have seen on west Ballast Point and the neighborhood to the east.
In reference to the widening of Westshore, they have committed to providing half-inch treatment of the additional impervious area of the pavement.
And they would also be conveying the water of standard requirement to convey the flow of water off the pavement through their site and onto the bay.
So it seems a reasonable thing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Some of those streets further to the north, McElroy, Paul, Price, on the west side of Westshore, go under water.
I mean, they have got ditches, and then they go under water.
>>> Right.
>> And that's sort of also the area that I'm talking about.
Is there any way to facilitate improvements to those -- to that little quadrant there that's slightly outside of Imperial, slightly to the east of Imperial, you know?
Maybe the city can make a contribution or work with them to get some of that water off those streets and into their pond.
Does that have any pond there?
>>> Well, that portion of the area that you're talking about is north of the Hendry site.
>> North of Hendry?
>>> Right.
And there are a couple of outfall that is would take the water to the bay, and hopefully with the new development, those outfalls would be improved to facilitate the water heading west.
Now, keep in mind the older part of the neighborhood has been low, it's low.
If the tide is up, no matter what you do, improvement of the system to the west is not going to do too much to improvement of the finished floor elevation of the homes and the street.
But the conveyance west will be improved.
And that's something that we have looked at at the time we approved that first site plan.
>> So what you're saying is, they have stormwater on their site, it's dumping into the bay.
Doesn't it go through some filtration first?
>>> That's what he just said.
Everything on their site will be treated for the half inch which is the water quality treatment.
Since they are on that side of Westshore, they don't need to provide water quantity, they don't have to provide because of flooding issues.
They are taking care of their stuff heading towards the water.
But they will treat their property on-site, all of their site.
So that's a good thing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> My name is Randy Coen, 1509 West Swann Avenue.
I have been sworn.
I am the transportation person involved in this project.
I have been asked to submit my resume, and to attempt to qualify myself as an expert.
I've been practicing for 30 years here in Tampa, have been hired previously by the City of Tampa for transportation issues.
I've served as an expert witness.
My most recent has been for the U.S. Department of Justice.
So hopefully that will qualify me as a transportation expert.
I wanted to tell you about transportation as it relates to this particular project and what we've done.
We have worked long and hard with city staff.
A number of the 47 conditions in front of you are transportation related conditions.
This project is rather unique, in that not only have we included all background traffic, not only have we included all approved projects in the area that have not been built, city staff requested, and we agreed, to ultimately include the entire potential redevelopment of Georgetown, 2400 units, where right now there's only 654.
So when we look at the total traffic that we have assessed in this analysis, background, all approved projects, plus potential redevelopment of Georgetown, assuming it's total and maximum amount of 2400 units.
So it's been a very extensive and exhaustive transportation analysis.
For the most part we have youths utilized city of traffic Tampa traffic counts.
They have seen accounts produced by others in the past that weren't consistent with theirs.
They have requested we use their accounts.
We did so.
The long and short of it, let's talk about what the results of the analysis were and what this applicant is required to do under the conditions you have on the zoning.
First and foremost, there are cash payments for transportation mitigation, which were calculated based upon all of the improvements that would be necessary in this area to maintain a level of service fee which does not exist today, to be very blunt about it that. Is a little over $1.2 million that we paid, that's actually condition -- what condition is that?
I'm sorry, I didn't write that number down.
I believe it's 46.
No, it's not 46.
44.
In addition to that cash payment, that comes to the city, they are also doing a number of things, a number of transportation improvements themselves.
The first which we talked a little bit about is the extension of Bridge Street from its terminus at the north property line all the way down to Tyson.
An interesting feature about that, not only are they building that roadway, and frankly with Imperial rebuilding Bridge Street all the way up to Gandy, but requirement in the condition, condition number 32, is that roadway must be completed before they obtain their first certificate of occupancy for any building on the property except for sales.
So they are building a roadway and opening it to the public prior to the first CO on the project.
That's very unusual in this particular stage of the game.
Also required at Bridge and Tyson to install a traffic signal if it should be warranted at the development plus two years after.
That signal would include pedestrian features.
They have a similar requirement at Westshore and Tyson to provide a signal if it becomes warranted in the future.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Pedestrian features?
>>> The count down timers that you see, et cetera, downtown.
One of the reasons for that, they are also required to construct the continuation of the Friendship Trail along the east side of Bridge Street.
The conditions that we had in this particular zoning package relating to that are the same conditions that have been applied to Imperial, so that we have a continuity for the trail.
From Gandy on the north to Tyson on the south. The reason for the traffic features is we also do pedestrian features that assist those folks using the trail itself.
On top of that, as you just heard, for the portion of Westshore Boulevard from Gandy down to Tyson, this project from Gandy all the way down to Tyson, a half mile, they are going to provide the additional stormwater treatment that would be required for the widening of Westshore Boulevard, within their site.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many peak hour trips are you anticipating, say, at the intersection of the circle?
Or even better yet, Westshore?
>>> Sure.
Let's go to that and I can give you an exhibit to show you exactly what those numbers are.
>> The reason I asked you, even though the circle is a lovely amenity, I have a little bit of concern about the constraint, and perhaps that it might discourage people from using Bridge Street.
>>> Well, the circle as we have it shown on the conceptual site plan is something that will be in discussion with city of transportation staff.
We do not have approval for that at this point.
It will come in as part of the approval for the construction of Bridge Street itself.
The entire project, by the way, generates in the p.m. peak hour 764 external trips, and certainly more than half of those will occur on Bridge Street.
>> The models showing that?
>>> Yes.
And the capacity of a two lane road is basically 860 vehicles in each direction so throws a fair amount of capacity remaining beyond.
>> WCI factor?
>>> WCI in its total only has 580 out -- outbound trips snoop that's not my question.
It's my understanding that WCI was going to be redesigned slightly so that one of their exits would line up with your future Bridge Street at Tyson.
Has that been done, A?
And B, if that's been done and the WCI folks come through your project, is that included in your collusion?
>>> Yes.
We have included that in the calculations for Bridge Street.
One of the nice things about Bridge Street, it basically is functioned as a cul-de-sac street.
As a through street it will be one of the unique opportunities we have to have a north-south corridor parallel to Westshore that can be developed.
It will be able, with WCI here on the south side of Tyson, those folks rather than using Westshore will have the opportunity to use Bridge Street.
Also, anything on this peninsula will likely have those folks that will want to use Bridge Street as opposed to Westshore.
Bridge Street actually will provide some relief to Westshore as its currently improved, and it will also allow this development for further improvement of Westshore when that becomes appropriate and funded within the project.
>> But again I go back to the circle issue.
I'm not sure that it's a good thing for us not to address that here and now, in this process, because I don't know what the decision will be based upon later on.
Again, and Ed, Mr. Oschlager, perhaps you have some comments.
Obviously it's going to provide some kind of calming.
But at the same time I don't want to discourage people from using bridge.
>>> Note 32 or condition number 32 on the site plan requires that we go back to transportation division for their review and approval of whatever the final concept is for Bridge Street itself and it's construction, and we would certainly at one point look at the entire Bridge Street from Gandy all the way down to Tyson.
It certainly is going to need a test and challenge of the transportation department of number one, moving traffic, number two, moving it in a safe fashion, number three is where we will get into perhaps some traffic circles or other things so we don't have it as a high speed raceway.
Reign we do have the frail immediately adjacent to the roadway separated by a 6-foot planter, but it is relatively close.
We have to weigh those things together.
And transportation staff will have to review and approve anything we do on Bridge Street.
We will meet city standards or meet alternative standards that are acceptable to the transportation division.
That's already permitted for in the code.
It hasn't been designed at this point.
What we have is a nice conceptual plan that shows things that would like to be there.
Whether they are there or not is really going to be up to meeting the demands and the requirements of the transportation division of the city as we design it.
Ms. Saul-Sena, did you have a question?
At that point I think we have gone through a rigorous test.
We provided everything we can.
We have total agreement with transportation staff on all of the conditions in mitigation of the project.
Be glad to answer any questions you may have.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When Imperial was in front of us, Mr. Prism proposed impact fees in advance, which Mr. Harrison thought -- well, I thought all of us thought was a good idea in regard to not necessarily how they did it but the end result is a good thing in regard to the fact that if we need to use that money for off-site improvements perhaps for the widening of Westshore or other nearby improvements, we would have the money early enough to be able to use it effectively.
Has that been a discussion on this project?
>>> It has.
>>> Mr. Oschlager is the one that paid that upfront impact fee at this point.
He offered it, I paid it.
Let me suggest to you that that is not a practical alternative given the magnitude of this project.
And the reason it's not is because we are going to be putting in all of the infra structure up front.
And so that is a major undertaking, admittedly, a great deal of that is going to be through the CDD.
But also --
>> Doesn't the CDD fund that?
Wouldn't the CDD be funding that anyway eventually, and couldn't the CDD fund that?
Some portion of that?
>>> I don't think so, because I'll tell you why.
They can only fund what it is that's going to be spent within the district itself, which means within the boundaries of the petition.
So those dollars could be off-site improvement that is would not qualify for CDD funding.
So that would be extremely difficult for to us do in terms of upfront.
Ed: If I might add relative to condition 32, if you take a look at that.
We are required to pay 15% of that total transportation mitigation fee at the time of the first C.O. for the project, that's a little over $600,000.
We are required at the 351st C.O. for a residential unit to pay an additional $302,000.
The balance of is it 675 dwelling units.
So what we have done is set out a way where we are always a head a payment regarding this mitigation paying 50% up with the first certificate of occupancy, then stepping back as the project matures and builds out paying the remainder in a very timely fashion.
>>> Vincent Marchetti: Actually it's note 42 that Randy just cited.
Let me do two other items.
First I have two letters of support that I want to hand in to council.
One is an original letter.
The first letter is a copy of the letter from the South Tampa Chamber of Commerce dated July 1.
And the second is from abutting property owners of west wind and Bridgeport apartments on Westshore Boulevard.
I'll do that.
Also, I'd like to have Scott Sheridan get up for a minute, address the waiver request on our site plan.
Ms. Saul-Sena mentioned that.
I want to make sure he covers the green space issues as well.
Then ed is going to wrap it up.
>>> Scott Sheridan, planning department manager, with king engineering.
I believe, Mrs. Saul-Sena, your question was regarding the green space.
We are meeting the green space requirements for the code.
The specific waivers that you're seeing on here really relate to the co-location of some of that green space, where it's required adjacent to the public right-of-way.
Oftentimes with relationships to buildings to the public right-of-way, or the Friendship Trail or some of the sidewalks being proposed.
They are within that green space location.
So what we are specifically asking for both in waiver number 2 and waiver number 7 is to in effect relocate those requirements elsewhere within the project.
We are meeting the green space overall that is required.
We are just asking for a waiver of location in those instances.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You asked for a number of waivers.
One of them is for shade trees.
You are actually providing the shade tree and it just isn't obvious?
>>> You saw in some of the graphics and some of the conceptuals, we are proposing a lot of palm trees along these major roadways because it really is an urban cross section, urban environment.
In fact in our discussion at the Parks Department they specifically asked us to provide clearance along these roadways for the Friendship Trail and other locations, so that the shade trees they thought would be a conflict in some of those locations.
So we are proposing, you can see on some of those exhibits, palm trees.
There will be shade trees in the project.
But we just don't think that we can meet the 50% requirement when we look at all the trees lining Bridge Street and some of the adjacent roadways.
Again for clearance issues.
>> Clearance from what?
>>> From pedestrians moving up and down the sidewalks and the Friendship Trail.
I believe the parks requested a 12 foot vertical -- 12 foot wide trail but also a vertical clearance along the Friendship Trail.
And we thought live oaks and trees of that nature would be in conflict with folks on bicycles and the pedestrians and so forth.
>> You put in good size ones, you will have the clearance and also shade, and the palm trees will always be hot.
>>> One of the issues that you will see there -- and I worked closely with the Parks Department -- is along Bridge Street and some other roadways, we have 6 foot wide plaza islands, and palm trees are more conducive to that environment and start getting some of those larger trees, you see some of the issues Luke you have downtown here, sidewalks buckling, and some of those trees not physically being able to fit within the 6 foot plaza. It is a little bit of a tight constraint along Bridge Street, the Friendship Trail.
>>> Ed Oschlager for the record.
As a follow-up to the open space, I want to remind you are we are going to be building over five acres of parks that will be open to the public.
In closing, I'd like to say to you that we here in the Tampa community have an opportunity to do something extraordinary and unique.
It requires getting out of the box in our thinking, in our combined thinking.
The proposed New Port Tampa Bay doesn't always fit nicely within the city ordinances and regulations.
We are trying to do something that is truly different, special, and unique.
And that is more of the 21st century than what regulations that we're dealing with over the last number of years.
And we're making progress as a community in that respect.
We have met with city staff during the past seven months on multiple indications.
(Bell sounds)
I request just two minutes, please.
Staff and Ecogroup have been most successful in reaching agreement on all issues.
It takes leadership and boldness by companies like Ecogroup and others that are willing to take immense financial risk, coupled with elected official support, to share the vision for Tampa where the status quo is no longer acceptable.
We should be willing collectively as a community to acknowledge that we can indeed strive for equality of community life that challenges us to achieve exceptional and lofty goals.
Ecogroup has stepped up to the challenge.
We ask you the members of the City Council to join us.
Please be bold in your endorsement of the city's dream for this most significant project which will set the stage for Tampa's future in this Gateway waterfront community on the bay.
We think of waterfront communities and the country and what comes to mind are Baltimore's inner harbor, Seattle, Charleston, Vancouver, our neighbor.
These wonderful, wonderful waterfront cities didn't come what they are today by accepting the norm.
No, they achieved the uniqueness and culture of being wonderful by exactly the opposite.
The elected leadership and business community came together to achieve lofty goals, with a vision and an understanding of what can be achieved along with commitments to pursue the vision.
They demanded excellence and the leadership of the time said yes.
We must pursue this endeavor.
We ask you to do the same, to create a different Tampa waterfront future than in the past.
The status quo is not a goal worthy of our time.
Help us make a significant difference in the years to come.
For the citizenry of Tampa will enjoy a city that truly becomes unique and a significantly greater place that we all call home.
The vision for New Port Tampa Bay is a unique opportunity, a great city requires the leadership and vision, and New Port Tampa Bay is an important case in point.
Please be bold in your support where together we can make a significant difference in the future development of the city by the way.
If you work with us, we will make you and the City of Tampa proud.
Thank you.
>>CHAIRMAN: Any questions by council members?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Transportation staff?
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You heard Mr. Oschlager on the design on Bridge Street.
What would be your process that you would evaluate whether or not that round-about is appropriate there?
>>CALVIN THORNTON: We look at read ways, it's always been a balancing act.
In most cases whether it's a neighborhood, we move aggressively toward providing traffic calming.
This roadway will carry some capacity.
But at the same time it is a residential roadway.
And so it will definitely be a balancing act, because there will be residents who live along there.
They will want some calming.
They will want some ability to walk along and not be threatened by vehicles speeding up and down this roadway.
So it will be a balancing act that there will be some sort of calm in there.
What we are hoping to do, it does both.
It carries traffic as well as it provides some calming.
How it's going to look, some of the items that they have shown, we definitely do not like.
The traffic square, that is one that we are kind of having some discussion with, with them about.
Circles can work, and they do provide some calming.
They will have parking on both sides of it that provides some protection from pedestrians who are walk ago long sidewalks.
I think if council has something in mind that they want us to look at, we would be happy to look at it and kind of make it a condition of approval of the design of the roadway.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other question is a little bit off-site.
I made reference earlier that WCI out --
>>> with these it's always been about timing.
We had WCI aligned.
WCI driveway is approximately here.
Because one of the factors that we did not have -- it's here.
Because one of the factors we did not have at that particular time was this piece of property here.
So our concept with this was, there was two alternatives, one, Bridge Street coming straight through, one coming here, angling over and going up.
We have asked WCI, and they have aligned their driveway here.
>> Is that already constructed?
>>> It has been permitted, yes.
And it's under construction.
I think one of the things trying to align it more, it would be much more difficult to actually have it aligned more in line over here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why would we want this part of bridge then to go straight as opposed to jog a little bit and meet up with the WCI?
Wasn't that the whole point of doing that?
>>> That was one, but at the same time, when you look at the whole potential development of rattle snake point, there are other potential residential development that is could --.
>> I understand that.
That but right now I'm saying we have WCI.
So as we're looking at this project then, we can't change WCI, but we could suggest or propose a jog in Bridge Street that they could do today.
>>> Correct.
>> Mr. Cohen, have you guys addressed that?
Is there a reason that we are not doing that?
>>> Randy Coen again, I have been sworn.
As I had mentioned earlier, we worked long and hard with transportation staff on this issue.
We actually originally had Bridge Street lining up over here where WCI would have their driveway.
Once the applicant ended up taking control of the moody property, staff came back and felt it would be a better idea to bring bridge straight down.
So we have actually revised our plan to accommodate a staff request to have Bridge Street be straight all the way from Tyson up to --.
>> So there is a design somewhere that shows the jog?
>>> Yes, sir.
We originally had one.
One of the issues was simply the potential development on the remainder of the point to the west, trying to find the best access for everyone utilizing Bridge Street.
>> But if they are coming down rattlesnake point, they can come down anywhere.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: We really haven't decided the line.
We have both of them still on the books.
We have the alignment with WCI as well as the potential straight alignment.
That's something that is still one of the options that we have.
The alignment of this.
And maybe I wasn't clear.
Both alignments are still on the book.
It's just really which one is more preferable.
WCI is a gated community.
The only people who are going to benefit from WCI going down there, and to their community, will be those who give access to that gate.
>> I'm talking about exiting traffic.
>>> Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
>>> For the record, Ed Oschlager.
Councilman, we don't care, whichever way you prefer to do it, whatever council decides with respect to that alignment.
As was mentioned, we had previously shown it to line up with WCI where it curved around and lined up.
We've changed that.
But nothing is set in stone.
So we're happy to do that.
However, on the traffic round-about, I ask you, don't take my round-about away.
Go visit Italy government to Rome.
Go to Paris. The most wonderful cities.
Most wonderful cities in the world.
Roundabouts are wonderful.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Go to Channelside.
I was just going to ask Mr. Cohen, what other traffic devices?
The roundabout doesn't bother me at all.
One of the things that I think will be a huge traffic calming device because it's just going to be a visual aesthetic attraction that people are going to slow down to go around anyway.
We have the roundabout in Channelside.
The one that concerns me way more than this roundabout is when we are looking at the 40th street and 40th street is going to be six lanes and they are proposing a six-lane roundabout, two of them on 40th street. This roundabout, and this isn't even a blip on the radar screen as far as that's concerned.
For me.
Maybe for you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm okay with the roundabout in terms of staff.
I do want the alignment to line up with WCI, today, on this site plan.
If the petitioner hasn't indicate they had care, I care because I want the WCI people to have the option to use Bridge Street.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: One of the things that is more in line with a straight route.
This is the actual location of WCI.
The design of that road proceed north, then they have a traffic scare, which is a lovely traffic calming device.
I'll try to move you slowly up.
Then you have some driveways off the side.
Then you have a circle.
Then you have another traffic square that has an offset or jog in the roadway.
And so, they wanted some traffic calming out there.
Some of the alignments will create some unique traffic calming opportunities.
But one of our hopes is that this roadway is designed to move traffic, and so one of the ways to move traffic was to also make the alignment more of a straight shot.
But we'll be happy to do whatever council requests us to do on that alignment.
>>CHAIRMAN: We are going to go to the public.
Anyone in the public would that would like to speak on item number 17.
Please come up, line up and speak.
If you want to speak, come up rapidly.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please when you state your name reaffirm that you have been sworn and if you haven't, let us know.
>>> Marilyn Durst.
I have not been sworn.
I do have a speaker's waiver form for one extra minute.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Swear everybody.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in here that has not been sworn in please raise your hand.
All at once.
>>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Durst has a speakers waiver form with the name tara hood.
Is tara hood here, please?
Thank you.
One name, Madam Chair.
>>> Good evening, council, Madam Chairman.
Glad I took the time to listen to this and the very comprehensive explanation that's been given.
Way want to tell you is that I have come to know Ed Oschlager as someone who cares intensely about this community I'm delight delighted to tell you that I support this concept not 100 but 1,000 percent.
I would like to go on record here tonight as saying that I will be back to you to talk to you about how I view this development concept as not just a get way to South Tampa but as a gateway and a path to further progress, and that area of South Tampa, south of Bay to Bay Boulevard.
And as a means of addressing some of the traffic problems on Westshore Boulevard.
Additionally, I want to tell you that Shaun Donnolly apologized for not being able to be here tonight, and this is my time, I know, but he asked me to let you know that the South Westshore civic association supports this project as well.
One of the things that we discussed was the potential to alleviate some of the Westshore traffic, not only through Bridge Street, but through something that perhaps the city can discuss, which is possibly acquiring some CSX right-of-way in order to cut Tyson through from Westshore to Manhattan, where the widening will be completed in the very foreseeable future, and have another Avenue to offset traffic concerns on Westshore Boulevard.
So that's something I will be coming to you all and asking you to discuss, as well as Mr. Donnolly and several other leaders from that community.
We all know that widening Westshore north of Gandy is not an option.
There are too many residences that would be impacted.
So we have to look at our creative ways to impact.
Another thing that we need to be talking about is revisiting some old, old, dusty cobweb covered discussions about perhaps rail transportation from South Tampa.
As a mass transit option.
And it's something that would be so easy to do.
We have the rail infrastructure there.
We just an open dialogue with CSX and some of the potential rail transportation vendors.
These are some of the things that we are going to be coming back to you and discussing probably beginning with the -- when the moody property comes up here before you.
I see this as an opportunity to change that portion of South Tampa and bring it into the 21st century, to make it a vital, a vibrant, and a youthful community.
This is several years down the road.
And it's difficult for some people to grasp something they are not going to see happen for several years.
I think Mr. Oschlager has done a very good job of providing us with various vignettes to make it a little easier for us, on the other hand.
He's also gone out of his way to provide that to us in the communities.
But I want to tell you that Mr. Oschlager is very modest in talking about what he has done with regard to putting his money where his mouth is.
I hope he's not going to come kick when I tell you this.
He became aware through some conversation with the president of the high school that there was a dire financial need to assist the teachers there, and without missing a beat, he wrote a check for $10,000 to those people.
Robinson high school has some of the finest potential in the student community in South Tampa.
They have graduated valedictorians and other ordinary students with grade point averages exceeding 6-point.
I don't know about you all when I was in high school you were a star if you had a 4-point grade point average.
These are outstanding incredible kids, and Mr. Oschlager has taken the initiative to step to the plate and say, I believe in you people.
I got Mr. Oschlager to stand as the model for the type of corporate neighbors we need in South Tampa.
I'm sorry, Mr. White, did you have a question?
I'm sorry.
I urge every community in South Tampa to support this project, to support this developer, not to strain over specific minute details, but to use this opportunity to come to you, our representatives, and to our city staff, and elected leaders.
(Bell sounds)
Do I have one more minute?
No, I'm up to. Bring the rest of the community up to par with this.
Thank you so much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Good evening.
My name is Bob Curtis.
I have been sworn.
I reside at 4623 San Jose street.
I'm here tonight speaking from the neighborhood.
I am the president and one of the owners of Viper Ventures.
We are probably, I guess, outside of the Ecogroup, the largest land holders in the area.
We had the piece of property at the end of Tyson street on the north side, which is an operating port, and we also own the facility that houses west ship, and I'm here tonight to speak in favor of this proposal.
We very much believe that even though we have viable heavy industrial businesses down the street, that we very much believe that this entire area is in great need of redevelopment, and a change.
I, like many people, would like to drive over Gandy Boulevard and see something other than the to you theory sits on our property, and to see something nicer than that as a gateway to Tampa and Gateway to South Tampa.
I live just off of Westshore Boulevard, so I'm not I am Mann to the traffic concerns.
But understand that that's what comes with development.
And I think that this project, as well as hopefully the future development of the rest of the area, will offset those traffic concerns.
So as a large industrial neighbor -- and I have got tone know Ed very well and I can also attest that he has been wonderful in communicating and share sharing ideas and sharing concepts throughout this process.
I have got tone know him fairly well myself.
And seeing some of the things that he's done in the past, and I have every confidence that what he will do will be something that we can all be proud of as citizens of Tampa, and as folks who live in the area.
Mr. Dingfelder knows that we have been concerned long before tonight about the issue of Bridge Street, and I have discussed that with him, so we are very pleased to see that happening.
And even the concepts that the lady before me spoke about with the CSX traffic through to Manhattan, something that I have personally spoken to city staff, transportation about.
So it's very heartening to hear that a lot of the ideas, and I think good ideas, are coming together and coalescing about in and around this area, and it's exciting to see the redevelopment.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Next.
>>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
It's good to see you all tonight.
For the record, my name is Al Steenson, 4100 west Lela, Tampa, Florida.
Let me emphasize something at the onset something that you already know.
Our neighborhood and indeed the entire area south of Gandy is faced with an extreme dilemma unbridled growth and failing infrastructure.
To expand on that, I can't remember a single petition in this area having been denied in the last three years.
The issue tonight, before you tonight, is extremely important, in the entire community, in the Westshore corridor, for that matter, the entire area of South Tampa.
It was for that reason that last Thursday night we asked for a continuance.
Our request was denied, and was, in my opinion, character resisted unfairly as a delaying tactic: For the record, many outstanding issues have been addressed this week as well as several hours of side bars out here last Thursday night.
This petition is very ambitious and very grandiose, and, if approved, will forever change the character appearance and flavor of this area of South Tampa.
This will be a major Gateway and a cornerstone of our community.
It's extremely important, or should I say imperative, that the city, the developer and the surrounding community get it right.
Our association, as Mr. Oschlager said, has had quite a bit of dialogue with these people.
We had a board meeting, two membership meetings, many e-mails, lots of phone conversation conversations.
They have been very cooperative.
And let me state that we are not opposed to the thousand units.
I personally have some reservations regarding the combined nonresidential space of 245,000 square feet.
To put that in perspective, that is larger than a Lowe's and Home Depot put together.
The development plan as we know is a contract between y'all, us, and all of these folks here.
And needs to spell out exactly what the developer is planning.
It's not a site plan.
It's a general development plan.
This is a PD-A which by its very nature is conceptual.
And therein lies the problem.
It is mostly because for many folks to get a handle on what will be thereupon completion.
As I said, we're not objecting to the thousand units.
But it's difficult to endorse a concept without having it at least a better picture of what is to come.
We've seen diagrams tonight and those are all fine.
Many of these issues will be dealt at the permitting level, and at that point it becomes outside the public scrutiny.
There's in a public hearings on those.
I don't know if those economic figures that they showed, this FIAM study are going to hold true.
But if they do, what we seek from this council, the administration and the staff, that funds only forthcoming to remedy the poorly maintained and failing infrastructure in this area.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: You need to wrap it up.
>>> In paragraph two of the letter that I submitted to council last week, it states right in there what we're looking for is a proactive partnership between the city, the developer, the community.
And that has not changed.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Thank you very much.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the record, sir, you were sworn in, is that correct?
>>> Yes, I was.
I'm sorry.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
May I ask a question?
Not of you, sir, but of city staff to follow up on a question that you raised.
I'd like to ask a question.
>>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Coyle.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Or our attorney.
And the question has to do with the PD-A and the fact it is very schematic.
At what point will council and/or the neighborhood and community have an opportunity if this were to be approved to look more specifically at the scale of the buildings, the massing, the -- you know, the proposal before us?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Through the PDA process if this is approved they are not required to come back to council, unless they go outside of the parameters of the plan, come through incremental plan review, each stage or each phase of this project is brought before staff.
It's almost like the DRC review that they go through on a regular PD.
It's just internal, though. We compare the plan that was done, and we look at the entitlements that were given, compared to the phase that they are giving us.
Such as new Tampa.
>> Which is exactly why I am concerned about this.
Because if we approve this conceptually, for a certain amount of massing and scale, number of units -- not massing and scale, just a certain number of units, then council and the public only get to look at it if they want to change something over what's approved.
For example, I don't even exactly see on this, or maybe I'm not looking at it properly, where they say, you know, this building is going to be this height, or there are going to be so many units.
>>> The heights are set by the FAA on this particular plan.
They haven't set a particular height.
>> Well, the pictures that appear to us say conceptual, subject to change.
>>> That's correct.
On page 2 it says the exact same thing.
>> So do we have anything that we can really sink our teeth into, or could we build in some opportunity for the community and for council to have further scrutiny of this project?
>>> You could certainly ask for more specific items at this time to be placed on the plan that are binding, for us to do our review later on.
It's not typical that we come back before you at any phase of the PDA.
I don't know that that's ever happened.
Once it's approved, it's approved.
You ask could ask for more specific detail at this point, though.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next, please.
>>> Good evening.
I have been sworn in.
Michael Arcey, West Tyson.
Presently I'm the president of Sun Bay civic association, Sun Bay South.
I want to cover just a couple of issues.
The first one is regarding the traffic.
This development is in a TCDA area, and, therefore, doesn't have to meet any of the con currencies.
But the only responsibility of the developer is to mitigate any impacts this development has in that area.
Through the presentation, we have discussed solely with the development itself, internal, but nothing on the perimeter.
And that's more where the association has a lot of reservations and concerns.
This being the case, we are seeking the commitment from the city to try and place this area in that Westshore corridor in the high priority as outlined in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan.
Also, to implement traffic control devices as needed in order to minimize traffic intrusion, protect the neighborhoods from any adverse impacts of through traffic, later down the road in this development.
And finally is that depicted in the financial of the economic impact, we're also seeking commitment from the city to reinvest money generated from this development back into the neighborhoods along the entire Westshore corridor.
Secondly involves the potable water issue.
As noted in number 5 on the most recent plan that I have from last Thursday, the general development plan, the potable water and sanitary sewer is by the City of Tampa, and according to the water department's response, I guess from staff, on this particular petition, there were no water concerns at the time, and I started sending e-mails and having dialogue with the water department.
And from that e-mail, it noted, and I believe it's one I submitted last week, it's quite probable that the off-site improvements may be required to maintain flow and pressure in this particular development.
And my question to the city is, you know, what are these effects on the existing neighborhood?
What will these costs be for the improvements?
And who is responsible for these improvements?
I mean, this is a joint venture between an association, the developer, and our city.
And we're trying to move forward.
Everybody has a role and an obligation in this.
Those roles and obligations need to be identified and addressed, and you may not have an implementation in place, but this is, as it's noted and been described, is a conceptual development.
And is there any reason that we can't ensure that any of our public services that really haven't been addressed are addressed and identified with the appropriate responsibilities, and actions, corrective actions, if those can be identified on this particular general development plan?
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Time is up.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You bring up some good points.
And let me go ahead and ask staff to try and respond.
Actually, Mr. Marchetti, did your engineers look to see where the closest significant water main was, where you anticipate tying in?
>>> Marchetti: Actually, I just asked Scott that question.
>>> Actually, we have an application to the City of Tampa for a structure-only permit.
I'm sorry, no infrastructure permit.
What it is is basically to get them to committee to the demands of the project and tell us where the points of tie-in will be.
We went out with Tom Kuhns and Anthony of the wastewater department to discuss these issues, because when know it's going to be something that is going to be important for our development, because we certainly don't want to build towers when we can't provide water to the top floor of the tower.
So we need to maintain pressures, and there are 12 inch mains on Gandy, and the Westshore, actually creating a loop rate now where there is some dead-end, so will probably help with some of the flows and pressures in the area.
>> And any off-site requirements in that regard are going to have to be paid for by the develop er?
>>> Yes, there's actually -- we are going to be extending a main from the pump station, sanitary pump station on-site and an extension over to our point of connection, because the first mains in the vicinity of our project are not up to capacity to accept the flows that will be coming from this project.
So there are going to be some off-site improvements for us to get the demand that is we need.
>> Be careful of that sewer pipe because that's the one that backed up last year, in the back yards of those people on Paxton.
I'm sure you'll be hearing more about that as you discuss it with them.
Oh, the other question I had was transportation.
When you said about half the traffic will be going out to Gandy through Bridge, Mr. Coen, where does the other half of the traffic go?
>> Substantial amount uses Westshore.
There will still be traffic using Westshore.
Coming out on Tyson.
Tyson is our connection point to Westshore.
Bridge is our connection point to Gandy.
>> Is there a --
>>> no, but we are required to put one in.
>> Tyson and Westshore?
>>> Wells bridge and Tyson.
>> So you see some of your southern residents circling out that way?
>>> Simply easier for them to go in that fashion.
That's why we are required to put signalization.
>> Some of your mod else show traffic going past those side streets?
>>> No, what it actually shows primarily, the number of those streets are Imperial.
We are dealing with just that development within Hendry.
Will some people use those streets?
Of course we will.
We have actual assigned a very small amount of traffic to those.
Predominantly going to Gandy, east-west, to Gandy to go east, west or north.
That's just the nature of it.
Virtually none of the traffic in the models go south.
>> Isn't Westshore and Gandy still a constrained intersection?
>>> Yes.
The DOT is coming out with improvements that I believe are scheduled for next year that will have a significant improvement will it make it a wonderful intersection?
No, it won't.
Has this developer paid mitigation paved on what it takes to make that a great intersection?
Yes, they have.
That's part of the $1.2 mitigation fee they have to pay beyond all the improvements they are doing.
>> Has there been discussion about widening this part of Westshore?
>>> We have had discussion was the city, and that's why we are providing stormwater for the potential widening of it.
City staff is looking at potential of widening Westshore to the south of Gandy to four lanes.
They recently did the three lanes, realize there may be a fairly new feature for four laning.
They we believe we have the right-of-way provided for it provided that stormwater can be handled in the fashion we are doing.
WCI is also doing the same thing as I understand it for that portion of best shore, south of Tyson.
We are taking a lot of the issues as we go along.
>> There was a comment made by one of the neighbors who said, of course we can't widen Westshore north of Gandy.
I don't know that that's necessarily true.
>>> Physically, it can be widened.
Politically is a different story altogether.
It was originally at one point in time on the MPO's long rain plan as a potential four lane roadway.
It was removed as I understand from the MPO plan, only showing as a two-lane roadway sews so there's an awful lot of hurdles that would have to be crossed to extend as a four lane.
>> It could be a three-lane and there's right-of-way for it.
>>> Yes.
And that's something that's contemplated, I believe if you will, at least by Georgetown, some of the discussions that I have heard there. There are three lane sections north of Gandy at this point and that is a very possible situation.
>>> My name is Ralph Lambert and I have been sworn.
And I have no credentials as a traffic expert.
But I have lived south of Gandy for over 66 years so maybe I have on-the-job training.
I don't know.
I do not oppose the project, but I am concerned about the impact that it as well as all the previously approved projects south of Gandy will have on the traffic in the area.
At the present time, in the morning and in the afternoon -- I live on Ballast Point which is four blocks south of Gandy.
You can't even get out unless somebody let's you out.
It's backed up all the way past four blocks.
And then, also, on the north side, Ballast Point -- I mean, from Gandy to Kennedy, backs up just about -- particularly at quitting time, both going north and south.
And what's happening, also, south of Gandy on Westshore, the people, he mentioned people may be cutting through.
They are cutting through now.
People that, like I say, four blocks.
So they are starting to go through Ballast Point, all of the different streets, to bypass the light at Gandy, go to Renalli and then go whichever way they want to go.
So all this is happening now.
What's it going to be like when WCI, Phillips, which nobody mentioned, legacy park, and also Imperial, the 751s there, and maybe Georgetown in the future, but all of those that I just mentioned feed into Westshore.
Now Bridge Street, the roundabout, and businesses on each side, nobody in their right mind, unless they want to stop to buy an ice cream cone, are going to go and take Bridge Street instead of Westshore.
But either way, once they get to Gandy, where do you go?
From Gandy, if you want to go to St. Pete, you're in good shape.
You can hit the bridge and go.
If you want to go to the east to Manhattan, MacDill, Dale Mabry, Bayshore, you have got to have a little backup.
Manhattan, it still gets you where?
You either take it later on to get to Westshore, or you take it to Dale Mabry.
Westshore is the only answer.
I know people there will fight tooth and nail.
But there is plenty of easement and right-of-way to at least have a turn lane.
If you're going down Westshore and you get behind the garbage truck, the postman, even on a good day, it just backs up.
And all these people aren't going to work and live in all these projects that are south of Gandy.
They are going to be traveling.
It's amazing.
In the paper, a couple Sundays ago, the Phillips project mentioned, Casabella, mentioned how great it was, the site provides access to downtown Tampa, Gandy Boulevard, Lee Roy Selmon Expressway, and interstate 275, as well as to the airport and upscale shopping.
So convenient.
I really don't know if this is truth in advertising or not.
I don't know how convenient it's going to be for anybody that lives south of there to go north.
So I would like to suggest the city permits this revenue and taxes and all these fees that are going to be generated, this 200 some million dollar that have to be generated over the next few years, to increase the infrastructure on south Gandy -- I mean, on south and north of Gandy.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> I would like to -- one other thing.
I would also like --.
>>GWEN MILLER: You have to wrap it up.
>>> Place a moratorium on approving any more multifamily units on Gandy until the infrastructure can handle it.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Good evening.
For the record my name is Michael Grats, 946 Hemingway circle.
I have been sworn in.
I'm the chief financial officer for Tampa Bay side marina.
We are on Tyson Avenue.
And we are neighbors with Ecogroup's new project.
Our two principal owners of the marina have known Ed Oschlager for over 15 years, are familiar with Ed's developments as we are developers ourselves.
I can state they are a first class residential community builder.
We believe this development will be Ed's finest project to date.
We are in favor of this development and support rezoning this property to residential mixed use.
My partners and I believe Ed stands behind what he says.
His track record in real estate development proves his residential communities are first class.
We also believe Ed's development record speak to his being a first-class person.
We support this project.
I thank you for your time this evening.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Mine is short, too.
My name is Missy Steadman.
I have been sworn in.
I live at 3401 Mullin Avenue.
I don't think I have ever been before City Council as an advocate for a South Tampa project, but I feel strongly about this project.
Change is difficult for any city.
The City of Tampa has seen major growth spurts in the last several years.
It is difficult for many residents.
And I can appreciate that.
The information I have researched on the New Port Tampa project is most impressive.
Any impact of this project, the creation of new jobs, and, more importantly, the addition of the new marina cannot be ignored.
For a city as large as Tampa, which is surrounded by water, there is limited marina space and this void would be reduced with the addition of a new marina.
Our family can speak firsthand of the quality of work Mr. Oschlager develops.
We have purchased property which Mr. Oschlager has developed. The project was completed on time, all work on the contract was completed as originally presented to us.
More importantly, the construction site was always, always neat and orderly.
And the completed project was beautiful, with lush and appropriate landscaping.
The existing property is an embarrassment, I feel, to the city.
It is unsightly.
And one of three areas, which bridges Pinellas County to Hillsborough, New Port Tampa would create a welcoming, stunning Gateway to Tampa which we can take pride, and an area which residents can utilize one of our greatest natural resources -- our waterfront.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Petitioner?
Do you want rebuttal?
Marchetti: Thank you very much.
On the infrastructure issues, Rhonda addressed those previously.
Councilman addressed that.
Ed is going to address the local community.
>>> Randy Coen: Transportation, always a subject of concern, always an important issue.
In this particular case, I'm personally happy to be working with this project.
They are making a number of improvements.
Bridge street extension.
Extending the trail itself.
Signals that are required.
They'll put them in when they are warranted.
In addition to that, they are also providing all of the money for the mitigation of all of the improvements that will be necessary to return this area to level of service D, which is the requirement in this area.
They are paying substantially more than their share.
They were paying their share and doing the Bridge Street improvement.
The traffic significant that will issue themselves.
Taking the stormwater from Westshore, as well as dealing with the trail itself and providing that amenity.
So I think they are more than addressing transportation mitigation on this particular project from a professional standpoint and city staff.
>>> Ed: Very quickly, I want to refer to you note 42 that deals with the mitigation amount, transportation mitigation, and the note does detail that this amount of money will be identified, is to be spent in the general vicinity of the site.
One of the things that we would certainly be in favor of, I don't know how we can do it, but we are in favor of it, and that is, some of the ad valorem dollars in this project should you approve it, we would certainly be in favor of directing some of those dollars into this area to solve some of these surface water management and transportation issues.
Thank you.
>> Vincent Marchetti: Thank you, council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
Mr. Marchetti, traffic.
It's unusual for us to actually see the actual dollar amount, the transportation impact fee item 42.
It concerns me a little bit that the exact dollar amount is on the site plan, because if something changes slightly, that might change that calculation, then what does that do to your site plan?
I think whatever it is, it is.
And it doesn't -- I'm glad that the percentages of contribution, you know, phased in are there, in number 42.
But I just want to alert you, that has a little bit of concern to me.
I don't know if we have legal staff here, or if Ms. Coyle -- Morris, you're hiding behind that chart there.
>>> If I can address that first.
That's not an impact fee number.
That's proportionate share, calculation number that's then determined based on our unit calculations and overall project, and the city and Randy Coen have come up with that number.
That's a number that's been agreed upon.
>> The amount related to a thousand units?
>>CALVIN THORNTON: No, this is mitigation money above and beyond transportation impact fee.
They still have their transportation impact fee exposure.
Now if some of this mitigation money is used for capacity improvement, it could be used for credit.
But if it's used for other, they still have to pay transportation impact fee.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay that. Wasn't clear to me.
I appreciate you clearing that up.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to tell you, I think you all have done a great presentation.
I feel so much better about this project now that I've seen it.
The thing that still makes me nervous, and that maybe you can reassure me, I hope you can reassure me, is that this is a PD-A, and you're asking for all kind of waivers still from the size protective radiuses at the base of trees, to the space you need in parking spaces.
And I want to feel like council and the community has a sense of what these buildings are going to look like, what the public spaces are going to look like.
And Mr. Steenson's letter, he asks a really good question, which is the site plan does not require that the developer provide pedestrian amenities that they are currently promoting, look on note 23.
We ask that City Council require the developer to provide a firm commitment and timetable for the amenities along the waterfront, and to include a commitment from the developer or property owner to fund the ongoing upkeep and maintenance of public areas.
Maybe it's on there and I just didn't get it but it looked like it was crossed through.
Number 23 looked like it was X 'ed out.
Was it just on mine it was X'ed out?
>>> Marchetti again.
Number 23 we actually took Mr. Steenson's comments in consideration during the past week.
We modified the note.
It specifically states landscape amenities will be provided along the waterfront as part of a linear park running north-south along the uplands property adjacent to the bay, upon completion this linear park will be open to the public as a pedestrian esplanade, the proposed amenities may be included but not limited to gazebos, cost of these amendments in linear park to be performed by the planned community district.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's great.
Do we have any more reassurance about height?
Ed: The height issue, we have had preliminary discussions with the FAA, and the Tampa port authority, and it's not definitive yet.
But I can tell you that we're not talking about a 40-story building.
We're probably talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 to 18 stories, at a maximum.
And that may differ in different locations on the site.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
You're asking to waive a lot of the like landscaping and parking lots and things like that.
I cannot really tell from this.
Is all the parking internal except for the parking at the street?
Do you have surface parking lots that just don't have any trees in them?
>>> We really don't have surface parking lots per se.
All of the condominium buildings have parking internal to the project.
We have extensive parking along the esplanade, along the waterfront.
>> Great.
>>> We have a parking structure that will be part of the retail village center.
We are looking at and probably will have another parking structure that you won't even know is there out on the peninsula where you have to park on top of a structure, as well as perhaps the restaurants.
So there will be adequate parking.
Hopefully, you won't see it.
But it will be there.
>> Great.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You probably said this in the beginning, Ms. Coyle, but are the conditions that we have here the same or better than what we obtained in Imperial?
Did you all compare them?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: They are similar.
I would say some of the designer things are actually better.
I'm hearing obviously adjacent to Westshore, so we have the additional stormwater treatment, and, you know, whatever.
I don't know all that stuff.
There are additional things, technical things we got.
>> But is that the framework that we started with Imperial?
>>> Essentially, yes.
>> Does anybody recall?
I thought there was a height limitation in Imperial, in the ultimate one.
>>> I personally -- I did the one in 2001, and I thought it was around 200 feet.
My recollection is that it was lowered by the FAA, actually.
>>> Randy Coen.
I'll answer the question since I was involved in Imperial.
Ultimately it has the same note as on this plan, height is limited by FAA.
It is likely that that height will be somewhere around 200 feet or less.
But that's the same condition that's on Imperial.
And you're absolutely right, the conditions we started out with on this project were very similar, not identical to those on Imperial.
Staff worked with us, and frankly beat us up where they thought they should and ended up with tighter conditions, more things coming from this project than from Imperial sing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since the developer had objection, I would like to the Bridge Street note number 32 amended to just say that it would ultimately line up with the WCI.
I didn't hear any objection from the developer on that.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.
I don't remember the conversation, but that's okay.
It says that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just somewhere in 32.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Oh, okay.
The only additional thing I had, I believe the developer stated that the units were 850 instead of a thousand.
I just wanted that clarified for the record so I knew.
The units were reduced to 850 because the moody parcel was coming in.
It shows --
>> They are reduced now?
>>> That's way wasn't sure.
Because if it's a thousand and the moody comes in and gets approved more, it's more than a thousand.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's get a clarification.
>>> Marchetti.
I think what was said, given the complaint relative to a thousand units on both parcels, obviously moody is not before us is this evening.
Ed is willing to reduce his request down to 850.
>> Tonight?
>>> If council would like to do that.
Yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The reassurance that was provided by parking, about if it's not going to be surface parking except lining the streets, it's going to be structured parking, is that in here?
There are a lot of references to parking on here.
But is it codified?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I do want to clarify when it comes to landscaping, they are not asking for waiver to green space requirements in vehicle use areas.
All they are doing is reducing the planting beds that could potentially hold the trees that are required.
They still will be required 20% of the vehicle area to be green.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why reduce the planting beds?
>>CATHY COYLE: I can't answer that.
It may be the type of tree.
>>> Greg Yurcus, staff, and I have been sworn in.
With regards to the planting beds, a lot of that came in conjunction, Scott and I discussed it, with the Friendship Trail being as wide as it is, it's not a regular size walkway.
So you are going to have a reduced area because they had to make room for the right-of-way for the Friendship Trail.
And that's why they have asked for palm trees in those areas because it's more conducive to that smaller planting bed, and the reduction of the radius, there's a minimum size in the landscape code that says a minimum 4 foot radius and minimum landscape that will be 8 feet by 16 feet.
So the 4 foot radius is only for those beds that they are asking for reduction of proposed trees.
So it's consistent.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There are tons of notes.
I was just looking --.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: There's nothing in 38.
In the parking garages, and stalls be provided.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want something that's that says it's going to be structured and they are not going to have surface lots.
>>> Well, there are parking lots.
I mean, there are going to be some.
The end of that note says there are parking lots around.
Ed: Let me try to clarify that.
In terms of the potential of high-rise structures, that parking will all be internal to those buildings.
There is some mid rise product that has some surface parking, that's primarily what he would see as the lake properties these not on the waterfront that will have some surface parking.
>> Is all the surface parking landscaped to standard?
Because I thought I read you were trying to get rid of --
>>> no, no.
>> The landscape buffering, and visual buffering.
>>> No, the landscaping is a very, very integral, important part of what we are going to do.
We understand --
>> You're not waiving any landscape buffers?
>>> And Scott Sheridan can speak to the waiver requirements.
But I can assure you from an overall project, we are going to be spending a small fortune on landscaping.
One of the things, for example, that I'm not real happy about is that we have a 12-foot Friendship Trail.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm glad you accepted it.
But I want to make sure that the plans say that you are going to do all the landscaping that you're required to do with surface parking lots.
>>> I believe it does.
I'm not an expert there. Someone else can speak to that.
What I started to say was, an 8-foot Friendship Trail would be fine, plus another four feet of landscaping on Bridge Street.
So it's going to be a difficult situation.
But we will certainly do it the very best way we can.
>>> Scott Sheridan, engineer.
The site plan here shows, there's a considerable amount -- there's considerable amount of green space on the project.
Like I said earlier, as Greg mentioned, in those areas adjacent to Bridge Street, adjacent to Friendship Trail, and as you see in the far section when the sections -- the buildings are up against the roadway, the right-of-way.
So we are merely asking to relocate that green space.
We have 30% requirement, on-site, to be relocated, and some of the sections at Bridge Street.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to add to what Ms. Coyle said about the PDA, the purpose and -- definition and purpose of a PDA district is to allow for the conceptual level of approval for PD districts, thereby maintaining design flexibility for large projects with lengthy projected schedules, while ensuring ultimate compliance with the requirements of this article. The project is approved in two steps, a conceptual site plan as approved by the City Council, and subsequent detail site plan, and that's discussed later on in the section.
Prior to commencement of the development on any portion of the PDA zoned district, the developer shall submit a detailed site development plan for approval by the zoning administrator.
A detailed site plan development may be submitted either for the entire development or on any portion therefore, and the zoning administrator shall review the detail site plan to determine its compliance to W conceptual site development plan, and with the guidelines and standards established in the plan, and established by the City Council at a time of site development plan approval.
If requested the developer shall provide transportation to show compliance with the conceptual site development plan.
And following the review the administrator shall either approve or disapprove said plan.
In the event of the zoning administrator disapproval, the detailed site plan may be revised and resubmitted to the staff for further review, or may be submitted upon appeal to the City Council of the City of Tampa for final determination.
The City Council may approve the detailed site plan development -- excuse me, the detail site development plan, approve it with changes or disapprove it and it does come back to council, it would be as a result of a denial by the zoning administrator.
But it the zoning administrator's role to review the site plan for compliance with the conceptual plan, and the standards established by council.
I hope that clarifies it for you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5107 southwest Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification CI commercial intensive and CG commercial intensive, including boat, sails, service, repairs, and single-family residential, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Question on the motion?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a quick comment.
I think this, I guess Imperial, were the only PDAs that I have been involved in that I can recall.
They sort of involve a leap faith.
And I really don't care much for leaps of faith especially with the responsibility that we have.
However, I think that the developer, working with our staff, and his staff, have done a very extensive and exhaustive job of creating many, many conditions, that I believe have answered many of our questions.
Also, I have heard for the last at least six months or more of Mr. Oschlager's reputation and his company Ecogroup in southwest Florida, and in this area, and his personal reputation.
So with that, I'm willing to take a leap of faith.
It looks like it's going to be a phenomenonal project, or wonderful project.
I only hope it's as good as it's been said to be tonight.
So I wish you luck.
>> We have a motion and second on the floor.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Thank you.
>> Move to receive and file all document.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: One business we did last week, Mr. Dingfelder had to abstain.
Make a motion that the council prepare a letter to send to Senator Sebesta in support of public transportation commission and what they do.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I will abstain.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, we had a request for tax money generated from this be spent in the Westshore area.
Are we able to offer that in some way to the administration as something that we consider tonight?
Morris?
Shhh.
My question is this.
We have heard from the community they would like some of the tax money doctor this development to be spent to address their infrastructure problems.
Can we somehow address that to the administration?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: There's no way, I don't believe, that you can legally say general ad valorem dollars must be spent in the specific area.
Obviously through the budget process, you all have acted onto what projects the city is going to fund.
So obviously, you know, you have that input through approving the budgets, and what capital budget projects are approved through the budget process.
I think that's the vehicle for City Council to get that done.
I really do.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thanks.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just one question.
I wasn't here last week. I did watch most of the meeting but didn't watch all of it.
I think it's a fair question to ask.
This is what was Mr. Dingfelder's abstention based on.
Can somebody tell me that?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just getting ready to put that on the record.
Our law firm has done work in the past, I don't know that we are doing any right this second, for the PTC, and so I feel a little uncomfortable, and in abundance of caution as you do, Rose, I'll abstain, thank you.
>> I just wanted to know because I wasn't here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?
Oh, we had a motion.
Did we get a second?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Anything else to come before council?
We stand adjourned.
(City Council adjourned at 11:08 p.m.)