Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council

Thursday, January 26, 2006

5:30 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 was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

17:46:41

17:46:41

17:46:41

17:46:41

17:46:41

17:46:41

17:46:41 [Sounding gavel]

17:46:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.

17:46:43 The chair will yield to Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.

17:46:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

17:46:48 It's my pleasure tonight to introduce Gail White, very

17:46:57 involved with worthwhile organizations and I thank you

17:46:59 for being here tonight.

17:47:00 Let us all stand for her words and remain standing for

17:47:03 the pledge of allegiance.

17:47:07 >>> Thank you, Linda.

17:47:08 It's an honor for me to be asked to offer the

17:47:10 invocation for your meeting tonight.

17:47:13 Linda and I have known each other since before she was

17:47:15 married.

17:47:16 She and her dear mother blessed memory and I were in

17:47:21 exercise class at the North Boulevard rec center back

17:47:24 in the '80s.

17:47:27 My husband Paul and our son Paul Jr. and I moved to

17:47:30 Tampa in 1982, when my employer opened their

17:47:36 administrative offices here.

17:47:37 When we came there was only one tall building

17:47:39 downtown.

17:47:41 Our son started school at Tampa prep and we soon found




17:47:44 out what a welcoming community Tampa was.

17:47:47 My husband was asked to serve on Tampa prep and I was

17:47:50 hired as the first development director.

17:47:53 We had the pleasure of helping to build what is today

17:47:55 a first class prep school in this city.

17:47:58 We found that the same spirit allowed to us help us

17:48:02 build the Lowry Park zoo help start the Florida

17:48:05 Aquarium and now help create academy prep school, and

17:48:09 all scholarship middle school for kids in the inner

17:48:11 city. The Tampa community invited us to serve on the

17:48:14 boards of the community foundation and WEDU, and the

17:48:18 Franciscan center.

17:48:19 If you raise your hand in Tampa, you're involved.

17:48:23 The communities we lived in before coming to Tampa,

17:48:26 Chicago, where we were born and raised, everyone's

17:48:29 dream city, San Francisco, and the struggling Toledo,

17:48:34 Ohio, already had most things you expect in a city --

17:48:37 established quality schools, both public and private,

17:48:40 zoos, aquariums, museums, and performing arts centers.

17:48:45 These institutions had already been built by others.

17:48:48 We feel so blessed to have been part of helping Tampa

17:48:52 develop these precious assets as well.




17:48:55 And there was something else we experienced in

17:48:57 Tampa -- religious fervor. Whether it was the many

17:49:02 Christian denominations or Jewish or one of the many

17:49:06 spiritual expressions, people in Tampa are involved in

17:49:08 their faith.

17:49:10 Because of this special Tampa quality, we have been

17:49:12 more involved in our church.

17:49:14 We are members of ecumenical prayer groups, and I have

17:49:17 served on the board of the center for Catholic Jewish

17:49:20 studies for several years.

17:49:21 The center's mission states: In a world of increasing

17:49:25 religious intolerance, misinformation, and

17:49:28 misunderstanding, the center, its boards and friends,

17:49:33 commit themselves with passionate urgency to build

17:49:37 mutual respect, understanding, and appreciation

17:49:40 between Jews and Catholics.

17:49:43 And so, revered council members, on behalf of my

17:49:46 family and the citizens of Tampa, and the

17:49:49 organizations that serve them, I would like to thank

17:49:52 you for committing your time and making the effort to

17:49:55 help make Tampa the wonderful city it is.

17:49:58 I humbly ask you all to join me in prayer.




17:50:04 Creator of the universe, how amazing is this world in

17:50:09 which we live!

17:50:11 We thank you for the gift of life and for the

17:50:14 opportunity to live in Tampa, Florida.

17:50:18 As members of the City Council, we understand what an

17:50:21 awesome responsibility we have to make decisions which

17:50:26 are wise, welcoming, fair, and kind.

17:50:31 We understand our limitations, and therefore ask for

17:50:35 your help that all that we say, decide, and do, be

17:50:42 what is best for the people we serve.

17:50:45 Give us merciful and loving hearts, keen minds open to

17:50:50 new ideas, without putting aside sound values.

17:50:56 Give us a spirit of gratitude, and grant us the

17:50:59 courage of our convictions, without forgetting that

17:51:04 our task is to be the voice for all the people of our

17:51:07 community.

17:51:09 Help to us strive to make Tampa the best place for

17:51:13 everyone to live.

17:51:15 This is our prayer.

17:51:17 Amen.

17:51:17

17:51:21 (Pledge of Allegiance).




17:51:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.

17:51:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)

17:51:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

17:51:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response.)

17:51:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: (No response.)

17:51:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

17:51:50 Mr. Shawn is attending a meeting.

17:51:53 Mr. John Dingfelder will not be here tonight.

17:51:57 We will hold number one and come back until we get

17:52:00 another council member.

17:52:01 We need a super majority of votes.

17:52:03 So we are going to go to item number 2.

17:52:05 We need to open the public hearing.

17:52:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So moved.

17:52:07 >> Second.

17:52:08 (Motion carried).

17:52:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.

17:52:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.

17:52:16 Tonight's hearings are all quasi-judicial proceedings.

17:52:20 So I would ask that all written communications

17:52:22 relative to today's hearings that have been available

17:52:27 to the public be received and filed at this time.




17:52:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public going to

17:52:31 speak on item 1 or 2?

17:52:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before do you that could you make a

17:52:35 motion to receive and file.

17:52:38 >> So moved.

17:52:38 >> Second.

17:52:38 (Motion carried).

17:52:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 2, just a reminder if any

17:52:42 member of City Council has any ex parte verbal

17:52:45 communication was any petitioner, his or her

17:52:47 representative or any members of the public in

17:52:48 connection with any of tonight's hearings, that that

17:52:50 member should disclose the identity of the person with

17:52:54 whom that verbal communication occurred and the

17:52:56 substance of that verbal communication.

17:52:58 And now with regard to swearing in witnesses.

17:53:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Those who want to speak on item 1 and

17:53:03 2, would you please stand and raise your right hand?

17:53:07 >>THE CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole

17:53:12 truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

17:53:14

17:53:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.




17:53:22 >> So moved.

17:53:22 >> Second.

17:53:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open the public

17:53:24 hearing.

17:53:24 (Motion carried).

17:53:28 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Manager historic preservation here

17:53:30 on item number 2 which is the first reading for the

17:53:33 addition of St. Peter Claver school to the local

17:53:37 landmark group of the African-American heritage sites.

17:53:40 I do have a PowerPoint presentation for you.

17:53:47 Are you seeing that on your screens?

17:53:51 We don't have it.

17:53:53 We are not seeing it on our screens.

17:53:56 >>GWEN MILLER: You need to put the PowerPoint on for

17:53:58 the public to see, please.

17:54:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: On the overhead monitors.

17:54:04

17:54:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fernandez, that button.

17:54:42 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I've got it.

17:54:42

17:54:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The gremlins are at it again.

17:54:54




17:54:56 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: The subject property is St. Peter

17:55:10 Claver Catholic school.

17:55:13 You see a picture of it on your screen.

17:55:16 The property is located at 1401-if he corner of

17:55:22 governor street and Scott street.

17:55:23 The side of the property faces west.

17:55:26 You can see the 1929 Sanborn insurance map, the

17:55:30 subject property just towards the lower center.

17:55:32 You can see it's essentially two-story brick building

17:55:37 with a hip roof.

17:55:39 This is a photo taken in 1929 showing the school.

17:55:42 The school has virtually remained the same in

17:55:45 appearance since this photo was taken.

17:55:47 The structure was built in 1929.

17:55:48 This photo was taken just shortly after its

17:55:51 construction.

17:55:52 St. Peter Claver is regarded as the oldest private

17:55:56 African-American school in the City of Tampa, has a

17:55:58 long history of serving the community in which it

17:56:00 lies.

17:56:04 The school has experienced dramatic changes during the

17:56:07 20th century, original located in an area known as




17:56:09 the scrub.

17:56:14 Later that area was demolished and another area known

17:56:17 as Central Park Village was constructed around it.

17:56:20 And this has changed.

17:56:23 St. Peter Claver managed to continue excellence in

17:56:26 education to its students.

17:56:28 Among the graduates are Blanche armwood, an active

17:56:32 African-American leader in the City of Tampa and the

17:56:34 first African-American woman to graduate from an

17:56:36 accredited law school.

17:56:38 The historic value of St. Peter Claver is not confined

17:56:42 to the physical building.

17:56:43

17:56:46 Since its inception, the school has excelled in the

17:56:50 midst of economic and social challenges to provide the

17:56:53 surrounding community with educational excellence and

17:56:55 spiritual guidance.

17:56:57 These are two plaques, one of Abraham Lincoln, one of

17:57:00 booker T. Washington on the building.

17:57:03 The school has played an integral role in the

17:57:06 education and cultural heritage of many

17:57:08 African-Americans in the City of Tampa, the history of




17:57:11 Central Avenue, and the entire community.

17:57:15 The St. Peter Claver school is significant under

17:57:18 criterion A which deals with religion, education,

17:57:21 ethnic heritage, and social history.

17:57:25 The Historic Preservation Commission recommends the

17:57:29 designation of the St. Peter Claver school as a City

17:57:31 of Tampa local landmark.

17:57:34 That concludes my presentation.

17:57:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?

17:57:37 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

17:57:39 on item 2?

17:57:40 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff here to

17:57:45 report to you that the Planning Commission heard this

17:57:47 proposed landmark designation on December 12th,

17:57:51 2005, and after its review found it tint with the

17:57:54 goals and objectives of the future land use and the

17:57:56 historic resources elements of the Tampa comprehensive

17:57:59 plan.

17:57:59 Thank you.

17:58:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to

17:58:02 speak?

17:58:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.




17:58:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

17:58:07 (Motion carried).

17:58:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I remember when there was a great

17:58:12 deal of discussion during the time we were looking at

17:58:14 the 2012 Olympics and perhaps this site would be

17:58:18 affected by it, the creation of the stadium in the

17:58:21 area.

17:58:21 And there was a lot of thought given to the fact that

17:58:24 this school had really represented a stable, safe

17:58:28 place for the neighborhood in the midst of a lot of

17:58:31 social turmoil.

17:58:33 And so while we are acting to preserve the physical

17:58:36 building, that what it represents to the community

17:58:40 goes far beyond this building.

17:58:42 So I know that the community supports this.

17:58:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Move the resolution?

17:58:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

17:58:54 Move an ordinance in the city of Tampa, Florida

17:58:56 designating the St. Peter Claver school located at

17:58:59 1401 north governor street and more particularly

17:59:02 described in section 4 hereof as the local landmark

17:59:05 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,




17:59:08 providing for severability, providing an effective

17:59:09 date.

17:59:09 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

17:59:13 (Motion carried).

17:59:16 Okay.

17:59:16 We have to go in recess until 6:00.

17:59:34 (City Council recess)

17:59:36

18:08:40 >>GWEN MILLER: City Council is called back to order.

18:08:44 Roll call.

18:08:46 [Roll Call]

18:08:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Is Marty Boyle here?

18:08:51 Will you come up?

18:08:53 Tell us what we are going to take off the agenda.

18:08:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, while we were

18:08:59 organizing, for everyone who is here for item 1, Mr.

18:09:02 White said he's about five or ten minutes away.

18:09:04 So hopefully we'll be able to do that soon.

18:09:08 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

18:09:20 First I need to come before you and clear up an item

18:09:23 that you heard this morning.

18:09:24 I came to you, spoke to you about Z 05-165.




18:09:30 And I asked you to -- if you could reschedule to the

18:09:34 the April 9th meeting and you approved it.

18:09:36 Looking at my calendar when I got back to my desk I

18:09:40 misspoke.

18:09:40 April 9th is a Sunday.

18:09:41 I meant to say April 13th, 6 p.m.

18:09:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: We approved it for April 9th.

18:09:51 >>MARTY BOYLE: My apologies.

18:09:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to rescind that motion.

18:09:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

18:09:59 >> Second.

18:09:59 (Motion carried).

18:10:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to continue to the 13th.

18:10:07 >>MARTY BOYLE: 6 p.m.

18:10:08 (Motion carried).

18:10:11 >>MARTY BOYLE: The first item, number 3, it has

18:10:17 actually already been rescheduled to February

18:10:20 23rd, '06.

18:10:23 It is the DRI in conjunction with item number 11, Z

18:10:31 05-179, which is also -- has also been previously

18:10:36 rescheduled by council to February 23rd, 2006, at

18:10:41 6 p.m.




18:10:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, move 3 and 11 to 2-23,

18:10:50 continued.

18:10:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do they have to be opened?

18:10:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to open.

18:10:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 3 has to be removed from the

18:10:57 agenda.

18:10:58 >>MORRIS MASSEY: Number 3 was misnoticed and council

18:11:01 already set the public hearing for number 3.

18:11:02 But number 11 because it was a scheduled public

18:11:04 hearing it was properly noticed, you need to open that

18:11:07 and continue it to the 23rd.

18:11:08 They need to be heard together.

18:11:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open item 11.

18:11:11 (Motion carried).

18:11:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to continue to 2-23.

18:11:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 11.

18:11:20 We have a motion and second.

18:11:20 (Motion carried).

18:11:22 6 p.m.

18:11:23 Okay.

18:11:24 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 4.

18:11:28 V 05-60. Petitioner is asking for a continuance. The




18:11:31 petitioner has been working with the Parks and

18:11:32 Recreation Department to find the best spot for their

18:11:37 monopole.

18:11:39 The parks and rec if it were to go in where it was

18:11:43 proposed would remove a significant oak hammock.

18:11:46 They have been working diligently to try to clear that

18:11:49 out.

18:11:49 They feel like they have a solution.

18:11:51 And so the petitioner is asking for a continuance.

18:11:55 The next date available would be March 9th, 2006,

18:12:00 at 6:00 p.m.

18:12:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion.

18:12:05 Is anyone here to speak on item number 4 for a

18:12:07 continuance?

18:12:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Continue to March 9th.

18:12:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

18:12:14 (Motion carried).

18:12:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 6 p.m.

18:12:16 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 6.

18:12:20 Z 05-94.

18:12:21 The petitioner is asking asking for a continuance.

18:12:25 They have paid their amendment fee.




18:12:27 The next available date is also March 9th, 06 at 6

18:12:31 p.m.

18:12:32 There is a letter filed from Ann Pollack.

18:12:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to continue.

18:12:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience want to speak to

18:12:39 number 6 on the continuance?

18:12:41 Anyone in the public want to speak on number 6?

18:12:43 We have a motion to continue to March 9th.

18:12:46 (Motion carried).

18:12:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 6 p.m.

18:12:48 >>GWEN MILLER: 6 p.m.

18:12:49 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 8.

18:12:55 Z 05-140.

18:12:58 The petitioner misnoticed.

18:13:00 They have paid the amendment fee and are requesting to

18:13:02 reschedule to the next available date, which next

18:13:05 available date is March 23rd, 06 at 6 p.m.

18:13:10 That gives them enough time.

18:13:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It cannot be heard.

18:13:16 It's misnoticed.

18:13:18 They have to renotice for the public hearing.

18:13:19 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.




18:13:24 March 23rd, 6 p.m.

18:13:26 [Motion Carried]

18:13:26 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 10 cannot be heard.

18:13:34 There was a misnotice.

18:13:36 Actually on their notice, just to give you a little

18:13:39 side note, they put the date of January 26th of 05

18:13:44 instead of 06 and that caused a misnotice.

18:13:48 It is a PD request.

18:13:49 And it is an existing bank with an existing

18:13:52 drive-through.

18:13:53 And what the PD request is for is to move their sign,

18:13:57 and it's actually making the sign smaller, and they

18:14:00 are moving it.

18:14:02 There are no staff objections, and there haven't been

18:14:06 any opposition to that we know of.

18:14:08 Petitioner is requesting a possible daytime meeting.

18:14:14 They will have to make notice so the next available

18:14:14 date if council decides is March 2nd of '06, or

18:14:20 March 9th.

18:14:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question.

18:14:25 First of all, I don't know what the daytime meeting is

18:14:28 like.




18:14:28 I can item you that lately the daytime meetings have

18:14:30 been quite extensive.

18:14:31 And secondly is one of the reasons that you may not

18:14:34 have objectors tonight is because it is misnoticed.

18:14:37 So I would caution council about setting a day meeting

18:14:41 in this matter.

18:14:43 Unless council so chooses.

18:14:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's a very good point, Mr. Shelby.

18:14:47 On that basis I won't support a daytime.

18:14:49 >>GWEN MILLER: What date then, Marty, at nighttime?

18:14:53 >>> Since it is a new hearing the next available date

18:14:55 would be April 27th.

18:14:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

18:15:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Second.

18:15:00 >>GWEN MILLER: At 6 p.m.

18:15:02 [Motion Carried]

18:15:03 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 11.

18:15:07 Did we clear that?

18:15:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

18:15:10 >>MARTY BOYLE: Thank you.

18:15:10 Item number 13.

18:15:12 Z 06-02.




18:15:14 It was misnoticed.

18:15:16 They did not get their notice out in time.

18:15:19 They have not paid the amendment fee yet.

18:15:22 We just counselled them on that.

18:15:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So it has to be removed from the

18:15:27 agenda, number 12?

18:15:28 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm sorry, number 13.

18:15:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Has to be removed from the agenda.

18:15:35 >> Motion to allow the petitioner to file an amended

18:15:39 petition.

18:15:39 >> So moved.

18:15:40 >> Second.

18:15:40 (Motion carried).

18:15:45 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 16.

18:15:47 Z 06-27.

18:15:50 They also misnoticed.

18:15:51 The petitioner is here to speak on this subject, if

18:15:55 you want.

18:15:56 They haven't paid the amendment fee to go forward.

18:16:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you need to say

18:16:03 anything?

18:16:05 No.




18:16:05 So what date do you have available, Marty?

18:16:08 >>MARTY BOYLE: The next available date would be also

18:16:10 April 27th, 06 at 6 p.m.

18:16:16 >> So moved.

18:16:16 >> Second.

18:16:16 (Motion carried).

18:16:17 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.

18:16:21 Number 1.

18:16:24 We need to open number 1.

18:16:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I have a question, if I can.

18:16:29 Is there a public hearing that's set for tonight where

18:16:33 there is changes within the 13-day rule?

18:16:38 >>MARTY BOYLE: Yes.

18:16:39 Do you want me to bring that up now?

18:16:43 Let me just get my file, please.

18:16:51 It is item number 5, Z 05-04.

18:16:54

18:16:55 Council, first of all, Z 05'-04, on your staff report

18:17:28 at the top there are some changes. The hearing date

18:17:31 should read 1-26-06.

18:17:35 The date of the report should read 1-20-06.

18:17:38 And the date of the site plan should read 1-13-06.




18:17:46 There have been graphical changes that are needed for

18:17:51 the site plan to move forward since it doesn't have

18:17:55 the objections that we have.

18:17:56 There are some agencies that did, as of a week and a

18:17:58 half ago, to be fair to the petitioner, came in a week

18:18:01 and a half ago with some new comments, the fire

18:18:05 department, and came in with new comments that would

18:18:08 cause graphical changes.

18:18:09 There is also an issue with the location of the grand

18:18:12 tree.

18:18:13 And also with the dumpster location.

18:18:17 The petitioner is requesting a waiver of the 13-day

18:18:21 rule for the graphical change.

18:18:24 They would ask with council's approval if the public

18:18:28 hearing could move forward, and then -- because there

18:18:32 are people here that have been waiting to speak.

18:18:37 And if they could make the changes and come back in

18:18:39 two weeks for the first reading.

18:18:42 I would let petitioner speak to that.

18:18:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, the question is we have

18:18:53 a rule.

18:18:54 Are we allowed to waive it?




18:18:59 Okay.

18:19:01 >> Truett, 101 south Franklin Street.

18:19:05 The last week and a half we had kind of a different

18:19:08 reading on the grand oak.

18:19:09 It's in the right-of-way.

18:19:10 And actually we decided to keep the tree.

18:19:17 What further exacerbated it is the fire department in

18:19:21 the last week decided to issue comments for the first

18:19:23 time.

18:19:23 We have addressed all those.

18:19:25 But they do require graphical changes.

18:19:27 We have the entire neighborhood association that's

18:19:29 here in support of the project as well as the client

18:19:32 from Atlanta, and J. Taggart, the owner of the

18:19:36 property.

18:19:36 So we would like to go forward with public hearing,

18:19:40 come back to you in two weeks with graphical changes

18:19:43 knowing that we will include the grand oak as well as

18:19:46 adhere to the fire department's requirements of.

18:19:50 So we would ask for the waiver of your rule and

18:19:53 proceed with public hearing but be back in two weeks

18:19:55 with the first reading.




18:19:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: I make that motion because that would

18:20:01 be less inconvenience to the neighborhood.

18:20:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

18:20:04 (Motion carried).

18:20:05 Mr. Shelby.

18:20:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask you to go back to number

18:20:13 one and that is not quasi-judicial.

18:20:15 It does require super majority vote.

18:20:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Before we go further, clarification on

18:20:21 number 10.

18:20:22 What date did we say in that?

18:20:24 I have a wrong date, I believe.

18:20:25 >>MARTY BOYLE: On item number 10?

18:20:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, ma'am.

18:20:34 April 22nd?

18:20:35 >>MARTY BOYLE: Yes, April 27th.

18:20:40 >> Number one.

18:20:41 Need to open item number 1.

18:20:43 >> So moved.

18:20:43 >> Second.

18:20:43 (Motion carried)

18:20:50 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.




18:20:57 This item before you was heard August the 8th of

18:21:02 2005.

18:21:03 And it was denied in the public hearing process at

18:21:06 that time.

18:21:08 City Council -- I'm sorry, September 8th, 2005.

18:21:12 City Council reconsidered their action on September

18:21:15 15th and asked that the petitioner go through and

18:21:23 evaluate the hurricane evacuation analysis.

18:21:27 To be done because of this amendment.

18:21:30 Which they have done.

18:21:32 We did work with them at that time through this

18:21:35 process.

18:21:36 Just for context sake.

18:21:39 This amendment is located on Courtney Campbell

18:21:42 causeway.

18:21:49 I forgot to tell what you you are looking at.

18:21:51 It's 6.57 acres of property.

18:21:54 It's on the south side of Rocky Point island.

18:21:56 The request is to change the land use from community

18:21:59 mixed use 35 to urban mixed use 60.

18:22:03 And the Planning Commission in August did forward to

18:22:08 you a recommendation of the consistency with the




18:22:12 comprehensive plan.

18:22:13 As part of your motion, September 15th, you did

18:22:17 ask that the city staff review whatever the petitioner

18:22:21 did bring forward.

18:22:24 Randy Goers is here to address those issues with you.

18:22:28 And I must also add that the hurricane -- the hazard

18:22:32 mitigation building services division of Hillsborough

18:22:35 County has been involved in this entire analysis as

18:22:39 well, and has also supported the findings of the

18:22:46 petitioner.

18:22:47 I think Randy would like to speak to you on the city's

18:22:51 findings.

18:22:54 >>RANDY GOERS: Strategic planning and technology.

18:22:58 The petitioner prepared a report on the questions that

18:23:02 were raised at your last meeting, and it was

18:23:05 circulated to city staff.

18:23:06 We had a meeting briefly on Tuesday with

18:23:09 transportation division, emergency management office,

18:23:12 petitioner.

18:23:13 The county has a mitigation office was invited but

18:23:17 were unable to make it.

18:23:18 They were participating via e-mail.




18:23:20 Also the Planning Commission staff were in attendance.

18:23:23 The discussion at that meeting, the report was

18:23:26 reviewed.

18:23:26 There were no objections by any of the city staff on

18:23:30 the information as provided.

18:23:32 We have some of city staff here, transportation I

18:23:35 think is here that would respond to any specific

18:23:38 comments.

18:23:40 There's nothing that was cause for any objection.

18:23:45 The petitioner, based on the recommendation of the

18:23:48 hazard mitigation office to provide a mitigation

18:23:51 offset for the hurricane shelter impact and that was

18:23:53 one of the issues that they had.

18:23:55 Thank you.

18:23:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?

18:23:58 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

18:24:00 on item number 1?

18:24:07 >>> Stephen southwell, 501 East Kennedy Boulevard on

18:24:11 behalf of the petitioner.

18:24:13 A few folks here with me I would like to introduce

18:24:16 with the applicant.

18:24:18 I have Bill Bishop.




18:24:20 Ann Marie Linton and from my firm I have Rhea Law with

18:24:25 me and Don Lewis.

18:24:27 He performed the analysis that quantified the

18:24:30 hurricane evacuation impact.

18:24:32 That was the only issue that was raised when we were

18:24:35 here before.

18:24:36 And we promised to do some analysis on impact and

18:24:40 tried to show that was a minimal impact, which it is.

18:24:42 And I would like now to ask Don Lewis to come up and

18:24:45 briefly explain how we got to that conclusion and what

18:24:48 he did.

18:24:55 >>> Don Lewis, vice-president of PBS&J.

18:24:59 I'll keep my comments brief because I know you have a

18:25:01 lot of business to do.

18:25:02 We were hired by the applicant to do a hurricane

18:25:06 evacuation impact analysis, and we did a very

18:25:08 conservative, worse-case analysis looking at what

18:25:11 would be the impact on the adjacent evacuation route

18:25:13 which is a very important one to the area.

18:25:17 We used the Department of Community Affairs, basically

18:25:22 their rule or benchmark for determining whether it was

18:25:25 significant impact or not.




18:25:27 Their rule is, the amount of vehicles that are

18:25:30 contributing to the evacuation are greater than 25% of

18:25:33 the maximum capacity roadway, it's deemed to have a

18:25:36 significant impact.

18:25:37 We went through the process, using the assumptions,

18:25:43 hazardous assumptions and socioeconomic data from the

18:25:47 recent planning council's hurricane regional study,

18:25:50 and we found that the additional units will not have a

18:25:54 significant impact on the evacuation network.

18:25:57 And we have provided our analysis to the city, and

18:26:00 also have talked at length with the county emergency

18:26:03 management people as well.

18:26:09 >>> In addition, as Mr. Goers had indicated, we have

18:26:13 voluntarily agreed to participate in the hurricane

18:26:16 shelter mitigation offset program.

18:26:19 So they will be participating in that, offsetting any

18:26:22 adverse impact created to the shelter system.

18:26:27 We feel this plan amendment is consistent with both

18:26:31 the coastal management element, due to the things we

18:26:34 just talked about, and it supports a lot of the

18:26:37 policies that the city has embraced, urban in-fill

18:26:40 redevelopment, is an existing 257-room hotel that's




18:26:43 been there for quite awhile, and hopefully this

18:26:45 opportunity will allow something better to be brought

18:26:49 forward that is more pedestrian friendly, take

18:26:55 advantage of transportation opportunities and better

18:26:57 for the city as a gateway coming in from Pinellas

18:26:59 County.

18:26:59 So if there are any questions for me or anybody else

18:27:01 we would be happy to handle those.

18:27:03 If not.

18:27:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When we spoke a few days ago, I

18:27:08 asked you about the

18:27:11 Ability of, as you redeveloped this property, to look

18:27:13 at making it as connective as possible with the

18:27:17 Courtney Campbell scenic corridor for the greenway

18:27:22 trail as well as perhaps looking into providing a bus

18:27:27 shelter.

18:27:28 I think you all will be coming back with a rezoning.

18:27:30 But currently, we are trying to encourage more

18:27:33 mobility other than cars.

18:27:36 And we don't have anything like that on your property.

18:27:39 So if you could look into those two things as this

18:27:41 project proceeds.




18:27:42 We would really appreciate it.

18:27:45 >>> The scenic corridor is an as set forth property

18:27:49 and there is a bus route that comes through and stops

18:27:52 at Rocky Point, comes from Clearwater to downtown

18:27:54 Tampa.

18:27:54 So the opportunity to tie into that as well.

18:27:57 So we appreciate the comments.

18:27:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to thank you all for providing

18:28:04 us with more information as to the evacuation route

18:28:10 that was one of my biggest concerns with this.

18:28:13 And I was perfectly satisfied with your answers on

18:28:16 this, and make sure that everybody is going to be

18:28:19 safe, in getting out, and by using the other highways

18:28:25 that are connected to the Courtney Campbell causeway

18:28:29 made me feel a lot better that there was a route there

18:28:34 they're that people can get out.

18:28:35 So I want to thank you all for doing that, and so I

18:28:40 will support this.

18:28:41 Thank you.

18:28:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

18:28:44 would like to speak on item 1?

18:28:46 >> Move to close.




18:28:47 >> Second.

18:28:47 (Motion carried).

18:28:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that there is

18:28:53 on page 17 of the Planning Commission report where

18:28:55 they talk about no plan improvements, actually there

18:28:59 are.

18:29:00 That's not the applicant.

18:29:01 It's for Planning Commission.

18:29:02 I would like to move an ordinance amending the Tampa

18:29:04 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future

18:29:06 land use map for property located at 7700 west

18:29:10 Courtney Campbell causeway, from community mixed

18:29:13 use-35 to urban mixed use 60, providing for repeal of

18:29:17 all ordinances in conflict, providing for

18:29:19 severability, providing an effective date.

18:29:21 >> Second.

18:29:22 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion an second.

18:29:23 (Motion carried).

18:29:27 At this time, anyone that's going to speak on item 6

18:29:30 through 15, will you please stand and raise your right

18:29:32 hand.

18:29:50 I forgot 5.




18:29:52 If you are going to speak on 5.

18:29:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So it's clear number 5 through 16.

18:30:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

18:30:03 (Oath administered by Clerk).

18:30:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, I hate to do this

18:30:13 because we haven't gone high tech yet, but I have

18:30:16 gotten feedback and I have heard that my red hat last

18:30:18 week was very successful.

18:30:20 I am going to ask the people in the audience who are

18:30:23 present to please move the meetings along very

18:30:26 swiftly.

18:30:27 I know there's a lot of people present.

18:30:28 I'm going to ask that you remember to state that you

18:30:35 have been sworn when you give your name.

18:30:37 I put a little sign up there.

18:30:38 If you see me wearing or waiving waving the red hat

18:30:42 that will be a reminder so I don't have to interrupt.

18:30:45 And it's a very nice hat so I will continue to do i.

18:30:47 Thank you.

18:30:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 5.

18:30:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue.

18:30:53




18:31:21 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

18:31:22 I have been sworn.

18:31:24 Thank you for the red hat.

18:31:27 Council, this is Z 05-04.

18:31:30 We spoke about it before.

18:31:33 There are objections as noted.

18:31:36 There are no waivers with this application.

18:31:39 The petitioner proposes to rezone the property located

18:31:41 at 2907 west Bay to Bay Boulevard to a planned

18:31:45 development.

18:31:46 In order to construct a 27-story residential tower and

18:31:50 associated parking garages.

18:31:52 The petitioner is proposing 84 units which will vary

18:31:56 in size from 1750 square feet to 3400 square feet.

18:32:00 There's an amenity level that is proposed and contains

18:32:05 a billiards room, guest suites, social hall and pool

18:32:09 area.

18:32:09 The parking on the street that currently backs into

18:32:12 Isabel street will be removed and landscaping and

18:32:15 sidewalk are proposed. The garage will be accessed

18:32:17 off of Barcelona Avenue, and there will be a pickup

18:32:20 and drop off on Isabella street.




18:32:23 If you look at the zoning map you will see the

18:32:26 location.

18:32:27 It is zoned currently PD.

18:32:31 This is Bayshore.

18:32:32 This is the Crosstown expressway.

18:32:35 And this is Isabella.

18:32:37 Barcelona is located to the north.

18:32:46 The aerial shows the existing office building.

18:32:51 This is currently a parking lot and this is the

18:32:54 location of the tower.

18:32:56 And the parking will be in the rear.

18:33:04 Reasons for objections, section 27-326, under

18:33:09 dimensional regulations.

18:33:14 Setbacks and the height were incompatible with the

18:33:17 adjacent neighborhood. The predominant character of

18:33:19 the adjacent buildings is one to three story

18:33:24 buildings. The Presbyterians tower is located to the

18:33:24 north of this site.

18:33:26 And it is located on Isabella.

18:33:29 It's set back from its property line 50 feet and it's

18:33:33 mitigated by mature landscaping. The petitioner is

18:33:36 proposing a building that will set back from the




18:33:38 property line 25 feet.

18:33:41 In determining flexibility in setbacks staff must

18:33:44 review the following standards, section 27-324,

18:33:49 alternative residential developments.

18:33:51 The adjacent parcels contain a mixed use from office

18:33:55 single family attached residential multifamily

18:33:58 residential, the Presbyterians towers. The setbacks

18:34:01 for all these uses are at least 20 feet and greater on

18:34:03 the streetscape with the exception of the three-story

18:34:06 portion of the office building on subject property.

18:34:09 However, the tallest of these buildings, Presbyterians

18:34:12 towers, setbacks from the property line 50 feet.

18:34:16 Originally transportation had objections.

18:34:18 Petitioner has come in and placed notes on the site

18:34:21 plans to remove all of transportation's objections.

18:34:27 The fire objection as we noted before, if you will

18:34:32 look at the site plan it shows a semicircular drive.

18:34:36 The fire department is requesting that they re-- they

18:34:40 removed all their objections except for that. They

18:34:42 are requesting they go from 15 feet to 20 feet.

18:34:45 That's a graphical change.

18:34:47 Solid waste is asking the dumpster be relocated.




18:34:52 That it would be graphical change.

18:34:55 Then parks and rec, there is a grand tree on-site.

18:34:58 It is not shown on the site plan.

18:35:00 That is staff's objections.

18:35:02 They are asking parks and rec is asking for it to be

18:35:05 saved.

18:35:07 The tree needs to be shown on the site plan along with

18:35:09 the protective radius.

18:35:17 And that is the end of our presentation.

18:35:19 Any questions?

18:35:21 Alvarez always.

18:35:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question.

18:35:25 What's the tallest building in that area?

18:35:27 >>> The closest is the Presbyterians towers.

18:35:31 >> How tall is that?

18:35:32 >>MARTY BOYLE: And I believe it is five stories.

18:35:40 FROM THE FLOOR: 15.

18:35:42 >>MARTY BOYLE: 15 stories.

18:35:44 Thank you.

18:35:49 >> What is it, 15, 7, 5, what is it?

18:35:52 >>> I don't have it in my notes but I believe it's 15

18:35:55 feet -- 15 stories.




18:35:56 I'm so sorry.

18:36:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a couple of questions about

18:36:10 the concerns you raised about the tree, and the width

18:36:14 of the driveway.

18:36:15 I would assume that that would push the driveway

18:36:18 further to the south.

18:36:21 And I wondered if transportation had reviewed -- if

18:36:25 that's okay.

18:36:25 >>MARTY BOYLE: When we get the graphical changes, we

18:36:29 will send it back to transportation, solid waste,

18:36:32 parks and rec.

18:36:33 We will review.

18:36:35 >> What if we say this is okay if it fits, but then it

18:36:40 doesn't fit?

18:36:41 >>> I don't know that -- you wouldn't be approving it

18:36:45 tonight.

18:36:48 This is the case that we are asking to go ahead with

18:36:49 the public hearing, and with graphical changes, to

18:36:53 give us the graphical changes.

18:36:54 We'll have time to look at it and come back to first

18:36:57 reading again.

18:37:06 >>> Truett Gardner.




18:37:07 I have been sworn.

18:37:07 If you like I can further elaborate on the questions

18:37:10 you just asked.

18:37:11 Ooh even though we can't submit the new site plan for

18:37:15 your official review, we did redo the site plan

18:37:19 showing the radius of the tree, its location, as well

18:37:22 as the other kind two of things happened at the same

18:37:26 time.

18:37:26 One was the tree. The other was the fire department.

18:37:29 Circular drive as originally shown at 15 feet.

18:37:32 Fire wanted it at 20.

18:37:34 So we wanted to make sure we could do both the tree,

18:37:37 the tree save as well as increase the drive by five

18:37:39 feet.

18:37:40 And we have a new site plan.

18:37:47 It's not that one.

18:37:51 If I could hand it to you so you could see the radius

18:37:53 of the tree, as well as the 20-foot drive.

18:37:58 And we have spoken with Dave Riley about it at the

18:38:03 fire department and it seems like we are squared away

18:38:05 on both of those issues.

18:38:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.




18:38:14 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

18:38:15 I have been sworn in.

18:38:22 This is the community mixed use 35.

18:38:25 Here is the site.

18:38:27 The Crosstown expressway.

18:38:28 Bay to Bay Boulevard.

18:38:29 And Bayshore.

18:38:33 The other land uses in the surrounding area as you can

18:38:36 see are low in character, heavy commercial 24,

18:38:38 residential 20, residential 35.

18:38:46 What currently exists on the subject site with

18:38:51 construction is an existing parking lot that

18:38:53 compliments the existing uses over here on this

18:38:55 corner.

18:38:56 As you see, as it abuts to Bay to Bay Boulevard.

18:39:01 Presbyterians towers is located directly to the north.

18:39:03 It is, I believe, around 17 stories high.

18:39:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How far away is that?

18:39:10 I know you are saying to the north.

18:39:12 >>> You can see on the illustration here it's about a

18:39:15 block away north from the site.

18:39:18 Again, this structure will be approximately 10 stories




18:39:23 higher with a maximum elevation been requested of the

18:39:25 applicant of 300 feet.

18:39:29 With the significance of the site, it would front a

18:39:31 residential street, which is Isabella, all the

18:39:35 residential high-rises along the Bayshore area.

18:39:38 Most of them are all, as you know, oriented to

18:39:41 Bayshore Boulevard as it is right now.

18:39:43 I pulled up a couple of towers.

18:39:45 And one of the tallest towers is only 24 stories high.

18:39:52 So what you have here is a very interesting situation,

18:39:55 that you have an existing PD which currently allows

18:39:57 for 100,000 square feet of commercial use.

18:40:01 But you have here, what's being proposed is a less

18:40:08 intensive use, will be only 84 units, but you have a

18:40:11 significant mass that is set back, and theoretically

18:40:16 could set a precedent for other type of developments

18:40:18 of this sort.

18:40:19 As you see it.

18:40:20 Because it is off of Bayshore.

18:40:22 It would be something to take into consideration.

18:40:26 And it is significantly higher.

18:40:28 If I go over the existing uses that are around the




18:40:30 area, of course, the synagogue which is in close

18:40:38 proximity that we did a rezoning for at the northeast,

18:40:43 there are some low density town homes directly east of

18:40:45 the site.

18:40:46 And there are some low density uses, residential in

18:40:49 character directly to the north of the site, that lie

18:40:52 in between Presbyterians towers and the subject site.

18:40:55 And of course a small park right here right on this

18:40:58 corner of Bay to Bay and Bayshore Boulevard.

18:41:02 Planning Commission staff feels the request based on

18:41:05 this location is out of character with the existing

18:41:07 scale and mass of the surrounding uses and finds the

18:41:10 proposed request inconsistent with the provisions of

18:41:11 the Tampa comprehensive plan and objects to the

18:41:15 request.

18:41:15

18:41:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

18:41:20 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 south Frankland street --

18:41:24 Franklin Street.

18:41:24 I have been sworn.

18:41:25 A couple of housekeeping items on the staff reports.

18:41:29 If you look at the matrix of the objections, with the




18:41:33 exception of Land Development Coordination and the

18:41:35 Planning Commission, the other three, transportation,

18:41:38 solid waste, and parks and recreation, have all,

18:41:43 through our conversations, as well as fire, even

18:41:46 though they are not showing it as an objection here,

18:41:48 have been dealt with and satisfied.

18:41:50 Which leaves those two.

18:41:53 Then on Marty's comments, there was one, the height of

18:41:59 the building is actually 26 stories.

18:42:01 She said 27.

18:42:02 Just wanted to make that clear.

18:42:04 And then on the setback issue which is one of their

18:42:07 principal reasons for the objection, I think it would

18:42:10 help if he elaborated why our setbacks are what they

18:42:16 are.

18:42:17 Of course, this is one of the existing offices where

18:42:22 Patricks is.

18:42:24 This is the other office. This will be the parking

18:42:26 structure that will serve those two.

18:42:28 We felt that it would be more appropriate to put that

18:42:31 in the back abutting the Crosstown expressway as

18:42:35 opposed to that V that as a prominent structure on




18:42:39 Isabella.

18:42:39 So that forced the building up.

18:42:41 We made the building as thin as possible to cut down

18:42:46 on the mass, and the height which we feel is

18:42:51 appropriate.

18:42:52 Given the existing zoning.

18:42:56 Landscaped it.

18:42:57 But the main reason for the setback was because of the

18:43:01 parking structure in the rear.

18:43:02 We would have liked to have had the ability to put it

18:43:05 further back.

18:43:09 The site just didn't allow for it.

18:43:11

18:43:13 That being said, I want to introduce SATISH capital

18:43:24 out of Atlanta who is the developer, actually been

18:43:27 working on this since October of 2004.

18:43:29 There was a prior developer, but had some other

18:43:33 commitments.

18:43:33 So SATICH and his group came in and glad to be here

18:43:40 tonight and be an addition.

18:43:41 Joe Taggart, the owner of the property, is here in

18:43:44 attendance.




18:43:45 And in a unique position tonight with a building on

18:43:51 Bayshore and the full support of the neighborhood

18:43:53 association, as well as most of the neighbors.

18:43:56 SATISH and I worked tirelessly with Vicki and Karen

18:44:02 Crawford and ask them for all their efforts.

18:44:04 We have had many meetings and conversations with them,

18:44:06 and even went to the full board of the Bayshore

18:44:08 Gardens neighborhood association and got their vote on

18:44:12 the project, which was unanimous, I believe, with the

18:44:16 exception of two.

18:44:19 So with that, we are bringing forward this project.

18:44:28 The current zoning is perhaps the most overriding

18:44:32 issue here.

18:44:34 I know Tony mentioned 100,000 square feet.

18:44:37 It's actually 145,000 square feet of office uses.

18:44:41 So with that being said the standard that we had going

18:44:43 forward, the owners felt that a residential use would

18:44:46 be much more appropriate, and put it on the market for

18:44:49 that.

18:44:51 The building has actually been approved, permits

18:44:54 received for the office, but we wanted to make an

18:44:56 effort with the residential, just thinking that that




18:44:59 would be a more beneficial use to the neighborhood.

18:45:03 The neighborhood agreed.

18:45:03 And as a result that's why we are here tonight.

18:45:07 Along with that comes the precedent issue that Tony

18:45:12 also raised, and I think you would be hard pressed to

18:45:16 find anywhere on Bayshore or off of Bayshore a site

18:45:19 that's zoned for nearly 150,000 square feet of office

18:45:25 use and the intensity that goes with that and the

18:45:27 parking that's required and so I think this is a

18:45:31 unique situation, and would not set a precedent given

18:45:35 the existing PD that's there.

18:45:38 And we went up and down Bayshore, and looking at

18:45:42 sites.

18:45:43 Most of them, the majority that are left are

18:45:46 single-family homes.

18:45:47 So I think we are starting from a different position

18:45:49 of rezoning a single-family home into a tower versus

18:45:53 150,000 square square foot office into a tower.

18:45:56 And with that comes what we believe are the benefits

18:46:00 of this project versus an office, and the benefits of

18:46:04 this project in general.

18:46:06 First is the density issue.




18:46:10 Again we are converting 150,000 square feet of office

18:46:13 to 84 condominium units.

18:46:15 Second is the traffic that's generated.

18:46:17 We ran numbers on that.

18:46:19 The use that we are proposing would be a 7% reduction

18:46:23 in traffic, less cut-through traffic is another.

18:46:28 We worked again tirelessly with the neighborhood and

18:46:31 came up with some good plans, one of which, there's a

18:46:40 major problem that we heard from the neighbors where

18:46:43 there's a high volume of cut-through traffic going

18:46:46 down Isabella, basically the short-cut onto Bayshore.

18:46:51 And the solution that we came up with, which

18:46:54 transportation agreed to, was we're going to install a

18:46:57 four-way stop sign at the intersection of Isabella and

18:47:01 Barcelona, as well as crosswalks, going across

18:47:04 Barcelona and across Isabella, which will hopefully

18:47:09 slow down and mitigate some of that traffic.

18:47:17 In addition, from a pedestrian standpoint, we are

18:47:19 going to provide for the first time, sidewalks with

18:47:30 landscaping running all the way down Isabel A.we are

18:47:33 going to do crosswalks also at Isabella and Bay to

18:47:36 Bay.




18:47:37 And in addition to that we agreed to pedestrian

18:47:41 improvements at Bayshore and Bay to Bay.

18:48:01 Before I turn things over to SHATISH to present the

18:48:05 building we think it's a better fit for the

18:48:07 neighborhood. The neighborhood is here in support of

18:48:09 the project.

18:48:09 We are very grateful for that.

18:48:11 And we look forward to working with you on this

18:48:15 project.

18:48:16 With that, I turn things over to SHATISH.

18:48:21 >>> SHATISH loadie and I have been sworn in.

18:48:27 As Truett mentioned we worked for probably the last

18:48:31 ten months with the neighborhood association to

18:48:33 develop a plan and develop a scheme that would in the

18:48:36 end be an improvement to the neighborhood.

18:48:39 And as an outcome of that discussion, a lot of

18:48:43 improvements have been committed to by us, as it

18:48:49 relates to relates to Isabel, a improving traffic flow

18:48:53 within the neighborhoods, and also trying to provide

18:48:56 for a building that would be much less intrusive than

18:49:01 the office building that's currently approved.

18:49:07 The office building that is currently approved, if you




18:49:09 can imagine on this site plan, is effectively an

18:49:13 eight-story building that encompasses the entire

18:49:16 block.

18:49:18 And in working with our architects, the concept that

18:49:21 we came up with, which was to create a much thinner

18:49:25 profile building that would be less obtrusive on the

18:49:30 neighborhood and trying to maintain a scale of two to

18:49:32 three stories.

18:49:33 So to that end the base of this building here is four

18:49:38 stories, and parking back here is two and a half

18:49:42 stories, and then rising out of that base is a very

18:49:46 thin structure.

18:49:48 This building has only four units -- four homes per

18:49:52 floor, and so is a very small footprint building in

18:49:55 relation to many of the buildings that have been

18:49:58 developed on Bayshore.

18:50:03 As far as the concern about the height of the

18:50:05 building, we actually did do studies on the height of

18:50:09 the building, and how it would impact the

18:50:15 neighborhood.

18:50:17 And if I can pass this around, this is a rendering

18:50:23 that has a before picture from the park to the




18:50:29 building and then after picture, with the building

18:50:32 superimposed.

18:50:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you pass that around?

18:50:38 It's kind of hard to see.

18:50:39 >>> Yes.

18:50:39

18:50:40 As I mentioned, the project has 84 homes.

18:50:59 And we have worked out all the landscaping details

18:51:04 with the adjacent parcel owner and with the

18:51:07 neighborhood.

18:51:09 Again we are correcting a number of deficiencies

18:51:12 within the neighborhood, some nonconforming uses such

18:51:16 as the parking, the patches that is currently on

18:51:20 Isabella, and we have also undertaken a study to

18:51:26 create a left-turn only lane from Isabella onto Bay to

18:51:30 Bay to try and improve some of the traffic flow.

18:51:35 So overall, I think the outcome of this project is

18:51:40 something that the neighborhood is supportive because

18:51:43 they see it as a good alternative to what is currently

18:51:48 approved.

18:51:51 Questions?

18:51:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.




18:51:54 The premise of your presentation is the 100,000,

18:52:00 150,000 square feet of office, which I looked up as

18:52:03 approved in 1986.

18:52:05 And council members, we have Tom Vann Lee Duncan,

18:52:08 Kathryn Bourgeois for that decision which I think is

18:52:15 completely appropriate.

18:52:16 150,000 feet of office at this place, it is completely

18:52:19 out of scale and inappropriate.

18:52:21 So what you're saying to us is that what you're

18:52:23 proposing is better than that.

18:52:25 Well, that is just dreadful.

18:52:26 What you're proposing is very nice, but it strikes me

18:52:29 as way too much for the site.

18:52:32 And for the context of the neighborhood in which

18:52:35 you're proposing to locate it.

18:52:36 And rather than couching everything that you say as a

18:52:42 comparison to this 150,000 square feet, I think you

18:52:45 need to explain it in terms of its own merits.

18:52:48 And you all keep saying the neighborhood supports it.

18:52:50 But I think that they have been cowed into saying that

18:52:55 this is the lesser of two inappropriate solutions.

18:53:00 But the question I have for you is, what about




18:53:03 transportation?

18:53:04 Because this is a very tough street to get out of.

18:53:07 I'm very familiar with it.

18:53:09 How are you proposing that people get out of there in

18:53:12 the morning?

18:53:13 >>> Sure.

18:53:14 On the transportation issue, actually, our project

18:53:17 will improve the transportation over what it currently

18:53:21 is.

18:53:22 Currently, you have intersections at Bay to Bay and

18:53:26 MacDill that have service levels that are below

18:53:30 failure.

18:53:31 You have got an intersection at Bay to Bay and

18:53:36 Isabella that's a failing intersection.

18:53:39 And as part of our agreement was the neighborhood, we

18:53:41 are funding improvements to off-site.

18:53:46 We are funding the improvements on Isabella.

18:53:50 We are funding the curb improvements, the stop signs,

18:53:55 et cetera, to redirect the traffic that currently

18:53:58 exists from that office building away from the

18:54:01 neighborhood.

18:54:02 We are also funding the construction of traffic




18:54:06 improvements to discourage the cut-through traffic

18:54:09 that exists.

18:54:10 So while it's true that our condominium will create

18:54:14 additional traffic, the net result based on the

18:54:17 traffic study in terms of traffic impact on the

18:54:20 neighborhood is a net improvement, because of the

18:54:23 traffic improvements that we are making that will

18:54:26 direct the traffic away from the neighborhood.

18:54:29 >> And where is it being directed?

18:54:32 >>> To Bay to Bay.

18:54:33 As opposed to going back into the neighborhood as

18:54:36 cut-through.

18:54:37 And also the intersections at Bay to Bay and Isabella,

18:54:41 Bay to Bay and MacDill, are being improved.

18:54:47 >> Thank you. The truth is, right now, they are at a

18:54:50 dead halt of people trying to get out of there.

18:54:53 Adding another lane doesn't -- it's still going to be

18:54:56 a bottleneck when they try to get onto Bay to Bay

18:54:59 which is an absolute dead halt.

18:55:02 I drive this a lot.

18:55:03 And I'm just concerned that what your proposal is

18:55:05 doing is adding additional traffic.




18:55:07 I appreciate the fact that you're proposing to put

18:55:10 some money into solutions.

18:55:11 But your money, I think, is less valuable than the

18:55:14 number of new trips that you're going to be generating

18:55:17 that are going to impact these already less than "F"

18:55:24 intersections and those are my concerns.

18:55:26 The -- are you transportation --

18:55:31 >>> Based on the improvements that transportation

18:55:32 requested that we do, once those improvements are

18:55:36 made, the traffic study demonstrates that even with

18:55:40 the additional traffic of the condominium building,

18:55:42 the traffic will improve over what it currently is.

18:55:46 So those improvements more than offset the increase in

18:55:51 traffic coming from the condominium building.

18:55:53 So it's kind of an interesting situation, right now,

18:55:58 unless there's another source of funds to improve

18:56:01 those intersections they will stay at the level of

18:56:03 service that they are at, which is below failure.

18:56:06 With our project, and us funding those improvements,

18:56:10 even with the additional traffic at the condominium

18:56:12 building, the service level at those critical

18:56:15 intersections will improve over what it currently is.




18:56:18 Even with the extra traffic.

18:56:20 Remember, we are talking about 84 condominium units.

18:56:22 So it's not a significant increase in traffic as

18:56:26 opposed to, say, an office use.

18:56:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, my problem is the height of

18:56:35 this.

18:56:37 I think 26 stories is a little excessive.

18:56:40 I'd like to hear from the neighbors, if you said they

18:56:44 are here to approve of this project.

18:56:46 But I'd like to hear from them.

18:56:48 Because I think that it's just too tall for this area.

18:56:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you finished your presentation?

18:56:58 >>> Unless there's any other questions for me.

18:56:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?

18:57:02 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

18:57:04 on item number 5?

18:57:06 Come on and speak.

18:57:14 >>> Good evening.

18:57:14 My name is Robert Scolly.

18:57:21 I have been sworn in.

18:57:21 I would like to give you this.

18:57:46 I live at 2521 Vaughan drive.




18:57:50 And first of all, the e-mail I got from the

18:57:56 neighborhood association president doesn't coincide

18:57:59 with our neighborhood support on this project.

18:58:03 We have a serious traffic issue, and we have had some

18:58:07 serious incidents on our street.

18:58:11 One of these papers outlines a recent traffic study

18:58:15 between Isabella and Carolina going down palm drive.

18:58:23 There are 11005 cars traveling down the street in a

18:58:29 time between about 7:30 in the morning and 6:00 at

18:58:32 night.

18:58:32 That's six cars every minute.

18:58:35 The intersection of Bay to Bay and Isabella is an

18:58:40 absolute nightmare to get onto.

18:58:43 I do not see how these gentlemen can say that they are

18:58:45 going to reduce traffic flow unless they block the

18:58:48 street off.

18:58:50 With traffic flow when you have 80-some units, you

18:58:53 have the servicing of those units, you have an

18:58:55 enormous amount of increase which we estimate traffic

18:58:58 department estimated palm drive over 2 -- that is a

18:59:06 single-lane street.

18:59:07 Bayshore Boulevard is only a matter of 100 feet or so




18:59:13 away.

18:59:13 That's a four-lane street.

18:59:16 So if you read this carefully, you will see that our

18:59:19 neighborhood does have a serious concern with this

18:59:21 project.

18:59:22 And I beg to differ, but no one is speaking on their

18:59:27 behalf on our behalf here.

18:59:29 As far as the vote in favor of this project, taking a

18:59:37 legal vote at the Tampa women's club where they

18:59:39 propose they will build either a large commercial

18:59:43 building or these high-rises.

18:59:45 Well, if you read the Tampa tribune a couple days ago,

18:59:48 there's 1.2 million square feet of vacant office space

18:59:52 downtown Tampa.

18:59:54 It wouldn't be very prudent to add to that.

18:59:57 So the neighborhood has a serious concern over this.

19:00:00 And we are asking the city to step into this and

19:00:03 rectify a serious problem before it gets even worse.

19:00:07 I was scheduled to fly to L.A. this afternoon, and I

19:00:11 canceled my flight because my neighborhood, my new

19:00:15 neighborhood has children, little kids.

19:00:18 If they run out in the front yard, and get on that




19:00:22 street where that curb is on palm drive, with that

19:00:24 much traffic coming through at that high rate of

19:00:26 speed, they are going to lose a child.

19:00:30 So that's my contention as a neighbor who lived on

19:00:34 that street for 30 years.

19:00:35 We didn't have the time to put together a total

19:00:40 unanimous, at least I believe a total unanimous of all

19:00:42 the neighbors on palm drive, objection to this

19:00:45 project, unless they can relieve or reduce the type of

19:00:50 traffic flow that's going to happen with this project.

19:00:53 I got my e-mail last night through Vicki at 5:46 p.m

19:00:57 That's not a lot of notice for to us get us as a

19:01:00 neighborhood to get together and get down there.

19:01:04 So respectfully, I would like to have you share your

19:01:10 concerns for our neighborhood.

19:01:11 (Bell sounds).

19:01:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.

19:01:13 Thank you.

19:01:14 Next.

19:01:19 >>> Karen Crawford.

19:01:20 I have been sworn.

19:01:21 1406 South Moody Avenue.




19:01:23 I'm before you this evening as a recording secretary

19:01:26 of Bayshore Gardens neighborhood association to give

19:01:29 you the history of how we got to this point.

19:01:32 First of all, the Hoffmann choice is no choice at all.

19:01:37 Once again we come before you concerned about a

19:01:39 20-year-old PD that was never developed and does not

19:01:42 meet current city setback landscaping, transportation

19:01:45 and parking codes.

19:01:46 We continue as a neighborhood to be negatively

19:01:49 impacted by the erosion of the Euclidean zoning and

19:01:52 the administrative tweaking of PDs.

19:01:55 In 1986, another council, without neighborhood notice

19:02:00 or input, approved a PD allowing this 100,000 square

19:02:05 foot office building.

19:02:06 In 2002, again with no neighborhood involvement or

19:02:11 mitigation the PD was modified administratively to

19:02:13 reduce green space and setbacks.

19:02:15 And that's how we got to where we are today.

19:02:18 I think our problem is with the process more than the

19:02:21 people involved, because we have different people

19:02:23 involved today.

19:02:25 In July 2005 the neighborhood was approached to




19:02:27 consider a substantial change to that PD that would

19:02:30 require rezoning.

19:02:32 Bayshore Gardens now is facing an unusual dilemma

19:02:35 facing between an obtrusive 100 their square foot

19:02:40 office complex or a 08 unit high-rise. The Bayshore

19:02:44 Gardens Board of Directors met with Joe tag ard, the

19:02:48 present resources owner of the property and the one

19:02:50 that had the approved PD for the office complex, and

19:02:54 SATISH representing southeast capital and the

19:02:57 petitioner before you tonight.

19:02:58 The board decided that in this case the only thing to

19:03:01 do was to take the issue before the membership to

19:03:04 determine their preference.

19:03:05 So on October 25th, 2005, in a the Bayshore

19:03:13 gardenship membership meeting we asked both develop

19:03:16 towers come to the meeting, they did, and both parties

19:03:19 presented their projects.

19:03:22 After a question-and-answer session a vote was taken

19:03:22 by the 40-plus members in attendance and all but two

19:03:25 votes preferred the 84-unit residential high-rise over

19:03:28 the office building.

19:03:30 Significant mitigation is necessary for both projects.




19:03:33 However, mitigation can only be considered with the

19:03:36 new PD.

19:03:37 We have what we have on the old one.

19:03:39 We would encourage you to impose any conditions in

19:03:42 addition to the ones the developer has graciously

19:03:45 agreed to, and they have made many concessions, that

19:03:47 will lessen the impacts of this project on Bayshore

19:03:49 Gardens and the surrounding neighborhood.

19:03:54 Thank you.

19:03:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Crawford, what do you think about

19:03:57 the height of this project?

19:04:00 Do you feel like it's intrusive or what?

19:04:06 >>> I just would like to just say that I support the

19:04:08 neighborhood's position on how they voted.

19:04:10 Yes, it is a tall building.

19:04:15 Their idea of trying to reduce the mass and make it

19:04:19 taller is a trade-off of a big bulky building sitting

19:04:24 right on the street.

19:04:24 And I think, you know, people see it differently.

19:04:26 I don't really have an opinion on it.

19:04:28 It's just two different ideas of how they develop

19:04:32 something.




19:04:32 You can either make it short and squatty and wide and

19:04:35 fat, and we have seen those kind of projects.

19:04:37 Or you can make it taller and have more green space

19:04:41 and area around it to keep it off the street.

19:04:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.

19:04:46 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

19:04:49 Next.

19:04:54 >>> Good evening.

19:04:55 My name is Marilyn weekly.

19:04:58 I live at 2619 north Bayshore Boulevard.

19:05:01 I was at the meeting at the Bayshore Gardens

19:05:03 association meeting where this vote was taken.

19:05:06 And I'm frankly surprised at how many times the

19:05:10 presenters talked about how the neighborhood was in

19:05:14 full support of this project.

19:05:17 The neighborhood was given a choice.

19:05:20 Do you slit your throat or do you shoot yourself in

19:05:22 the head?

19:05:24 You know, this is not -- this is not a choice.

19:05:27 One or the other project was going to be shoved down

19:05:31 our throats.

19:05:31 So the only thing that we could after several hours of




19:05:35 talking about this come up with is, well, if one or

19:05:38 the other is going to happen, then the one that is

19:05:41 going to at least contribute something to improving

19:05:44 our traffic situation, that is out of control at this

19:05:48 point in time, would be the only one that we could

19:05:52 vote for.

19:05:52 But neither one of these choices are our choices.

19:05:56 This is the neighborhood, that to quote the Tampa

19:06:00 Tribune editorial of I guess a week ago, Bayshore

19:06:04 Boulevard is dying, and a concrete cliff is rising in

19:06:09 its place.

19:06:11 And if this condo fever continues, the single-family

19:06:16 homes that exist on Bayshore and in the neighborhoods

19:06:19 around Bayshore, will never see the light of day,

19:06:23 because the sun will never be permitted to shine on a

19:06:26 neighborhood.

19:06:28 Now, the developers rights.

19:06:31 There's the person that is selling the property, the

19:06:33 owner's right as to what is to be done.

19:06:36 But there's also considerations that I think need to

19:06:39 be made about the neighborhood, the impact on life on

19:06:43 the quality of life in this neighborhood.




19:06:47 And the impact that it makes on the City of Tampa.

19:06:50 Because we're not talking about developers coming in

19:06:52 and making money for the City of Tampa for the next

19:06:54 four years or ten years.

19:06:55 But if we obliterate the neighborhoods in South Tampa

19:06:59 by allowing uncontrolled high-rise, condominium, or

19:07:04 office building structures that are completely out of

19:07:08 place for what we consider a quality of life in South

19:07:12 Tampa, we are ruining a wonderful area of town for

19:07:17 generations to come, and there is no way to turn back.

19:07:21 You all have permitted the flood gates to open to what

19:07:25 should never ever have occurred.

19:07:27 So now it is time to start building a dike and see

19:07:33 what we can do in the form of perhaps a task force, in

19:07:36 the form of perhaps a moratorium, on any more of

19:07:40 this -- this wild, no-conscious type of freedom to any

19:07:46 developer who's got the money.

19:07:48 The neighborhood associations do not have the money to

19:07:51 fight in court.

19:07:53 The developers have all of the money, and all of the

19:07:56 attorneys in place to do whatever needs to be done to

19:07:59 get these and as uneloquently as I can put it, shoved




19:08:05 down the throats of the people that have made South

19:08:07 Tampa what it is.

19:08:09 I appreciate your consideration of the fact that

19:08:13 neither one of these projects fits into our

19:08:16 neighborhood.

19:08:17 And I say this on my behalf.

19:08:19 I don't wish to put words in the mouth of anyone else

19:08:22 but it's all of my neighbors, unofficially, who are

19:08:24 saying the same thing.

19:08:26 We have enough.

19:08:27 When did K you do something about it?

19:08:29 (Bell sounds).

19:08:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?

19:08:32 >>> Yes.

19:08:32 Yes.

19:08:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena has a question.

19:08:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, sorry, a question of legal.

19:08:40 If there was a previously existing PD but no permitss

19:08:45 have been pulled on it and it were to come up today to

19:08:48 pull permits to build something, would the property

19:08:51 owners be required to meet standards in terms of tree

19:08:56 protections, setbacks, green space, stormwater,




19:08:59 transportation?

19:09:02 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

19:09:03 I have been sworn.

19:09:05 I would have to look at that PD to determine how it

19:09:07 was written and then look at the regulations as they

19:09:10 exist at this time.

19:09:11 Up theically the way I understand, the city has

19:09:15 consistently done their PD process.

19:09:18 Everything, all the regulations for that property is

19:09:21 set forth within the PD.

19:09:23 However, since I wasn't here in '86, I don't have as

19:09:26 much familiarity, it's something I would have to take

19:09:28 a look at.

19:09:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.

19:09:33 Would you hand that Mike, please, Mr. Gardner?

19:09:44 >>> I have a speaker waiver form.

19:09:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There are three names on the it on

19:09:53 the list.

19:09:54 Please raise your hand.

19:09:55 Linda hammocker, are you here?

19:10:00 Miller?

19:10:01 And rusty Carpenter.




19:10:03 Thank you.

19:10:04 Three additional minutes.

19:10:07 >>> First I would like to clarify --

19:10:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Your name for the record please.

19:10:11 >>> Vicki pollier, 1311 South Moody Avenue.

19:10:15 I have been sworn in. I'm the president of the

19:10:17 neighborhood association.

19:10:18 And I would first like to clarify that missing council

19:10:21 people will have a chance to hear our testimony before

19:10:25 they vote at the first reading in two weeks.

19:10:28 And I just want to make sure because it's a big deal

19:10:31 for many of us in our neighborhood.

19:10:33 >> Yes.

19:10:34 >>> Thank you.

19:10:34 I also wanted to just clarify that, this date of

19:10:39 January 26th was mentioned in October it was

19:10:42 mentioned, in two news letters, an e-mail I sent in

19:10:48 January and a reminder e-mail that I sent yesterday.

19:10:50 That wasn't the first time our neighborhood heard of

19:10:52 that state.

19:10:55 You find us here before you, and unbelievably very

19:11:00 unique, very painful situation that I would not wish




19:11:02 on any neighborhood.

19:11:03 It's been something that's been somewhat divisive

19:11:09 between our neighborhood but we feel like we have made

19:11:11 the best choice for our neighborhood.

19:11:12 And we had to look at the whole picture.

19:11:18 Bayshore Gardens is being squeezed in by Soho, by

19:11:21 Bayshore, by all of these developments.

19:11:24 Traffic count that was previously mentioned, I had

19:11:27 planned on mentioning it today.

19:11:29 1500 cars.

19:11:37 It's 1501 cars between palm -- Isabella and Carolina,

19:11:43 which is a narrow road with no sidewalks, a Hartline

19:11:48 route, and we have a problem.

19:11:52 We got to in unfortunate situation because we were

19:11:57 told that in 2002, Gloria Moreda reapproved it and I

19:12:06 have a copy of her letter.

19:12:08 So we were told unequivocally that we would have the

19:12:11 choice between a massive 150,000 square foot office

19:12:18 building, with eight stories, and five times the

19:12:24 traffic generated, between that and our other choice

19:12:28 of 84-unit condominium where the developer is giving

19:12:33 us a tremendous amount of money to the city to improve




19:12:38 long standing problems that nobody else can -- is

19:12:42 willing to pay for.

19:12:44 You know, turn lanes on Isabel, a it might help the

19:12:47 traffic flow.

19:12:48 Stop signs at Barcelona and Isabella will help stop

19:12:51 and slow down the traffic before it gets to Palm.

19:12:56 It will also deter the cut-through traffic that Ms.

19:13:00 Boden was referring to on palm.

19:13:02 We also asked to -- pork chopping the office parking

19:13:08 exit, so all of the current office employees will have

19:13:13 to turn only right.

19:13:15 They will not be able to turn into our neighborhood,

19:13:17 which they currently can do, and do do.

19:13:20 So I do think, in some ways, even though there is an

19:13:24 increase in traffic, they are helping to mitigate.

19:13:28 Also, improvements at Bayshore and Bay to Bay will

19:13:31 significantly, I hope, decrease the cut-through

19:13:34 traffic, which we are referring to.

19:13:38 The big issue for everybody, land development, the

19:13:41 Planning Commission, and everyone, including the

19:13:44 neighborhood, is the height.

19:13:45 No one wants this to be a precedent-setting building.




19:13:49 And that is something that we are very concerned

19:13:51 about.

19:13:52 However, we have to say again that we are talking

19:13:54 about 84 residential units.

19:14:00 This is 2.4-acre empty lot.

19:14:03 It's going to be developed into something.

19:14:05 Whether it is this very dense-approved office building

19:14:10 that we were told, quote-unquote, if this condo is not

19:14:15 approved I am going to pull the permits and build this

19:14:19 office building.

19:14:20 And we get nothing.

19:14:20 We get no sidewalks, we get nothing out of this office

19:14:23 building.

19:14:24 We get 1500 more cars in our neighborhood by this

19:14:27 office building.

19:14:30 Given that choice, which was a very limited choice as

19:14:35 Karen referred to it, we as a neighborhood, the

19:14:38 majority, decided that we would rather have 84

19:14:42 neighbors who live in our neighborhood, who care about

19:14:45 our neighborhood, who won't be driving to and from

19:14:48 work as fast as they can, who will be invested in the

19:14:52 neighborhood, versus 150,000 square foot office




19:14:56 building and the problems that raises.

19:14:59 We hope that you understand very carefully that this

19:15:01 was not an easy decision.

19:15:03 It was not an easy predicament to be put in.

19:15:06 And it's not something that I wish on anybody.

19:15:11 And I don't know if this is how this comes about.

19:15:13 But I hope you can answer -- feel free to answer any

19:15:20 questions you have.

19:15:21 We don't want this to set a precedent.

19:15:23 And we don't like going against staff.

19:15:28 Staff -- we respect their opinions.

19:15:31 But in this case the majority prefer 84 residential

19:15:35 units than 150,000 square foot office building.

19:15:39 Thank you.

19:15:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Looking at this site plan here, I

19:15:48 noticed that the site that they are talking about has

19:15:52 already been -- it's all offices and there are a lot

19:15:55 of cars in the parking lots and so on.

19:15:58 So how is the residential around there?

19:16:08 >> Immediately south there's one single-family home,

19:16:10 and Presbyterians towers.

19:16:13 There's some residential units directly across the




19:16:16 street on Isabella.

19:16:19 You have to go two blocks away till you get to the

19:16:23 more dense residential.

19:16:24 But I think we are cutting off everything at Bay to

19:16:27 Bay, because that's where the association neighborhood

19:16:31 line is but just north of Bay to Bay there's Monte

19:16:35 Carlo towers, a huge building, there's Citivest

19:16:39 towers, I can't remember the name of it, a huge

19:16:41 building, and Citivest is looking at freedom park, for

19:16:46 another huge.

19:16:47 So there is a lot of residential development at

19:16:50 different heights in the vicinity.

19:16:52 Not just in our immediate neighborhood.

19:16:54 Does that answer your question, Ms. Alvarez?

19:16:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, yes, thank you.

19:16:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question, not for you but

19:17:01 again for staff.

19:17:02 In a sense, this isn't just this rezoning that we're

19:17:06 weighing.

19:17:07 It sounds top me like the neighborhood and council is

19:17:10 being asked to waive this proposed PD versus the

19:17:12 previous one.




19:17:13 And something doesn't feel right to me and I'll share

19:17:16 with you what it is.

19:17:17 Everybody has been saying, well, what's approved is

19:17:19 this PD for like 150 square feet of office.

19:17:23 But doesn't any building have to meet our current

19:17:27 stormwater rules, our current transportation rules,

19:17:30 our current setback rules, our current grand tree

19:17:35 rules?

19:17:36 So, in other words, even though this previous PD might

19:17:39 have been approved, they would not be allowed to pull

19:17:42 permits unless they Dominican Republic the things for

19:17:44 the neighborhood that this petitioner is being asked

19:17:46 to do, which is to respect the grand tree, to spend

19:17:49 money on transportation improvements, to do these

19:17:52 other things.

19:17:53 And I think that the question that was given to this

19:17:58 neighborhood, they have to understand what the

19:18:00 existing PD would be allowed to do.

19:18:02 And I wonder if you would come up with any more

19:18:06 interpretation.

19:18:06 But it seems to me that everybody has to play by --

19:18:10 you're not allowed to build something new that's




19:18:14 outdated before you pull your permits for it.

19:18:17 In terms of meeting our current standards that are not

19:18:20 waivable like stormwater, like transportation, like

19:18:24 parks and rec and protecting the grand tree.

19:18:27 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

19:18:28 I was able to talk to Thom for a moment about it.

19:18:31 And I think probably the best way to approach that,

19:18:33 and since thatth has to come back anyway, is to

19:18:36 allow to us take a look at that issue, compare the old

19:18:40 PD, the old regulations versus the new regulations and

19:18:43 give you a more comprehensive answer because it may

19:18:45 well be there are certain regulations that they are

19:18:48 currently required to comply with and there may be

19:18:50 other regulations they are not.

19:18:51 So without having all of that information --

19:18:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But that's really germane to this

19:18:58 whole conversation because the neighborhood is being

19:18:59 asked to compare what's currently before us as a new

19:19:02 PD with an old PD that the staff may not be

19:19:05 permittable.

19:19:06 And they may have to do some of the improvement ifs

19:19:08 this one is on the scene.




19:19:10 >>> And this PD, I understand that might be the

19:19:13 reasoning behind why maybe the neighborhood

19:19:16 association has made the determination that they would

19:19:19 go ahead and issue support for this project, but still

19:19:24 do a different project in light of the current area,

19:19:28 the current information that you have, current traffic

19:19:30 analysis, et cetera.

19:19:32 And that is also one of the reasons why this needs to

19:19:35 come back to you, because staff has not had the

19:19:40 opportunity to weigh in on this particular site plan.

19:19:43 So the Hobbson choice may be a reason for people to

19:19:47 say that they are in support of it.

19:19:48 But that isn't the only thing in which you should be

19:19:51 looking at.

19:19:53 In making your decision.

19:19:54 I will also say we'll go ahead and come back when this

19:19:57 comes back in front of you, either staff or the legal

19:20:00 department, will respond to this other question.

19:20:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The question is, if this were, you

19:20:07 know, a relatively blank slate would the staff still

19:20:11 have formed the opinions that they did?

19:20:12 Or were their opinions formed based on the existing




19:20:16 PD?

19:20:18 >>JULIA COLE: I think--well, and that's one of the

19:20:22 problems in moving forward today because they are not

19:20:22 able to even respond to what's in front of you because

19:20:25 they haven't had a chance to look at it.

19:20:27 But I any that is a question they will have to respond

19:20:29 to.

19:20:30 When they do look at it they have to take into

19:20:32 consideration what is currently allowed on the site.

19:20:34 However, it does also need to be worked out in terms

19:20:37 of what's currently out there, how things are

19:20:41 currently developed, and the current situation.

19:20:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to

19:20:46 speak?

19:20:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did she have more time?

19:20:48 I think I interrupted her.

19:20:52 >>> Vicki: Just to close out.

19:20:55 We weighed our decision on what we were told.

19:20:57 And through all of your staff, I have talked to

19:21:01 everybody I could talk to about this.

19:21:03 And that's how we base this decision.

19:21:06 We prefer residential unit, it's as simple as that.




19:21:12 And other than that, I don't know what to say except

19:21:15 we based this decision on what we were told by land

19:21:18 use and planning and everything else.

19:21:20 Thank you.

19:21:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

19:21:22 Petitioner?

19:21:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anybody else?

19:21:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Marty, I noticed here on the report

19:21:37 that the stormwater signed off, had no objection.

19:21:41 Can you tell me where the notes are that they have to

19:21:44 comply with stormwater regulations?

19:21:46 I didn't see it here unless I'm missing it.

19:21:56 >>MARTY BOYLE: It's a good question.

19:22:27 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm looking at the notes.

19:22:29 There isn't a note.

19:22:30 However, we didn't get the comments were that they

19:22:34 were objecting to -- there was no comments that they

19:22:38 were objecting.

19:22:40 They were complying.

19:22:41 Well, they certainly --

19:22:47 >>GWEN MILLER: These are old.

19:22:50 >>MARTY BOYLE: The plan you have in front of you




19:22:52 should be at the top dated 1-13-06 handwritten.

19:22:56 It says petition number.

19:23:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't see anything on there about

19:23:03 it.

19:23:03 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'll certainly take council's wishes

19:23:06 and the petitioner will agree to put a note on there

19:23:08 stating that they will comply.

19:23:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

19:23:13 Petitioner.

19:23:29 >>> SHATISH: I think you have gotten an accurate

19:23:34 picture of what this situation is, and to put in the

19:23:36 perspective, you know, Joe Taggart who owned the

19:23:40 property, it is a fact that he was prepared to go

19:23:42 forward with an office building, and had begun

19:23:46 marketing, and in fact his marketing person is here,

19:23:50 and got the thought that maybe there's an opportunity

19:23:53 to do residential here that might be a better fit for

19:23:56 the neighborhood.

19:23:58 Quite frankly, that's how I got involved in the

19:24:00 project.

19:24:00 I don't do office buildings.

19:24:01 All I do is multifamily.




19:24:04 And so with that invitation, Joe invited me to come

19:24:09 and look at the property, and I began a dialogue with

19:24:11 the neighborhood on that basis of coming into the

19:24:15 neighborhood and trying to do something that would

19:24:17 address many of the concerns.

19:24:20 I think a lot of the objections that you heard tonight

19:24:24 from the neighborhood relate to conditions that exist

19:24:28 either with my project or without my project.

19:24:32 You know, a lot of the concerns relate to traffic, and

19:24:34 the traffic problems that are there, the cut-through

19:24:37 traffic, the bus traffic, and those things --

19:24:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: height.

19:24:45 >>> They are there.

19:24:45 And our project was meant to come to the neighborhood

19:24:49 and try to fix as many of those problems as we could.

19:24:53 And also to bring a better alternative to the

19:24:56 neighborhood than what was currently planned at the

19:24:59 time.

19:25:00 And we understand the concern about setting a

19:25:03 precedent. As someone mentioned earlier, when you

19:25:07 actually look at that intersection to see what the

19:25:09 density is around there, it actually is a fairly dense




19:25:16 noticed.

19:25:16 There are seven town homes across the street and one

19:25:19 single family home next door.

19:25:23 Other than that it is all commercial use.

19:25:25 We feel our building will provide a very good

19:25:27 transition and a buffer to the single-family

19:25:29 neighborhood as opposed to any other type of use.

19:25:34 Vicki correctly identified that a surface parking lot

19:25:37 in that location cannot stay forever, and so something

19:25:42 is going to have to happen there at some point. And

19:25:45 to put 84 homeowners who have invested a lot of

19:25:48 money -- and believe me, they will invest a lot of

19:25:51 money when they buy a home there -- and that

19:25:54 commitment to the neighborhood, the reduction in

19:25:56 traffic, and establishing Isabella, and Barcelona as

19:26:01 the end of where the high density development will go,

19:26:05 I think overall that that's a good outcome for the

19:26:08 neighborhood in the long-term.

19:26:11 Thank you.

19:26:11 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to continue for how long?

19:26:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.

19:26:17 My strong feeling is that what you're proposing is




19:26:20 much better than the office.

19:26:21 However, this isn't discussion, this is just -- we get

19:26:25 to talk.

19:26:25 But I think that what you're proposing is too much.

19:26:30 I think that what you're proposing, if it were like 12

19:26:40 stories, would be acceptable to the neighborhood, it

19:26:40 would still make the improvements, charge more for

19:26:40 each unit, just don't go up so high.

19:26:40 That's my concern.

19:26:41 And I think that what was presented to the

19:26:45 neighborhood was a really painful choice.

19:26:47 I think that Vicki Pollier was very candid with us.

19:26:52 I want between this week and next week when you come

19:26:55 back, I really want you to look hard at your numbers,

19:26:58 see how fabulous you can make these units, how much

19:27:00 more you can charge for them, and how much lower you

19:27:02 can go.

19:27:03 Because the Planning Commission clearly stated that

19:27:06 your proposed use is not compatible with the

19:27:08 surrounding neighborhood.

19:27:10 We totally appreciate the improvements you make on the

19:27:13 streets, the sidewalks, the fact you are Keening the




19:27:15 grand tree which you are required to do.

19:27:18 I just think it needs to be less high.

19:27:19 So before you continue, I wanted to you hear that.

19:27:22 And I think you heard from the neighbors.

19:27:24 And I think you understand their concerns.

19:27:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena, except for

19:27:31 one thing.

19:27:32 I think maybe 15 stories would be better because of

19:27:36 the Presbyterians towers being 15 stories.

19:27:39 >>GWEN MILLER: 17.

19:27:40 >>> Or 17 stories.

19:27:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the height of the

19:27:44 Presbyterians towers?

19:27:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 17 stories.

19:27:48 >>MARTY BOYLE: Let me apologize.

19:27:51 I heard two different things.

19:27:52 15 or 17 stories.

19:27:57 >> What is the height?

19:27:58 >>GWEN MILLER: 17 stories.

19:27:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what Mr. Garcia said.

19:28:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The question I really have is the

19:28:05 height.




19:28:05 Because I understand -- there's a difference between

19:28:08 stories and height.

19:28:09 And in the old hen days they made things with lower

19:28:13 ceilings.

19:28:13 Now they are making more luxurious units with higher

19:28:22 stories and share with the petitioner and that's kind

19:28:24 of the scale.

19:28:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Don't they normally use ten foot?

19:28:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It depends.

19:28:31 That was 10 or 15 years ago.

19:28:34 The overall height.

19:28:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That was my comment that I thought,

19:28:41 too, that it's too tall for this neighborhood.

19:28:45 And again, we don't want to set a precedent for

19:28:47 somebody who come in and want to build, and allow a 26

19:28:53 story building, the next person wants to build a

19:28:55 30-story.

19:28:56 So I think Ms. Saul-Sena had the right idea.

19:29:02 Go back and check your numbers again, and see if you

19:29:04 can come back with something a little bit smaller.

19:29:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue.

19:29:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.




19:29:12 >>GWEN MILLER: How long?

19:29:15 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm looking at night meetings.

19:29:19 Everything is, under council rules for February

19:29:23 9th, February 23rd, it is full.

19:29:26 Looking at night meetings, we have no spot open until,

19:29:33 for new cases, until April 27th for first

19:29:37 readings.

19:29:39 I don't know if a daytime meeting would be

19:29:41 appropriate.

19:29:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: March 23rd is not a good time?

19:29:48 All we are showing is one land zoning.

19:29:50 >>MARTY BOYLE: Under council rules there are ten new

19:29:53 cases slated.

19:29:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: How many continuances?

19:29:58 >>> There are three slots open for continuances.

19:30:00 I'm sorry, we scheduled. Some.

19:30:02 >>GWEN MILLER: This is a continuance.

19:30:04 Do we have any continuances?

19:30:08 >>MARTY BOYLE: We can continue if it's first reading?

19:30:10 Okay.

19:30:10 So March 23rd.

19:30:17 >>GWEN MILLER: What about February?




19:30:18 >>MARTY BOYLE: March 5th would be a daytime.

19:30:24 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

19:30:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How about February 23rd?

19:30:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We got too many.

19:30:39 These are land rezonings.

19:30:42 >>GWEN MILLER: What about February?

19:30:46 >>> Truett: February would be fine.

19:30:48 >>GWEN MILLER: The 23rd.

19:30:50 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Alvarez voting no.

19:30:59 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 7.

19:31:01 (Motion carried).

19:31:22

19:32:16 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

19:32:17 I have been sworn.

19:32:17 Item number 7, Z 05-145.

19:32:23 This is a rezoning.

19:32:26 Petitioner is proposing to rezone the property at 1105

19:32:29 east Twiggs Street to a CD-3 Channel District.

19:32:33 Petitioner proposes to construct a mixed use

19:32:36 development consisting of 314 single-family units,

19:32:42 19 -- 415 square feet of office, and 1611 square feet

19:32:49 of clubhouse for the residents' use only.




19:32:51 The site is located in the Channel District along with

19:32:56 northwestern, at the southeast corner of Twiggs Street

19:33:00 and Meridian, and it is north of Kennedy.

19:33:03 The maximum proposed height is 240 feet.

19:33:06 The total F.A.R. is 4.0 and it is a -- excuse me, a

19:33:13 2.26-acre site.

19:33:15 The number of parking spaces provided is 545 spaces

19:33:19 and there are 372 spaces that are required.

19:33:29 If you look at the Elmo, it clearly shows the site.

19:33:34 It is currently CD-1.

19:33:38 And they are proposing CD-3.

19:33:40 To the south is CD-3.

19:33:42 To the north CD-2.

19:33:44 This is Meridian, Twiggs, and you have Kennedy to the

19:33:50 side.

19:33:55 The aerial shows the site, I believe adult use, this

19:34:01 is an engineering firm, and I'm not sure, a warehouse

19:34:07 type use here.

19:34:12 There are waivers requested.

19:34:14 The first waiver is to increase allowable floor area

19:34:17 from 3.5 to 4 per additional amenities provided.

19:34:23 Also, you don't see it in your staff report, but there




19:34:26 has been a waiver added to the site plan to satisfy

19:34:30 transportation, and the waiver is to allow maneuvering

19:34:34 into the right-of-way for loading vehicles.

19:34:39 Like I previously said, the petitioner is requesting

19:34:41 to increase allowable F.A.R. as part of its request.

19:34:46 4.0 F.A.R. is being requested within the mixed use 100

19:34:55 land use category.

19:34:56 However because the site is located within the CDBG

19:34:59 peripheral, City Council may grant an increase in

19:35:02 F.A.R.

19:35:03 If the petitioner provides additional on-site

19:35:05 amenities in the form of bonus provisions as defined

19:35:09 in the Tampa comprehensive plan, the amenities

19:35:12 provided by the developer as follows: Petitioner will

19:35:15 contribute $100 that you to the City of Tampa for use

19:35:17 in connection with improvements to the intersection of

19:35:19 Twiggs and Meridian Avenue.

19:35:22 The petitioner is providing 31,440 square feet of open

19:35:29 green space to include a station and bike.

19:35:36 If you look at the site plan you will see the green

19:35:38 space.

19:35:40 It is to be maintained by the property owners.




19:35:46 Dedicate 10 feet of property adjacent to Twiggs Street

19:35:50 right-of-way to the City of Tampa at no cost for the

19:35:53 undergrounding of utilities.

19:35:54 You can see note 14 on the site plan for that.

19:35:56 The petitioner will construct a trail in conjunction

19:35:58 with the Twiggs Street trail within the public

19:36:01 right-of-way at a width of 10 feet him along Twiggs

19:36:05 Street.

19:36:06 Petitioner agrees to allow the installation of signage

19:36:08 in conjunction with Twiggs Street trail within the

19:36:12 dedicated right-of-way.

19:36:14 Under staff findings, the objections by design review,

19:36:18 they wanted to see color renderings and wanted to see

19:36:24 ground level perspective.

19:36:25 Transportation had an objection that is not listed on

19:36:28 your staff report.

19:36:30 It's that they requested the petitioner add a note to

19:36:32 the site plan stating that they need to ask for a

19:36:37 waiver, and also stating, number 14, you don't have it

19:36:42 in front of you.

19:36:44 The petitioner has agreed to add this note.

19:36:46 It states that the applicant shall, upon written




19:36:49 request by City of Tampa, dedicate and convey to City

19:36:53 of Tampa at no cost or expense the northernmost ten

19:36:55 feet of the subject property located adjacent to and

19:36:57 contiguous with existing right-of-way for Twiggs by

19:37:01 the City of Tampa to expand Twiggs Street, subject

19:37:03 only to the following condition: In the event that

19:37:05 such expansion of Twiggs Street shall require

19:37:08 relocation of existing above-ground electrical utility

19:37:11 service poles and transmission lines along the

19:37:13 northern portion of subject property, and such

19:37:15 electrical utility service poles and transmission

19:37:18 lines remain above ground, the same shall not be moved

19:37:21 or relocated any closer than 23 feet from the proposed

19:37:25 building to be constructed upon the property.

19:37:28 That note is to be added.

19:37:30 The petitioner agreed.

19:37:31 It satisfies transportation's objections.

19:37:35 Under findings of fact, under central business

19:37:38 district peripheral, objective 8-A, it provides for

19:37:44 mixed use, residential projects in appropriate

19:37:46 locations, within the divine peripheral central

19:37:51 business district.




19:37:52 And 8-8.1 permits consideration of density not to

19:37:59 exceed 100% increase over the existing land use

19:38:02 designation as outlined in the element for central

19:38:06 business district peripheral projects.

19:38:08 Policy A8.2 talks about speaking of the project

19:38:15 seeking of the use of the CBD peripheral bonus

19:38:20 provisions must ensure compatibility with intensity of

19:38:24 existing development, both within and outside

19:38:26 peripheral boundaries by transitioning of the project.

19:38:29 The approached structure is located north of Kennedy

19:38:32 in the northern peripheral of CBD and is consistent

19:38:35 with the densities and heights associated with CBD

19:38:38 district.

19:38:38 The Grand Central projects to the south was granted

19:38:41 165 feet of maximum height and the seaport project on

19:38:45 12th to the southeast was granted a 300-foot

19:38:48 maximum height.

19:38:49 The petitioner has worked with the transportation

19:38:52 department as contributing 100,000 to the intersection

19:38:56 improvement at Twiggs and Meridian.

19:38:58 Under policy A-8.4, it talks about projects using

19:39:03 central business district shall provide amenities, and




19:39:08 that there is a point system associated with that.

19:39:10 We need to make note, a point system has not been

19:39:13 developed.

19:39:14 However, has been considered up to 4.3 plus or minus

19:39:19 for provisions of the amenities in the area.

19:39:24 With that, that's the end -- if F there's any

19:39:27 questions I would be glad to answer.

19:39:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:39:30 Don't we have -- I know we have requirements that the

19:39:34 proposal be pedestrian-friendly.

19:39:36 And we have talked about -- Twiggs is a major street

19:39:40 in the Channel District.

19:39:41 And from the site plan, I didn't see any pedestrian

19:39:46 access on Twiggs.

19:39:47 Aren't people supposed to create pedestrian access on

19:39:51 all the sides of the project?

19:39:54 Boyle bowel are you speaking to -- you know, there is

19:39:56 the trail.

19:39:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I'm talk that somebody can walk

19:40:00 in or walk out of the building.

19:40:01 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

19:40:12 I have been sworn in.




19:40:13 The subject property is located, as Ms. Boyle stated,

19:40:18 right off of Twiggs Street, and Meridian.

19:40:21 It is one block, two blocks north of Kennedy

19:40:23 Boulevard.

19:40:25 Land use designation is RMU 100. The request as she

19:40:29 stated is for N excess of 300 units, over 19,000

19:40:32 square feet of commercial use.

19:40:34 You do have a normal F.A.R. of 3.5, RMU category.

19:40:39 This is within the CBD periphery boundary. The

19:40:42 request is being made to 4.0.

19:40:44 Ms. Boyle has also listed to you the number of

19:40:46 amenities that have been provided over and above the

19:40:49 excess which equates to a 4.0 F.A.R. in addition to

19:40:53 among the additions that they are proposing, a .72

19:40:58 acre of proposed green space for an additional

19:41:01 pedestrian amenities, which I believe the applicant

19:41:03 will be addressing to you in detail within his

19:41:08 presentation.

19:41:09 The site is located within the Ybor channel mixed use

19:41:13 center to the activity center of the central business

19:41:15 district.

19:41:16 Of course it is in close proximity to a number of




19:41:20 regional attractors, the St. Pete Times Forum, the

19:41:22 port of Tampa, aquarium.

19:41:26 It is adjacent to one of the major thoroughfares in

19:41:28 the Channel District which is Meridian and is also in

19:41:31 close proximity and is located on the northern edge of

19:41:35 the Channel District area.

19:41:38 Request T request of 4.0 is underneath the maximum

19:41:43 bonus that which is about 4.3 so it is underneath

19:41:49 that, and does not set any additional standards, from

19:41:53 the F.A.R. bonus standpoint.

19:41:55 But I think also it's interesting as far as the

19:42:01 context of this existing area, there are no existing

19:42:08 residential projects adjacent to the proposed site.

19:42:11 There are some in proximity in various stages of

19:42:15 construction but there are no established projects as

19:42:18 of yet.

19:42:18 So this would again add to potential development in

19:42:25 this particular section of the Channel District.

19:42:27 Planning Commission staff, council proposal is

19:42:32 consistent with.

19:42:35

19:42:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.




19:42:40 >>> Good evening.

19:42:40 My name is Brian Sykes with the firm of 100 south

19:42:45 Ashley street, yes, I have been sworn in.

19:42:49 It's not often you get to deal with a project doing

19:42:55 the tongue twister Twiggs Street trail which I did

19:43:00 once but this is a project that fits within the intent

19:43:02 of the city Tampa comprehensive plan.

19:43:05 And the purpose of the future land use and

19:43:07 comprehensive plan states that less than 12% of Tampa

19:43:09 land area is classified as vacant, and that Tampa's

19:43:12 future will be driven by the redevelopment more than

19:43:15 new development.

19:43:16 This is a prime project.

19:43:18 The current use of the site is at the corner of Twiggs

19:43:21 and Meridian is an office building, bayside

19:43:24 engineering.

19:43:25 On the opposite corner at Madison and Meridian is an

19:43:27 adult use.

19:43:29 The remainder of the site is essentially vacant having

19:43:32 been former industrial warehouse type of uses.

19:43:36 Adjacent and to the south is a project called Grand

19:43:39 Central at Kennedy.




19:43:41 The project is related and somewhat of a sister

19:43:44 project to this project you have before you, the

19:43:46 Martin, and two of the principals in the Martin LLC

19:43:49 are the same principals in Grand Central and Kennedy,

19:43:51 and that is Ken Stalten Berg and Mr. Brombeck.

19:43:56 Mr. Stalten Berg will be speaking on the project in a

19:44:00 few minutes. The project does require two waivers.

19:44:01 First as noted in transportation staff, a waiver to

19:44:04 allow vehicles accessing the loading space to maneuver

19:44:08 in the right-of-way from Madison street.

19:44:09 Madison street is a lesser traveled street than Twiggs

19:44:12 Street which is part of the reason why we oriented the

19:44:14 back of operations towards Madison street.

19:44:17 It does not present any transportation issues or any

19:44:20 transportation -- does not present any transportation

19:44:24 concerns.

19:44:25 The second waiver that we are asking for this evening

19:44:27 is with respect to the F.A.R., asking for

19:44:29 approximately a 15% increase in F.A.R. from 3.5 to

19:44:33 4.0.

19:44:34 As staff has noted in its report and discussed, this

19:44:37 is appropriate under the comprehensive plan, given the




19:44:39 amenities that the developer is proposing to provide

19:44:42 in connection with this project, and the improvements

19:44:45 that the developer is proposing to provide.

19:44:47 With respect to the scope of the project and size of

19:44:49 the project, from a height perspective, the building

19:44:52 is supposed to be 240 feet in height.

19:44:54 The adjacent Grand Central Kennedy sister project is

19:44:58 165 feet in height.

19:44:59 This project is to the north of that, and it is on the

19:45:02 periphery of not only Channelside district but also

19:45:04 the central business district and provides nice

19:45:07 transition from the lower uses, the lower dense

19:45:12 advertise, of the Channelside district into the

19:45:12 central business district.

19:45:14 I'm going to let the pictures speak more than words

19:45:16 and introduce Richardson Daly, the designer on the

19:45:21 project, and he's going to go through a little bit

19:45:24 about the design. Technical difficulties.

19:45:32

19:45:42 There we go.

19:45:53 >>> Richard ZINGALI.

19:45:56 I have been sworn in.




19:45:57 Thank you.

19:45:57

19:46:01 We are going to show a film that I think you have all

19:46:03 seen once before.

19:46:05 This is the area of the Channelside district.

19:46:11 It demonstrates how the building is integrated into

19:46:14 the neighborhood.

19:46:15 We are starting out moving north on Meridian, and we

19:46:20 are approaching Kennedy Boulevard.

19:46:22 We are passing the Grand Central project.

19:46:24 We are coming along the west side of the project.

19:46:30 The development has been closely monitored to respond

19:46:33 and respect the proposed Channelside S.A.P.

19:46:36 The configuration is responsive to the neighborhood's

19:46:40 context as currently under construction.

19:46:44 The architecture designs are to utilize the day

19:46:50 sunlight strategically considering that shade is not

19:46:53 necessarily a bad thing.

19:46:55 The orientations have been derived to preserve

19:46:59 neighborhood view ports as well as project views of

19:47:02 the city and court.

19:47:04 This is sunsetted that is currently approaching noon,




19:47:08 and now moving more to the afternoon, and will end at

19:47:14 6:00.

19:47:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's very cool.

19:47:19 >>> We can also show you the sun -- the times are

19:47:26 lifted in the lower left-hand corner.

19:47:28 That's site plan we are going to move to next which is

19:47:31 going to help us explain how the building is

19:47:35 integrated on the ground.

19:47:38 We have to move to a different file.

19:47:57 This is a conceptual landscape site plan that

19:48:00 demonstrates how the Mortan building is oriented into

19:48:04 the immediate area.

19:48:07 To the left you have Meridian Avenue.

19:48:09 On the top of the frame you have Twiggs.

19:48:13 We have Madison street to the south.

19:48:15 And then what you see to the right-hand side is the

19:48:18 open area that has been described as .72 acres.

19:48:23 The Meridian street integration has been designed

19:48:28 closely with Phil Graham's landscape plan and paving.

19:48:34 The building has also been pulled quite a bit back so

19:48:37 that we can provide areas and remove those slightly

19:48:43 from the face of the building so we can provide




19:48:45 gathering spaces for what will be commercial uses on

19:48:47 that face.

19:48:49 On the north edge we have Twiggs Street.

19:48:51 And then we have provided for the Twiggs Street trail,

19:48:57 sidewalks, greenery, again all working with not only

19:49:00 Phil Graham's plan and material vocabulary but also

19:49:04 working with the recommendations and the strategic

19:49:07 action plan of that secondary area so that shell and

19:49:15 con creates used in sidewalks.

19:49:16 Our north and sidewalk edges are pretty much our

19:49:18 service and garage entrance and exists.

19:49:22 However, we have wrapped the east and west faces, the

19:49:26 residential component, that occurs on upper floors.

19:49:30 And on the lower floors we have wrapped the commercial

19:49:33 component.

19:49:33 You see that because we have some building per spick

19:49:36 tiffs coming up to help mitigate some of those service

19:49:39 requirements.

19:49:40 The east basin we have the park and open space and

19:49:44 there's some design features that are conceptual in

19:49:47 the upper right-hand corner which are a water feature

19:49:51 that occurs right at where the buildings portal will




19:49:54 be with some paving and it's a gathering space.

19:49:56

19:50:00 On this edge we have asked for the ability to do

19:50:03 townhouses on the ground floor, sending them out for

19:50:10 commercial space and that's in note 13 in the PD.

19:50:13 And the thought there was that's a much more personal

19:50:15 relationship to the grade level with porches and

19:50:18 stairs, and see that in elevation.

19:50:21 Some of the features are the open space primarily,

19:50:24 will have definitely some topography as suggested in

19:50:28 those terrace steps in the upper right-hand corner.

19:50:31 It provides pedestrian access between Twiggs and not

19:50:35 only for the residents but also for the neighborhood

19:50:39 in general.

19:50:43 Let's move on to some photographs or actually some

19:50:45 renderings of what the building will look like.

19:50:48 This is from the northeast corner.

19:50:50 And we are looking at the actual open area as it

19:50:54 appears on the face of the building.

19:50:56 From this perspective you see on the ground floor

19:50:59 residential units, the entry portal into the building,

19:51:02 the landscape plan that's been recommended by Phil




19:51:08 Graham, and the buildings massing, which essentially

19:51:13 is composed of the glass box, relative gloss box, not

19:51:18 entirely, with a more solid box.

19:51:20 We have variation, in the window patterns, created

19:51:24 some interest from the street and from the park.

19:51:27 As we move around to the -- and these are some blowups

19:51:32 so you can see the water feature.

19:51:33 We have a sculpture placed there in the center of

19:51:36 that.

19:51:36 And it's going to be a very inviting space for the

19:51:41 neighborhood.

19:51:42 I think it's a wonderful place for the neighborhood.

19:51:45 Moving to the northwest corner, we have got the

19:51:51 residential units, the lower units to the right that

19:51:56 are facing Meridian.

19:51:59 Commercial space on the ground floor.

19:52:00 But you can see that edge is still populated with

19:52:02 landscape, awnings, canopies, and signage that help

19:52:07 break up how that will feel from the street, and be a

19:52:10 pleasant pedestrian experience, and certainly

19:52:12 secondary, but certainly a lot of consideration has

19:52:15 been made toward that end.




19:52:17 As we look at that more closely, we can see some of

19:52:21 those details.

19:52:23 Moving onto the southeast corner of the building, this

19:52:28 is a good location to look at how we tried to deal

19:52:31 with the parking, 545 spaces.

19:52:36 The most economical way certainly as to provide it as

19:52:39 open as possible which is to your left, and I would

19:52:41 imagine pretty obvious.

19:52:43 On the corner of the building, we punched openings

19:52:47 similar to what's happening up above, and to the right

19:52:49 as we get back into the park space, we have introduced

19:52:52 a number of vertical fins, if you will, that help

19:53:00 break up the faces of the parking.

19:53:02 And move ahead then to the southwest corner which is

19:53:07 looking back at the residential units, and which are

19:53:11 above the commercial space that is on Meridian.

19:53:15 You can see they are pulled from the base of the

19:53:19 building that allow people to gather behind them in

19:53:22 the face of the building and also create a plaza edge

19:53:24 for Meridian, again buildings pulled significantly

19:53:28 back from Meridian to give it some breath so it's not

19:53:32 resting right on the edge.




19:53:34 Throws a close-up of that.

19:53:36 So that essentially concludes my portion of the

19:53:40 presentation.

19:53:40 I am going to hand it over to Ken Staltenberg, our

19:53:44 developer.

19:53:53 >>> Ken: We're certainly happy to be here today.

19:53:55 We are very excited about this project.

19:53:56 We think the Martin at Meridian, what this project is

19:53:59 going to be called, is a compliment to what we are

19:54:02 presently doing at Grand Central.

19:54:04 We spent a lot of time log at where to place the

19:54:06 building, and the different scale components so it is

19:54:09 an asset to the people who are going to live in the

19:54:12 Channel District, and other surrounding properties,

19:54:18 such as the synergy property to the north so we really

19:54:21 looked at how we can integrate that property into what

19:54:24 is going to be a very exciting neighborhood, a good

19:54:28 place to live, and wanted to have it be consistent

19:54:30 with the Channel District action plan.

19:54:32 I know you haven't voted to adopt it yet but we tried

19:54:34 to look at what the mission statement is, and design

19:54:37 this building so that it is fitting in with what's




19:54:40 there in the future.

19:54:41 But there's a number of things with this building

19:54:44 which are not groundbreaking which I just wanted to

19:54:46 touch on.

19:54:47 Given the state of limbo of how tall things can be and

19:54:51 how dense things should be in the Channel District, we

19:54:54 tried to look at what you have said before.

19:54:56 That's been the key.

19:54:57 And that's why you find that the density of the

19:54:59 building is 4.0.

19:55:01 It's a little bit more dense than what's currently

19:55:03 permitted but it's not more dense than what you have

19:55:05 approved before for similar projects right in the

19:55:07 Channel District.

19:55:08 The height of the building.

19:55:09 If you look at the height of Grand Central at 14

19:55:11 stories, and the height of one of the buildings in the

19:55:15 synergy property at 30 stories, we are 22.

19:55:17 We split the difference so it does fit in.

19:55:21 We think that this building would be totally

19:55:25 consistent if you were to adopt the new Channel

19:55:27 District action plan as far as how dense and how high




19:55:29 everything can be.

19:55:30 This building would be totally consistent with that

19:55:33 new vision.

19:55:34 I now haven't voted on it yet and we can't work out

19:55:39 all of it but we tried to have this where it would fit

19:55:41 in.

19:55:43 What the Martin does is it provides approximately

19:55:46 three quarter acre park open space which is sorely

19:55:50 needed in that district.

19:55:50 We think it's really important that groan space is

19:55:53 providing.

19:55:53 Quite frankly that's why the building is a little

19:55:55 higher than Grand Central so when could take that

19:55:57 space and turn it into a green area not just for the

19:55:59 people at the Martin but also everybody in the

19:56:01 neighborhood.

19:56:06 We have obviously extended the greenway, and we are

19:56:09 backing ten feet off Twiggs Street.

19:56:11 We are also contributing $100,000 in excess of our

19:56:14 standard traffic impact fees to expand Twiggs and fix

19:56:20 the situation there which right now, while it's not an

19:56:25 ideal situation there is going to be a lot more




19:56:27 traffic down there.

19:56:29 A lot of people are using Twiggs so it is very busy

19:56:32 right now.

19:56:34 The other thing that it does, which is I think very

19:56:36 important for the neighborhood, is it gets rid of that

19:56:41 stupid XXX guy.

19:56:42 It is a tragedy, when we drive down the beautiful

19:56:45 Meridian Gateway Rway and see that big XXX sign.

19:56:49 We went out, dealt with the guy and bought him out and

19:56:51 it wasn't easy.

19:56:53 And say what you want about Keith, he's not stupid.

19:56:56 He's a smart guy.

19:57:00 He knew exactly what he had.

19:57:00 And we had to figure out how to make it work and step

19:57:01 to the plate really quick with some pretty big bucks.

19:57:03 We did that.

19:57:05 Thirdly, I understand that you guys get a lot of

19:57:08 petitions for rezoning.

19:57:09 Right now there's about 30 to 35 projects either in

19:57:14 the Channel District or downtown core, the periphery.

19:57:17 Unfortunately, only about six of those are under

19:57:20 construction right now, one of which is Grand Central




19:57:22 at Kennedy.

19:57:23 When you look at these things and pep come before you,

19:57:26 you have to ask yourself, can you pull it off?

19:57:28 Well, we are pulling it off right next door.

19:57:30 And Grand Central at Kennedy was a very complex

19:57:32 project.

19:57:33 We have office space, and we have a lot of

19:57:35 residential, and retail space.

19:57:38 So this is a simpler program and it is a smarter

19:57:42 project.

19:57:42 We have purchased all of the land.

19:57:43 We currently have closed alone that essentially did

19:57:48 the the same at Grand Central.

19:57:49 We spoke with our bankers which would you know them as

19:57:54 AB and M and they are very interested in doing this.

19:57:58 So while we can never forecast things in the future, I

19:58:01 think our chances of pulling it off as good if not

19:58:04 better than folks that come before you, and I can

19:58:07 understand how there might be some reticence or

19:58:10 frustration where you guys generally want to see these

19:58:13 areas blossom, and it probably frustrates you when

19:58:17 people come before you to rezone things and they end




19:58:20 up flipping the dirt or can't pull it off.

19:58:22 We are are certainly excited to make this happen.

19:58:31 So I think if you look at the uses, what's going on

19:58:33 there now, and what we are proposing, this is

19:58:38 certainly a win-win for the Channel District, and it's

19:58:42 not making -- setting new precedent as far as height

19:58:46 or density or the other things you have already looked

19:58:49 at projects and approved.

19:58:50 We took that into consideration when designing this.

19:58:53 And what I would say, we frankly love the Channel

19:58:57 District.

19:58:58 We have been down in the Channel District for some

19:59:00 time.

19:59:00 We plan to hold onto our retail at Grand Central.

19:59:03 And this property is going to help that be successful.

19:59:08 For the Channel District to be successful we have

19:59:10 three projects under construction now.

19:59:12 I would love within the next three to five years to

19:59:14 see another six.

19:59:15 That's when we really get to that, where it becomes a

19:59:19 workable neighborhood.

19:59:22 I think sometimes you read a lot about the Channel




19:59:23 District.

19:59:24 And there's a sense that it's over the hump, it's

19:59:29 already there, everything is hungy dory.

19:59:33 There are important areas but the Channel District

19:59:35 isn't.

19:59:36 This project is going to help it get there.

19:59:37 And I humbly ask your support.

19:59:40 We are happy to answer any questions you or council

19:59:42 has.

19:59:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?

19:59:47 >>> Yes.

19:59:47 Ken Staltenberg, I have been sworn.

19:59:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Are there any member members of the

19:59:54 public that would like to be speak on item number 7?

20:00:16 >>> I have been sworn in. Janell Hanson.

20:00:18 We thank you for what is now our home.

20:00:20 Tonight we both heard a concept proposal.

20:00:22 We as residents of Channelside did not have the

20:00:24 benefit of reviewing this proposal with our neighbors

20:00:27 in our neighborhood.

20:00:28 A neighborhood not of develop oars, a neighborhood of

20:00:31 residents.




20:00:32 And when I say that, I mean actual residents in

20:00:34 Channelside.

20:00:35 The Wilson Miller study is in progress -- in process

20:00:40 for Channelside.

20:00:40 It is critical for our neighborhood in relation to

20:00:44 developments being proposed and considered that Wilson

20:00:47 Miller turn out their study.

20:00:49 Our neighborhood has invested two consecutive years,

20:00:52 100% of our TIF funds for this study.

20:00:55 This study is expected to be presented to the CRA and

20:00:58 our neighborhood next month.

20:01:00 We as residents are looking forward to reviewing the

20:01:02 Wilson Miller study and having the opportunity with

20:01:04 the CRA to develop this study and to the plan that

20:01:09 secures the vision for our neighborhood and

20:01:11 Channelside.

20:01:13 We request the city postpone deciding on this proposal

20:01:16 tonight until Wilson Miller study is released to all

20:01:19 of us.

20:01:20 We requested the developer the Martin incorporate and

20:01:23 respects the architectural feet yourself of the

20:01:25 five-story development directly across the street




20:01:29 covering the entire length of the north side of

20:01:32 Twiggs.

20:01:32 And you will see that on the map that was presented.

20:01:36 The north side of Twigg, that blue marking, that is a

20:01:39 development already approved.

20:01:40 And they have already put forth plans to go forward

20:01:45 with it.

20:01:46 The permits have been submitted.

20:01:47 The development on the entire north of Twiggs Street

20:01:51 does incorporate the vision of Channelside that is our

20:01:54 neighborhood and our home.

20:02:01 So if you could please just wait for the report, wait

20:02:04 for the vision, and postpone deciding on this until

20:02:08 that comes out, it would be well appreciated by the

20:02:11 entire neighborhood.

20:02:11 We thank you.

20:02:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

20:02:15 Would anyone else like to speak?

20:02:17 Petitioner?

20:02:19 >>KEVIN WHITE: Does anybody know when the Wilson

20:02:21 Miller report is due to come out?

20:02:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, what we did today at our CRA




20:02:28 meeting was ask that the model of the Channel District

20:02:32 be submitted as part of the Wilson Miller study, so

20:02:36 that we could better visualize what these different

20:02:39 F.A.R.'s mean, what different heights mean in context.

20:02:43 That's why one of the reasons I feel that would be

20:02:46 such an important tool.

20:02:48 So in answer to your question, Mr. White, six to eight

20:02:50 weeks.

20:02:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, you may come up for

20:02:53 rebuttal.

20:02:55 >>> Ken Staltenberg, I have been sworn in.

20:03:00 We presented this at the Channel District council

20:03:03 meeting last week, and everyone was invited.

20:03:05 So we did present it to the neighborhood in the normal

20:03:08 course of going to the Channel District meeting.

20:03:10 So we did do that.

20:03:12 I believe Ms. White went to the meeting.

20:03:16 I wanted to clarify, we did present it.

20:03:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a very attractive plan.

20:03:25 I mean, the public open space is beautiful.

20:03:28 The architecture is nice. The question that I really

20:03:30 have is the scale and the height.




20:03:32 And I really -- I would benefit from seeing a model

20:03:38 that shows me how this proposal fits in in the context

20:03:43 of what's around it.

20:03:44 Because, of course, the developer to present their

20:03:49 petition is talking about the things that it's

20:03:51 compatible with.

20:03:51 But the difference, for example, between 160 feet and

20:03:56 240 feet, that's a pretty big difference.

20:03:59 And the resident just referenced the building which I

20:04:05 assume is like 50 or 60 feet that's immediately across

20:04:07 the street along Twigg.

20:04:09 And the beautiful 3-D graphics that we saw didn't

20:04:14 really show us other buildings as much as it showed us

20:04:17 this building.

20:04:19 I would just feel much more comfortable continuing

20:04:21 this until we get the -- we have the benefit of the

20:04:25 plan.

20:04:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: I certainly agree with Ms. Saul-Sena.

20:04:29 Otherwise, our CRA request this morning would be

20:04:32 counterproductive.

20:04:35 We want that, and then we are going to vote without

20:04:37 it.




20:04:37 In addition to which, whether there was some attempt

20:04:41 to communicate with the neighborhood or there wasn't.

20:04:44 And you're saying no, and that's fine.

20:04:47 Because at the same time, there will be the

20:04:49 opportunity of hold back on making our decision, have

20:04:52 the developer get in touch with -- get in touch with

20:04:55 you or get in touch with you again, whatever the case

20:04:57 is.

20:05:00 I'm certainly on the same side as Ms. Saul-Sena.

20:05:03 I'm not ready to go forward with this one this

20:05:06 evening.

20:05:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to propose that we

20:05:09 continue this till the end of February.

20:05:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Second.

20:05:14 With the hope or with the advice that the developer

20:05:16 make an attempt to sit down and talk to the

20:05:18 neighborhood.

20:05:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to know what the

20:05:22 petitioner's position is with regard to that.

20:05:26 Obviously we have a four-member council today.

20:05:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: We are not going to get a vote today.

20:05:32 That's obviously what the position is going to be.




20:05:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: Is that based upon the report getting

20:05:36 back?

20:05:37 If that's the case we have to take it to March.

20:05:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The end of March.

20:05:41 >>JULIA COLE: And petitioner is discussing that at

20:05:44 this point.

20:05:49 >>MARTY BOYLE: It appears under council rules that

20:05:51 February 23rd night meeting is full.

20:05:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: It will be March.

20:05:57 >>MARTY BOYLE: March has room for one continuance.

20:06:00 March 9th.

20:06:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

20:06:03 Make a motion.

20:06:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue this to March

20:06:07 9th, 6 p.m.

20:06:10 >> Second.

20:06:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think petitioner wants to say

20:06:13 something.

20:06:16 >>JULIA COLE: I think we do need to hear from

20:06:18 petitioner.

20:06:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I think petitioner has a right to

20:06:20 have an up or down vote if petitioner wishes tonight.




20:06:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, come to the podium.

20:06:33 >>> Ken: I'm thinking about that.

20:06:35 That puts me in a pretty tough spot.

20:06:38 We invested a good bit of money.

20:06:40 And we have a loan in place that we can't go forward

20:06:44 with.

20:06:45 We were originally supposed to be here in October and

20:06:47 delayed it until now.

20:06:49 One of the reasons was so this hopefully this issue

20:06:52 with the plan would be resolved.

20:06:56 And it's still not resolved.

20:06:58 And I have to we those things and say, hey, what

20:07:00 happens if it's not resolved in March or April or May?

20:07:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May I share with you that the

20:07:07 action that council took this morning sitting as a CRA

20:07:09 is we asked Mr. Chen to agree to spend $13,000 to get

20:07:13 this model made.

20:07:14 Mr. Chen acted very expeditiously, called purchasing,

20:07:18 got a P.O., called the USF school of architect who is

20:07:22 building it.

20:07:22 So it's going to be under construction.

20:07:24 And they told us six weeks.




20:07:27 And I totally respect what you have done in the

20:07:30 Channel District thus far.

20:07:31 It's really high quality.

20:07:32 It's great.

20:07:33 But this is a big deal.

20:07:35 And although I hate to drag it out, I feel like you

20:07:40 didn't come forward with a plan of the whole Channel

20:07:44 District.

20:07:44 You weren't required to.

20:07:45 But it's very -- I mean, this is a big deal.

20:07:50 It's 22 stories.

20:07:50 You're asking for a waiver on your F.A.R., for us to

20:07:54 really understand what's being proposed.

20:07:56 We needed more information than what you're bringing

20:07:59 forth.

20:07:59 And I don't think it would be responsible for us prior

20:08:02 to adopting a Channel District plan to approve a very

20:08:06 significant project.

20:08:08 It would be kind of back yards.

20:08:12 That's why I am requesting it.

20:08:15 >>> Ken: Okay.

20:08:16 What happens if come March there's no decision been




20:08:20 made on that?

20:08:22 I would be sitting here in March and you asking me to

20:08:24 wait till June?

20:08:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't think it will take that

20:08:28 long.

20:08:28 They said this could build this in six weeks.

20:08:31 I'm sure you will be calling them and encouraging them

20:08:33 to build the model.

20:08:34 I'm sure Wilson Miller will come to us at the first

20:08:37 CRA meeting in March.

20:08:38 It's not our intent to delay you.

20:08:40 It's our intent to have additional information on

20:08:42 which to make a good decision.

20:08:44 >>> I understand that.

20:08:45 I'm just saying --

20:08:47 >>> Richard: Can I ask a question?

20:08:49 Richard, I have been sworn.

20:08:54 Can you help me understand the difference between the

20:08:56 physical model and the 3-dimensional model?

20:09:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

20:09:01 Some of us are less professionally able to picture

20:09:06 everything from something that swirls around in three




20:09:10 seconds on a screen than something we can walk around

20:09:12 and see and say this is here, this is here.

20:09:16 It's an educational tool for council to make some very

20:09:19 significant decisions.

20:09:21 This is a very big deal.

20:09:23 Yesterday, I think it was yesterday, we had a meeting

20:09:26 on chapter 27, where we were requiring all new

20:09:29 proposals downtown to have models.

20:09:34 >>> Fizz can Cal?

20:09:36 >> Physical models.

20:09:37 It's really important to our understanding.

20:09:39 Because when we make decisions and they are built and

20:09:42 there for 75 years we want to make good decisions.

20:09:49 >>JULIA COLE: If I can just clarify something.

20:09:53 Julia Cole, legal department.

20:09:54 What is coming forward in six weeks is a model which

20:09:57 would provide council additional information regarding

20:10:00 this particular project and how it would look, and

20:10:05 with other projects.

20:10:06 That's something that's going to be adopted because

20:10:08 calling it adopted has a different connotation that's

20:10:10 that it's almost a regulation type form.




20:10:12 And I also wanted to state for the record that

20:10:17 petitioner certainly has the right to say we'll go

20:10:19 ahead and continue this project so that you can have

20:10:21 this additional information.

20:10:24 However, petitioner -- if petitioner wants to have a

20:10:27 vote up or down today, they have that right.

20:10:29 So I just wanted to make that clear for the record.

20:10:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, you're right.

20:10:33 Thank you, Ms. Cole, because I believe the petitioner

20:10:35 said he's thinking about it.

20:10:36 So he has the option to think about it.

20:10:38 He has the option to do whatever he wants.

20:10:40 I'm kind of sitting here finding, Linda, very politely

20:10:43 and maybe more politely than some of us, explaining

20:10:46 why we are waiting to will at that model.

20:10:48 We are comparing their development, somebody else's,

20:10:51 but not with somebody else that's not compatible with

20:10:53 his, and maybe something else that's not as high.

20:10:56 I for one am not comfortable going forward.

20:10:59 That model will help me.

20:11:01 Whether or not the developer says he has talked to the

20:11:03 neighborhood or not, I see heads nodding no.




20:11:06 And I don't feel that this -- I almost find this

20:11:10 council in a posture that says, gosh, we are so sorry

20:11:14 but we need this.

20:11:15 We don't need to be sorry.

20:11:16 We don't need to be sorry because whatever we vote on

20:11:19 in the Channel District is going to affect a lot of

20:11:21 people that are there.

20:11:22 And that's not to discount, sir, what you have done.

20:11:24 I think personally you and I have had a conversation

20:11:27 in the past, and I have complemented you on your

20:11:30 development.

20:11:30 However, right now when you come back to the podium

20:11:32 and you said, I need to think about it, well you don't

20:11:36 need to think about it.

20:11:36 If you want it up or down tonight do it.

20:11:39 But all we are saying is we in an effort to make very

20:11:42 conscientious decisions for the people that represent

20:11:44 us in terms of the neighborhood, the development, and

20:11:46 how they Marge in a very complementary fashion, A, I

20:11:50 need more time, B, I want to see what we just improved

20:11:53 to invest 13,000 in, and C, the neighborhood is saying

20:11:56 they need to talk to you again.




20:11:57 I don't know what the harm is in saying let's wait.

20:12:00 But if you feel the need and the necessity to do it up

20:12:02 or down tonight, please do so.

20:12:05 I think Ms. Cole just emphasized that you have that

20:12:08 right.

20:12:08 So I would like to see you make your decision, without

20:12:10 any stress from this side.

20:12:12 It's your choice.

20:12:14 >>> We'll take the continuance.

20:12:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.

20:12:16 Great.

20:12:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: At 6:00?

20:12:23 >>MARTY BOYLE: There is an open March 9th, 6 p.m.

20:12:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved to continue this to March

20:12:28 9th, 6 p.m.

20:12:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

20:12:31 [Motion Carried]

20:12:36 >>> Ken: Thank you.

20:12:37

20:12:38 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 9.

20:12:41 >> So moved.

20:12:41 >> Second.




20:12:42 (Motion carried).

20:12:42 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

20:13:35 I have been sworn.

20:13:36 Before you is another Channel District rezoning

20:13:40 request.

20:13:41 The request is to go from a CD-1 to a CD-3.

20:13:48 The petitioner proposes to rezone the property at 910

20:13:53 through 940 Channelside Drive, and 105 through 117

20:13:58 north 12th street.

20:14:05 Should I wait a minute?

20:14:07 No?

20:14:09 This is phase 2 portion of a rezoning.

20:14:12 Phase 1 of the subject site has previously been

20:14:16 rezoned two times by City Council through petitions Z

20:14:20 03-124 and Z 05-25.

20:14:26 The following is a detailed account of a granted

20:14:30 entitlement foramen advertise provided.

20:14:32 First let me let you look at the zoning map.

20:14:43 Phase 1 is located in this area.

20:14:45 You have Channelside.

20:14:48 Washington.

20:14:49 And Whiting.




20:14:51 You will see Meridian.

20:14:52 They are proceeding -- this area is CD-1 and CD-3.

20:14:59 Previously in phase 1, this was rezoned to CD-3.

20:15:08 They are asking for waivers.

20:15:09 The waivers are to allow trucks to maneuver in the

20:15:13 right-of-way, to access loading bays.

20:15:15 To allow tandem parking spaces for residential

20:15:18 parking, and to increase the allowable floor area

20:15:22 ratio from 3.5 to 6.13.

20:15:27 I would like to give you a T following detailed

20:15:30 account of the granite and notes and amenities

20:15:34 provided previously.

20:15:36 V03-124 was phase 1.

20:15:39 Phase 2 did not exist at the time.

20:15:42 They were granted 230 units with a F.A.R. of 4.172.

20:15:49 They provided the bonus amenities, enhanced exterior

20:15:55 lighting in public areas, provided a covered walkway

20:15:58 with vehicular pass-through, colorful paintings and

20:16:03 benches and ground level, a lush court yard, pet park,

20:16:07 and meditation garden at upper levels.

20:16:11 View corridors were provided by reducing the height of

20:16:14 building to 50 feet at two corners.




20:16:17 There are rooftop amenities, a two-story high mural

20:16:22 commissioned in the notes along the Washington street

20:16:25 frontage, a matching water feature was also slated to

20:16:29 be installed in the same area.

20:16:31 Under Z 05-25, allowable units with 245 units, that

20:16:38 was the 230 units previously approved and added 15.

20:16:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a little confusion.

20:16:49 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm sorry.

20:16:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's not you, it's the pictures.

20:16:54 Phase 1 was the southern half of the block?

20:16:57 >>> Correct.

20:16:57 >> Phase 2 was both the northern and the southern

20:16:59 half?

20:17:01 Or just the northern half?

20:17:03 >>> The rezoning petition brings in both phase 1 and

20:17:05 phase 2.

20:17:06 >> But phase 1 was like 200-something units and phase

20:17:10 2 is just a little piece of 15 units, right?

20:17:13 >>> Phase 1 got approval for 230 units.

20:17:16 They then later came back and asked for 15 additional

20:17:18 units.

20:17:20 >> So phase 1 was what F.A.R.?




20:17:23 >>> 4.172.

20:17:25 >> Phase 2 was what?

20:17:27 >>> The new F.A.R., they are asking for is 6.13.

20:17:31 >> Is that on both, if it were continuing --

20:17:34 considering just where the towers are going to be,

20:17:38 wouldn't it be much more?

20:17:40 >>> 6.130 F.A.R. is one phase and phase two. It would

20:17:48 be more, approximately 13 floor area ratio. Briefly

20:17:50 going over the history of phase 1, they had 230 units.

20:17:50 That got approval with 4.17 F.A.R. They came back and

20:17:50 asked for 15 more units and upped the F.A.R. to 4.2

20:17:50 under phase 1.

20:18:07 There were no additional amenities provided.

20:18:09 That was approved.

20:18:11 They are now coming before us with phase 2, which

20:18:14 incorporates the whole site.

20:18:16 And they are asking for 190 residential units, retail

20:18:22 space of 5460 square feet, 3,990 square feet of

20:18:28 storage space, the F.A.R. is 6.13 aggregate for both

20:18:34 phases.

20:18:36 249 feet maximum building height.

20:18:38 And 268 parking spaces are being provided.




20:18:43 206 were required.

20:18:45 The petitioner is requesting an additional increase in

20:18:49 F.A.R. as part of this rezoning request.

20:18:52 City Council granted the previous increase in F.A.R.,

20:18:54 4.2.

20:18:55 Because the petitioner provided additional on-site

20:18:58 amenities, as defined in the Tampa comprehensive plan,

20:19:03 we originally noted in our staff report that this plan

20:19:06 doesn't show any additional bonus a Nen advertise.

20:19:08 However, Tuesday, we were given an e-mail from the

20:19:12 petitioner noting that they had forgotten to include

20:19:16 the amenities that they had planned for phase 2, and

20:19:20 we were provided a copy of those.

20:19:22 They are not included in our staff report.

20:19:24 We really haven't had much chance to review them.

20:19:28 But I can let you know what they are proposing as

20:19:30 amenities to increase their F.A.R.

20:19:33 They are proposing to commission two murals to be

20:19:39 paint add long Washington state street and Channelside

20:19:41 frontage of phase 2 building.

20:19:43 The murals will be no less than one story high.

20:19:47 The decorative wall water feature at the corner of




20:19:51 Channelside and Washington street, phase 1 also has a

20:19:55 water feature.

20:19:56 The developer shall install lighted outdoor sculpture

20:19:59 feature approximately 10 stories high at the corner of

20:20:01 Channelside and Washington street.

20:20:03 And a rooftop lantern above.

20:20:06 The developer shall install paver marked pedestrian

20:20:08 crossing to the trolley stop with a pedestrian signal,

20:20:12 in conjunction with the existing traffic signal at the

20:20:15 intersection of Washington street and Channelside.

20:20:18 The developer shall relocate all overhead utilities at

20:20:21 the project area underground.

20:20:24 We made a note just quickly reviewing this that there

20:20:29 is a code provision, section 27.455 CA that requires

20:20:34 that by code.

20:20:36 That's really not -- we don't feel that's an added

20:20:39 bonus amenity.

20:20:41 But based on the additional F.A.R. and the height,

20:20:45 land development has objections.

20:20:50 And we are asking that City Council consider the

20:20:52 following just like we did previous, we have to

20:20:55 consider objective 8-A, .1, .2, in which it talks




20:21:01 about the peripheral bonus points, and we noted this

20:21:05 structure is located in the central of the Channel

20:21:07 District along Channelside Drive as opposed to the one

20:21:10 we just saw as in the peripheral on the northern

20:21:13 section.

20:21:13 It is immediately surrounded with lower density

20:21:15 buildings that stand between 53 feet and 120 feet in

20:21:19 height.

20:21:20 Attached to your staff report, there is a map of the

20:21:23 Channelside district.

20:21:26 Hopefully you have that with yours.

20:21:28 If not I can pass one around.

20:21:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you pass them around?

20:21:33 >>MARTY BOYLE: Sure.

20:21:34 Also we made note about the point system, that there

20:21:37 isn't actually a point system.

20:21:39 Ultimately the question is for council, does the added

20:21:44 amenities for the item, that they were deciding to add

20:21:51 28, 29, 30 -- I'm sorry, 26, 27, 2, 30.

20:21:58 Do those amenities equate to the additional F.A.R.?

20:22:03 Probably if you look at square footagewise, it's

20:22:05 approximately 212,000 square feet over the whole site.




20:22:14 And let's see, I'm sorry.

20:22:18 Transportation removed their objection.

20:22:22 They got with the petitioner, and they had a note on

20:22:25 there about the architectural site plan showing the

20:22:28 driveway on Washington street, and the system with the

20:22:31 proposed site plan.

20:22:32 They got with them and clarified that.

20:22:36 Under design review the objection is that they need to

20:22:38 see color renderings, that the F.A.R. at 6.13 is

20:22:43 excessive and that the height of 249 feet of the

20:22:45 structure is of concern.

20:22:50 And that's the end of our report.

20:22:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Marty, on the second page of the --

20:22:59 where you have 6.13 F.A.R. aggregate for both phases

20:23:04 and then you have 2 F.A.R. equals 14.059.

20:23:09 What does that mean?

20:23:12 >>MARTY BOYLE: They came with this rezoning request

20:23:15 that is before you right now.

20:23:17 They pulled in the acreage of phase 1.

20:23:20 And so the F.A.R. then is spread out over the whole

20:23:31 whole site.

20:23:32 If you were to just only look at phase 2, and the




20:23:37 ratio for that, it would amount to 14.

20:23:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's excessive, isn't it?

20:23:44 >>> That's staff's objection.

20:23:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.

20:23:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?

20:23:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:24:00 I have been sworn in.

20:24:04 I would like to add a little more to what Ms. Boyle

20:24:08 has already added in her report.

20:24:10 This is located in the central area of the Channel

20:24:12 District area as you can see right off the corner of

20:24:16 Washington and Channelside Drive.

20:24:19 Historically, she has told but, this is one of the

20:24:23 initiatives that came into Channelside.

20:24:26 And F.A.R. in excess of the allowable F.A.R., the

20:24:33 1034.5.

20:24:36 Subsequently they came in prior to the -- 103.5.

20:24:40 Subsequently they came in as she stated to

20:24:43 approximately a 4.2 which now they have the highest

20:24:47 F.A.R. in the Channel District.

20:24:57 We'll show you the aerial of the site.

20:24:59 I think what is significant, you see the existing




20:25:02 uses.

20:25:03 There are existing residential projects that are

20:25:05 adjacent to the site currently, two of which are the

20:25:09 Meridian and the Victory Loft apartments.

20:25:14 The existing residential sites are four to eight

20:25:19 stories in height.

20:25:22 I think a maximum of 120 feet.

20:25:27 The request is 6.13 with an increase current allowed

20:25:32 4.2 and increase of approximately 45%.

20:25:35 From their existing F.A.R.

20:25:37 And if you were to look at the ceiling of 3.5, which

20:25:39 is allowed in the RMU, would be an increase of 75%.

20:25:46 Given the location of the site, and the existing uses,

20:25:51 there have been some amenities that have been

20:25:54 addressed that were not unusually addressed on the

20:25:56 latest site plan that you have received from the

20:25:59 applicant that were brought up this past week that she

20:26:04 has outlined for you.

20:26:07 Take into consideration again at this late date, a

20:26:13 recommendation at this point in time, and also must

20:26:17 also let you know that there has, in the body of the

20:26:22 report we were talking about the only place where you




20:26:24 have a point system that's linked to applicable

20:26:27 amenity standards that are outlined in the

20:26:29 comprehensive plan policies.

20:26:31 The only applicable point system that is in the Land

20:26:33 Development Code right now does not even apply to the

20:26:37 site because to do so, the site has to be three acres

20:26:40 or more which this site does not qualify.

20:26:44 So our recommendation when this site initially came to

20:26:46 you was for Land Development Code to try to craft an

20:26:52 actual mechanism that could be used for practical

20:26:55 application, actually having a strict point system, so

20:26:59 that could you set based on the additional amenities

20:27:04 over and above what's required by law to actually put

20:27:07 a number on there, but to arbitrarily come in and say

20:27:11 that 6.9 would be applicable at this time, with a

20:27:14 mechanism to make that defensible, it's premature, and

20:27:20 I believe that we do have that.

20:27:21 That was our position when this originally came in.

20:27:23 So basically your Land Development Code has not

20:27:25 changed in respect to the recommendation that we had

20:27:28 originally made in this project.

20:27:31 So that being said, our position remains unchanged




20:27:33 based on the existing character of the area, which is

20:27:39 existing residential that's in the area, and no

20:27:41 applicable bonus provision in the Land Development

20:27:43 Code that has been -- there has been nonprofit since

20:27:46 this came in, Planning Commission staff still finds

20:27:49 the proposed request inconsistent with the

20:27:51 comprehensive plan and objects to the proposed

20:27:54 request.

20:27:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

20:27:55 >>> Reah Law with Fowler White.

20:28:04 I am representing the applicant Key Developers, and

20:28:08 Fida Sirdar, who is here.

20:28:11 He's the president of Key Developers.

20:28:13 And we also have -- I'm Rhea Law.

20:28:16 I have been sworn.

20:28:17 Thank you very much.

20:28:19 That is nice.

20:28:22 Notice he didn't even hold it up far.

20:28:25 We have with us a team that has been working on this

20:28:27 project.

20:28:28 And I can answer a lot of the questions that has been

20:28:30 brought to you just over the last few moments.




20:28:35 For the architects, we have an international and a

20:28:38 local team.

20:28:39 And we are going to show you some of the plans here

20:28:47 that we have to deal with.

20:28:50 In any event, this international and local team

20:28:53 consists of Mark Vensky right there, with Studio

20:29:01 Market International, Inc., and David Ponterini

20:29:07 Associates Architects.

20:29:09 For our traffic analyst, we have Mike Yates with Links

20:29:12 and Associates, and of course Andrea Zelman is with

20:29:15 Fowler White, and we have all been working on this

20:29:18 project for a very long time.

20:29:19 And I just want to remind you, this was a project that

20:29:22 you originally approved in September of 2003, and we

20:29:26 brought it before you, it was one of the very first

20:29:29 ones that we started in Channelside.

20:29:31 My client and I went to great length to bring in some

20:29:34 unique design criteria.

20:29:36 I think you all -- well, I know you all were very

20:29:38 excited about it at the time that it was approved.

20:29:42 It had a rooftop amenity that was really quite

20:29:45 stunning and I'm delighted to tell you that it's




20:29:47 actually under construction.

20:29:51 What happened after that first approval was Kim

20:29:55 markham from Channelside came to my client and said to

20:29:59 him, would you be willing to take on an additional

20:30:03 parcel that's the rest of the block, adjacent to your

20:30:08 project, and expand your project into it?

20:30:11 And so he took a look at it, and after addressing

20:30:15 that, he has gone forth in order to do that.

20:30:18 The project that you have before you is a combination

20:30:20 of the two.

20:30:21 It's not one building and a second building but rather

20:30:25 it is a composite of the whole.

20:30:27 And that's why when you look at it, we are talking

20:30:30 about an increase in F.A.R. that would go to 6.1.

20:30:35 I don't think you can look at it as one is 14 or 13

20:30:39 and the other is 4.1, but rather you have to look at

20:30:42 it as a whole because that is how this project has

20:30:45 been conceived, and that's how it would be

20:30:47 constructed.

20:30:50 It is a unique project.

20:30:52 And I note that some of you have an opportunity to

20:30:54 actually go over and see the place in Channelside.




20:30:58 They actually have a full unit that was constructed

20:31:02 and available for you to look at.

20:31:04 And it is really unique because it is of such high

20:31:07 quality.

20:31:08 It's a very unique project.

20:31:11 As is true, in the first time, the guy has gone to

20:31:16 great lengths to make sure he's involved the

20:31:18 community.

20:31:19 And you just saw a great number of people file in

20:31:21 here.

20:31:21 A lot of them are wearing yellow.

20:31:24 Those are people that are here to support this

20:31:25 project, because they believe in what is being

20:31:28 proposed, and they are happy to come out tonight and

20:31:32 talk to you and be happy to give you their perspective

20:31:36 on that.

20:31:37 With that, we originally were going to provide you

20:31:40 with a PowerPoint.

20:31:42 But when we got here before the meeting, we were told

20:31:45 that you have to have chair approval in order to do

20:31:48 that, and we were not aware of that. So we do have

20:31:51 it.




20:31:51 It's on a disk.

20:31:52 However, we can also use the Elmo, and that's your

20:31:55 pleasure, whichever way you would like to have that

20:31:57 done.

20:32:00 >>GWEN MILLER: You can do the Elmo.

20:32:06 >>RHEA LAW: We were not aware of that so I apologize

20:32:09 for that.

20:32:10 We will in fact use the Elmo.

20:32:11 I would like to introduce our architect, David

20:32:13 Pontarini with the firm of Hariri Pontarini, an

20:32:23 international award winning architectural firm that

20:32:25 does work not only in North America but South America

20:32:28 and Europe.

20:32:29 And I'm very proud to tell you that Art Enco just

20:32:36 listed one one -- one of their buildings as one of the

20:32:40 12 best new buildings and we would like to see this

20:32:42 building on the list next year. With that I turn you

20:32:44 over to David.

20:32:47 >> David Pontarini.

20:32:52 I have been sworn.

20:32:57 I'll start the presentation by putting up a map of the

20:33:00 Channelside district that shows the level of




20:33:02 development that is anticipated in the area.

20:33:06 And it an advertise interests, as you are probably all

20:33:08 familiar, 5,520 units in the next coming years.

20:33:14 And what I wanted to start with was just a brief

20:33:17 description of how the different -- that area has

20:33:21 developed and is going through an area what I would

20:33:24 call transition, and it's pretty specific transition.

20:33:28 The first wave of development which you can see

20:33:30 represented by the image in the upper right-hand

20:33:33 corner on my side represents some of the first

20:33:35 industrial warehouse buildings that were converted to

20:33:38 residential uses and artist studios and is kind of

20:33:42 characteristic of that first wave development. The

20:33:44 second wave was as the buildings and the land value

20:33:47 started to increase and started to get larger

20:33:49 buildings, like "the place" which has been mentioned

20:33:54 is six to eight stories in height, transitioning down

20:33:57 into the area.

20:33:58 And what has subsequently started to happen is you

20:34:06 have gotten the third wave, which is consistent with

20:34:09 what you have seen in the previous presentation, which

20:34:11 was the other project that was before you earlier, as




20:34:16 well as a high-rise form of development which has also

20:34:20 started to come in in the form of the towers at

20:34:23 Channelside, which kind of represents an interesting

20:34:26 approach to the area.

20:34:29 And the tall slender elements that sit on a podium or

20:34:32 a base.

20:34:35 When we were asked to look at the second stage, our

20:34:41 approach based on our experiencing the urban in-fill

20:34:44 and intensification in the area like this one, it was

20:34:47 to look at a form of development which kept any

20:34:51 additional density, very tall, very slender in the

20:34:54 form of a point tower.

20:34:55 And the site is located in the northeast quadrant of

20:34:59 the existing block.

20:35:00 So really we are completing the block.

20:35:02 And the strategy has been to use front tower form

20:35:08 because it has impact.

20:35:09 The small slender foreplate casts shadows but the

20:35:14 shadows move more quickly as they are more tall and

20:35:17 slender so the impact is less in surrounding

20:35:22 neighborhoods.

20:35:22 The other benefit to the tall point tower form is that




20:35:25 you don't get into overlooked issues of building space

20:35:29 nicing each other across borrow -- narrow streets and

20:35:32 units looking into each other.

20:35:33 So we felt that the most appropriate form for this

20:35:36 next stage was the point tower.

20:35:40 And we did look at it very carefully, and we came up

20:35:43 with a configuration in the lower right-hand corner.

20:35:47 The building floor plate that represents a tall

20:35:53 building on on 10% so it has a very minimal impact in

20:35:56 the sense that it's a very small floor plate.

20:36:00 Almost 90% would remain low rise in the form of the

20:36:03 two buildings that are currently under construction as

20:36:05 well.

20:36:06 36% of the site also has terraces and landscaped which

20:36:12 are part of the overall form.

20:36:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Low rise is how tall?

20:36:17 >>> Well, mid rise -- it.

20:36:18 >> Says low rise.

20:36:19 >>> Right.

20:36:19 Low rise would be in the order of six to eight.

20:36:21 And mid rise is typically eight to 15 or eight to 12.

20:36:26 Different cities have different ways of approaching




20:36:28 it.

20:36:32 The next thing that we did as part of this initial

20:36:34 stage was to look at the overall elevation proportion

20:36:37 and massing and these sketches again represent the

20:36:39 original concept.

20:36:40 What subsequently happened, after much consultation

20:36:44 with our client, conversations with members in the

20:36:48 neighborhood and in the community, we pulled back on

20:36:51 the approach of the taller building and we went to a

20:36:54 form which is more consistent, prevalent in the

20:36:59 neighborhood in this kind of third wave development

20:37:01 that I spoke about which is a slot building that is 24

20:37:05 stories in height which is represented by the model on

20:37:08 the right-hand side of the screen, and before you can

20:37:10 see it as the model that's closest to me, and it is

20:37:15 the lower building.

20:37:16 The densities of the two schemes are the same.

20:37:18 The GFA are the same.

20:37:20 The footprint of the building actually is smaller.

20:37:25 In terms of -- I'm sorry, larger in terms of its

20:37:28 relationship to the overall site.

20:37:30 Whereas the point tower occupied 10.5% of the site




20:37:34 this scheme now occupies 15.6% of the site which we

20:37:38 think is still reasonable given that it is a very

20:37:40 large site within the urban context.

20:37:46 Both schemes have the same ground plan configuration,

20:37:56 in that they are bringing retail to the Channelside

20:38:00 street, reinforcing the retail that was developed as

20:38:04 part of phase 1.

20:38:06 So on the lower right-hand corner you can see the

20:38:08 retail that's part of phase 2.

20:38:10 And also the residential lobbies open off the corner

20:38:13 of the intersection at Channelside and Washington.

20:38:19 We have looked also very carefully at the elevation,

20:38:24 and the retail that is being proposed.

20:38:28 And the quality of retail that is consistent with

20:38:31 phase 1 is going to be extend add cross the base of

20:38:34 the building into the bottom of the second stage of

20:38:37 development.

20:38:39 And we are actually carving back that retail at grade

20:38:42 to increase this width of the sidewalk.

20:38:51 The next elevation starts to show the overall look

20:38:55 Of the building with the continuation of the 8-story

20:38:58 base that will run through and define the bottom part




20:39:01 of the second phase of the development.

20:39:05 The parking that will occupy the first seven floors

20:39:08 above the retail will be screened behind a Curt on --

20:39:11 curtain wall.

20:39:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How tall is that building?

20:39:18 >>> 24 stories in terms of height.

20:39:21 >> That building?

20:39:21 >>> Sorry. The other one is 32 stories.

20:39:23 But what we have before council right now is a

20:39:25 24-story scheme.

20:39:27 I'm just trying to give you a bit of history in terms

20:39:29 of where we have come from in terms of designs.

20:39:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.

20:39:34 >>> So this is the building at 24 stories with the 16

20:39:38 floors of residential sitting on an 8-story base.

20:39:40 The first floor of that 8-story base again is a

20:39:44 continuation of retail.

20:39:45 Parking up above and then residential spaces, units,

20:39:50 located on top.

20:39:52 The Washington street elevation continues at the

20:39:57 retail base, and the residential lobby at the corners

20:40:03 up above, and then the residential 16 stories up above




20:40:06 that.

20:40:07 And it starts to show the idea from the 24 stories

20:40:12 down to the 6 and down to the 8 stories in terms of

20:40:14 transitioning into the neighborhood.

20:40:16 And to the lower right-hand side you can see the first

20:40:20 stage of the development which is currently under

20:40:21 construction, which has retail and artist and

20:40:27 amenities space associated along the base at

20:40:30 Washington.

20:40:31 This corner elevation starts to get into a bit of a

20:40:37 detailed expression of the retail at the base, and the

20:40:40 idea of animating the whole street edge and bringing

20:40:43 life back to Channelside, and the corner at Washington

20:40:46 and Channelside will have the water feature as part of

20:40:49 the entrance to the building.

20:40:51 But located at the street.

20:40:53 And we paid quite a bit of attention again to the idea

20:40:57 of continuing the cafe, small retail format that's

20:41:01 consistent with the first stage of the development,

20:41:03 and that will continue into the base of the building,

20:41:06 again continuing to animate Channelside during the

20:41:09 day.




20:41:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It appears to me -- and my memory

20:41:15 is highly imperfect -- but it appears to me that the

20:41:19 streetscape is virtually the same as the one that we

20:41:24 have approved at a previous -- for the previous

20:41:27 approved PD that had the F.A.R. which is the highest

20:41:32 in the area, 4.25.

20:41:33 And what you're asking us to do is to consider a much

20:41:37 bigger density, but the pedestrian experience, I don't

20:41:42 see it changing from what has been previously approved

20:41:45 until now.

20:41:47 >>> Well, maybe I should continue through because

20:41:49 there are some elements that relate --

20:41:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe could you point those out.

20:41:54 >>> As we go through.

20:41:55 This image starts to show how we are starting to make

20:41:57 gestures towards transitioning to amenity space that

20:42:01 is increased in terms of the idea of the light

20:42:05 sculpture on the corner.

20:42:06 You're correct in saying that we are really completing

20:42:09 the block at the base, and we found through the

20:42:11 discussions with staff and with city that that was

20:42:13 really something that they were looking for and the




20:42:16 idea of continuing the retail and amenity at the base

20:42:19 is something that's been part of the overall process.

20:42:22 >> That isn't any different than it was before, is it?

20:42:24 >>> It isn't.

20:42:25 But the other thing that we started to, do started to

20:42:27 increase the setbacks relative to the sidewalks to

20:42:30 improve the width of the sidewalk.

20:42:32 >> What is the difference?

20:42:33 >>> It varies now from 14 to 20.

20:42:36 Because it's curving, there are some portions of the

20:42:38 sidewalk that will be 14 feet wide.

20:42:41 There are some portions where you start to curve at

20:42:43 the corner where it increases to 20.

20:42:45 >> What was it previously?

20:42:46 >>> In the previous scheme we were roughly on average,

20:42:49 I think, 10 to 15 in some areas, and at the corners we

20:42:53 did increase it.

20:42:54 But we made significant increases in terms of the

20:42:58 setback.

20:42:59

20:43:03 This image starts to show the idea of a light

20:43:05 sculpture, which we have talked about as a public




20:43:07 amenity piece, or as a contribution that the developer

20:43:11 is making in terms of trying to create an element at

20:43:17 the corner that marks this as a significant landmark

20:43:20 building that almost forms a Gateway into the

20:43:22 Channelside district.

20:43:23 And really instead of just presenting a blank parking

20:43:26 facade to the street and to the corner, actually

20:43:29 brings light and sculpture to the corner which ties

20:43:32 into I think a number of initiatives within the city

20:43:35 art program.

20:43:36 We have looked very carefully at precedence throughout

20:43:38 the world for lighting and how to treat the lighting,

20:43:42 in very unique ways to really make this a significant

20:43:45 feature at the corner.

20:43:50 The other thing I want to talk about on a macro level

20:43:53 in terms of city building, a lot of the previous

20:43:55 schemes report more about creating a public realm that

20:43:58 continues the work that was started in the first stage

20:44:01 of the project.

20:44:02 But on a larger macro level in terms of the

20:44:05 development within the city and how it fits into the

20:44:08 context, we see this as a unique site, and that it is




20:44:13 at the juncture or a transit station stop.

20:44:17 I know at this stage, that transit system isn't

20:44:21 heavily used but it certainly is an investment in

20:44:23 infrastructure that I think will benefit the city in

20:44:25 the future, and I think that traditionally what you

20:44:28 find in many cities is that development occur as long

20:44:31 these transit nodes and we feel one of the benefits of

20:44:35 this kind of density at this location is that it will

20:44:37 help support both the retail that we are talking about

20:44:42 that's developing in the neighborhood but also make a

20:44:44 significant contribution to utilization hopefully that

20:44:46 this is a major transit corridor.

20:44:48 And in terms of where you would put density in a city

20:44:51 it's normally at transit nodes and that's kind of the

20:44:54 classic way of investing in infrastructure that you

20:44:58 have already paid for and most cities see as nodes for

20:45:01 growth and development, which is another reason that

20:45:03 we felt the kind of density that's being talked about

20:45:05 here, the scale and the height, is really consistent

20:45:07 with the model of growth within the city.

20:45:15 And when we looked at the transit system that has

20:45:18 grown or has the potential to grow within the downtown




20:45:20 corridor we started to look at a three dimensional

20:45:23 model of the city.

20:45:24 And you can see from this image that the red line

20:45:26 represents the rough extent of the transit system.

20:45:31 I know there is a point where the trolley car changes

20:45:33 now to a bus.

20:45:35 But certainly that transit corridor runs down the

20:45:39 central business district that connects to the

20:45:41 cultural district which is eventually merging within

20:45:43 the city.

20:45:44 It connects to the ho hospitality with the transit

20:45:50 next to the hotel and the convention center at the

20:45:52 bottom.

20:45:52 It also connects to the Channelside district.

20:45:56 The shops at Channelside.

20:45:59 We saw this again as the idea that the -- the

20:46:05 intensification along the corridor, and that's why we

20:46:07 felt the density was appropriate.

20:46:09 The other thing that the increase in density did for

20:46:11 us was that it permitted us to invest heavily in the

20:46:15 architecture of the building, and certainly that's

20:46:17 something that's going to be used to fund a lot of the




20:46:22 light sculpture components and some of the other

20:46:25 things we talked about.

20:46:26 So we felt that the type of intensification and the

20:46:29 massing that's being proposed is consistent and

20:46:31 appropriate for an urban neighborhood which is

20:46:36 emerging in the Channel District, which is going

20:46:39 through significant transition, and which is right

20:46:42 next door to the central business district.

20:46:44 And really if you look at the map of the drawing, it

20:46:46 is really all part of a downtown peninsula which has

20:46:50 incredible growth potential.

20:46:52 And the this idea that the intensification could occur

20:46:57 along that rim seemed to be really consistent with

20:47:00 traditional models of urban development and in-fill.

20:47:03 The other thing that we looked at was the Channelside

20:47:09 strategic action plan that's coming about.

20:47:11 And this is an image that's taken from that.

20:47:13 The purple represents the height limits.

20:47:16 The taller height limits that are permit add long the

20:47:18 federal lands.

20:47:19 And then it links up and you can see at the top of the

20:47:21 image the central business district beyond.




20:47:26 There is a proposal to drop the height within the

20:47:28 Channel District.

20:47:30 And for us it really didn't make sense, or we didn't

20:47:32 really understand the logic behind this to create a

20:47:35 pot hole in the middle of a very tall infra structure

20:47:38 that seems to be emerging given the fact that we

20:47:41 talked about this idea of transit intensification.

20:47:45 We felt that was appropriate to increase the intensity

20:47:46 at this location.

20:47:52 Also, there were a series of other images part of the

20:47:55 PowerPoint.

20:47:55 But we also looked at the massing that we are

20:47:58 proposing before you, the 24 stories within the kind

20:48:00 of three dimensional model at the area.

20:48:03 And we started to mass at the left-hand side of the

20:48:07 image the proposed height envelope along the federal

20:48:11 lands which is approximately 350 feet.

20:48:13 And we realized that that still has to be negotiated.

20:48:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just for clarification, I don't

20:48:18 think -- I think that it has to come to us for

20:48:21 approval, and we haven't approved any of that.

20:48:25 So you really shouldn't assume that it's going to be




20:48:26 there at that height, because it has to come to us and

20:48:30 we haven't approved it.

20:48:31 >>> We realize it wasn't approved.

20:48:33 I think what we were just trying to show is within the

20:48:36 context of something that's going to be coming before

20:48:38 you as a proposal.

20:48:40 >> They don't exist.

20:48:41 They don't exist.

20:48:41 They haven't been approved.

20:48:42 And it's very speculative.

20:48:45 I just have to say that that's not -- you're putting

20:48:49 it in the context where the context doesn't really

20:48:52 exist.

20:48:53 And if we didn't know better, we might think that it

20:48:56 does.

20:48:57 But it doesn't.

20:48:57 So in case somebody is watching this on TV, and

20:49:00 looking at this model and seeing all this high-rise

20:49:02 purple stuff on the other side of the street, let's

20:49:05 make it clear.

20:49:06 It's not there.

20:49:07 And it hasn't been approved.




20:49:08 It hasn't come before us.

20:49:10 So it's not -- in my opinion, isn't appropriate for

20:49:14 you to pretend like it's there or might be there. I

20:49:16 mean anything might be.

20:49:19 >>> Well, we are just using it the same way you would

20:49:21 use a three-D physical model.

20:49:26 >> It doesn't exist.

20:49:27 It hasn't been approved.

20:49:28 >>> I understand.

20:49:29 Sorry.

20:49:29 And the last image then is the proposal shown in the

20:49:34 night that reflects the scale of the development

20:49:36 within the context of the skyline beyond.

20:49:40 And think that would be all.

20:49:51 >>> Rhea Law: I would like to come back and share

20:49:54 with you, I am going to send this around to you, a

20:49:56 list of all the amenities and public benefits

20:49:59 associated with this particular project.

20:50:02 And we talked about some of this.

20:50:05 I would just like to highlight a couple of things.

20:50:07 One, we have subsidized housing for artists that was

20:50:12 approved the first time around.




20:50:14 But we have also workforce housing that I think is

20:50:17 very important.

20:50:18 5% of the units in phase 1 are below the $200,000

20:50:25 level.

20:50:26 So we are trying to provide for workforce needs.

20:50:29 That's one of the initiatives that's been very

20:50:31 important to the city.

20:50:32 And Sirdar has included that in this proposal.

20:50:38 There's a number of transportation improvements.

20:50:40 I won't read through all of these but they include the

20:50:42 Channelside trail, as well as transportation

20:50:46 improvements, specifically.

20:50:48 We did agree to focus on the pedestrian and

20:50:54 streetscapes.

20:50:56 There is between 14 and even at one point up to 35

20:50:59 feet for the street walkways, pedestrian walkways, as

20:51:07 far as cultural contributions.

20:51:11 There are a number of murals and other outside art

20:51:16 work as well as water features that are being

20:51:20 proposed.

20:51:20 And finally, I would like to point out to you that

20:51:24 there's something unusual about this particular




20:51:26 parcel.

20:51:27 It was a brownfield.

20:51:28 Itself was identified by City Council.

20:51:30 And in order to redevelop a brownfield, number one,

20:51:35 you have to go through an environmental analysis, and

20:51:37 in this case, a rather massive cleanup that was some

20:51:40 655, 000 dollars it took about nine months to do a lot

20:51:45 of negotiations with our environmental agencies,

20:51:51 specifically the department of environmental

20:51:52 protection.

20:51:54 And that kind of clean-up is what the city needs in

20:51:58 those areas that have been predominantly industrial.

20:52:01 You have a number of capabilities under the brownfield

20:52:04 statute to make amendments or modifications in your

20:52:09 local codes in order to entice people to come in and

20:52:13 view this kind of clean-up.

20:52:15 For this particular clean-up that has been done and a

20:52:17 big portion of that was associated with the phase 2 or

20:52:21 the additional development that we are talking about

20:52:26 here tonight.

20:52:26 So we would like to ask for your consideration of

20:52:30 that.




20:52:31 One of the things that I would like to share with you

20:52:33 is that we do have a lot of support.

20:52:36 I have here a document that holds the signatures of

20:52:41 about 154 individuals who indicated that they believe

20:52:45 that the place which the project fits the building,

20:52:50 its first phase reset the bar for Channelside and

20:52:54 confident that phase 2 will only be a step forward in

20:52:57 the right direction.

20:52:57 We fully support this project and request your

20:52:59 approval.

20:53:00 There's other language that speaks about conceptual

20:53:03 architecture and the amenities, et cetera.

20:53:05 But I would like to place that into the record.

20:53:12 And finally I would point out to you that in addition

20:53:14 to all the other things, this project put extra

20:53:18 working in place above and beyond what was required by

20:53:21 your codes for phase 1, and then again in phase 2.

20:53:28 That's something that you need in Channelside.

20:53:30 You need more parking.

20:53:31 It needs to be convenient so that people can utilize

20:53:35 the adjacent transit area.

20:53:38 So with that, we are happy to answer any questions




20:53:40 that you might have.

20:53:41 Yes, certainly.

20:53:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A couple of questions.

20:53:45 But first of all I I have to point out that the names

20:53:47 that are on here don't have any addresses.

20:53:49 So we honestly don't know where these folks are from.

20:53:53 But my question is this.

20:53:55 I'm looking at the site plan, and I'm looking at where

20:53:58 you might come up with 35 feet.

20:54:00 And the only two places that I can identify from this

20:54:03 would be the two corner set-ins on Washington

20:54:06 street -- Washington street and Whiting Street.

20:54:09 But the thing that would be most useful to me, to be

20:54:12 candid, I really liked what we approved last time.

20:54:16 I think the place is very attractive.

20:54:18 I'm happy with it.

20:54:19 And I don't see the additional -- the city and the

20:54:25 Channel District is getting in return for something

20:54:28 that is a very different scale than we already have.

20:54:35 And so my question to you is, are all the things on

20:54:37 here different from the things that we have already

20:54:40 approved, and that we are part of the original




20:54:43 convincing of us to give you the highest F.A.R. that

20:54:47 exists in the Channel District?

20:54:48 >>> All of the things on that list are all of the

20:54:50 amenities for both phase 1 and phase 2.

20:54:53 But if you will allow me just one moment, I would like

20:54:56 to share with you the additional things associated

20:54:58 with phase 2.

20:54:59 >> Because one of the things that's very confusing for

20:55:02 council members here is we have already approved

20:55:05 something.

20:55:06 We know what it is.

20:55:07 We know what it looks like.

20:55:08 It's a done deal.

20:55:09 And what's coming back to us, it's kind of not

20:55:12 terribly clear what is different in terms of the

20:55:17 community improvements versus what is already part of

20:55:22 what's been promised and taken.

20:55:27 >>> I'm sure the documents somewhat speak to the

20:55:30 original request for him to look at this additional

20:55:33 parcel, and to include it with this project.

20:55:35 It was important to the people of that community that

20:55:39 they deal with someone who we knew would do a quality




20:55:43 project and would put it in context with his existing

20:55:46 project as opposed to some other development that

20:55:50 didn't respect to the kind of quality and the

20:55:53 consistency that had been approved in the first

20:55:56 project.

20:55:57 But if you would like to speak to that.

20:55:59 >>> Sirdar: I have not been sworn in.

20:56:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you raise your right hand?

20:56:07 >>THE CLERK:

20:56:13 (Oath administered by Clerk).

20:56:15 >>> Yes, I do.

20:56:15 I noted first of all issues here.

20:56:20 High tense density obviously on density issues, we

20:56:24 have been debating these up and down.

20:56:26 But I can tell you this.

20:56:28 I have been struggling, not just for this parcel, 2.65

20:56:35 acres to be developed, but I have been pitching the

20:56:39 Channel District.

20:56:43 Some of you actually saw.

20:56:46 That was not necessary, to go to the extent of

20:56:49 spending $2 million just.

20:56:53 It was done actually to inspire confidence of the




20:56:57 future residents, so they could come and get a feel

20:57:03 for the area to live in.

20:57:06 So this is a philosophy, the philosophy that I follow

20:57:09 that we are not going to be successful unless the

20:57:12 neighborhood is successful.

20:57:15 And I want to assure this council, I have gone out of

20:57:20 my ways to communicate for the neighborhood, and the

20:57:26 city, also.

20:57:27 And I have tried to advocate an approach which really

20:57:33 will benefit the Channel District, so the question of

20:57:36 density and height really are to be answered in

20:57:40 context of design and what the project really brings

20:57:45 to the table.

20:57:46 You had asked what amenities we are bringing to the

20:57:50 table.

20:57:51 When you think, unfortunately a lot of people think of

20:57:58 canvas and a brush, that, yes, there are going to be

20:58:01 some paintings which are going to be stuck on the face

20:58:05 of the building and here's my contribution of murals.

20:58:10 In this project, we researched not only in this

20:58:14 country but we have gone across to the other side,

20:58:19 Canada, and we have located a muralist who will come




20:58:23 to this city.

20:58:25 The cost of those two murals on the face of this --

20:58:34 onto this, on the face of this building, are going to

20:58:38 be in the neighborhood of $2 million.

20:58:45 If you really want to do a real mural, not just a

20:58:50 painted on mural, you have to spend between 100 and

20:58:54 $150 a square foot.

20:58:55 And the existing phase, I'm spending a half million

20:58:59 dollars to put a mural on Washington street.

20:59:05 Proposing to use an additional two murals on the face

20:59:10 of this building which will be very subtle.

20:59:11 It will enhance the neighborhood to a standard that is

20:59:19 very respectful of Tampa, and that's one of the

20:59:23 amenities that we are bringing.

20:59:24 Second amenity is as not being regarded as substantial

20:59:37 transportation today, but I promise you over the next

20:59:40 three, four, five years, it is going to --

20:59:48 And we are going to spend half a million dollars

20:59:52 roughly to improve that square.

20:59:56 The whole cross section of Channelside and Washington

20:59:59 street, it's shown here in the -- I don't have it.

21:00:08 There is an entrance here.




21:00:09 But the square is going to be paved and we are going

21:00:12 to create a special linkage, which is right across

21:00:17 from us.

21:00:18 So the question really here, I have for the council,

21:00:21 is I am not just base here, I assure you we have been

21:00:32 in a lot of countries.

21:00:33 And what we bring to the table, irrespective whether

21:00:37 you a professor you deny us, we are trying to say that

21:00:41 if you want to build quality, you have to give us

21:00:46 additional square footage.

21:00:47 Number one.

21:00:49 Number two, say that this doesn't work for your

21:00:55 neighborhood.

21:00:55 If you want to build these long slab buildings and

21:00:58 put -- keep them at a height of 80 feet or 100 feet,

21:01:03 that really does not work for the neighborhood.

21:01:06 I'm saying this to you with all my integrity and

21:01:09 honesty.

21:01:10 What works for the neighborhood is a small portion off

21:01:17 site allowing to go vertical and those vertical towers

21:01:20 to be positioned in such a way that nobody gets

21:01:23 obstructed in terms of views and privacy.




21:01:27 If we continue with this model of seven stories or 15

21:01:31 stories or 24 stories, allow them to be built on the

21:01:37 lot lines, you are going to end up with a neighborhood

21:01:39 which is not going to breathe, and which people are

21:01:43 going to practically look into each of those windows,

21:01:47 and buy into these houses that please do not look at

21:01:53 this development through the -- okay, it is a

21:01:58 developer who is trying to ask for excess square

21:02:01 footage.

21:02:02 We are really not square footage oriented developers.

21:02:05 We are developers who like to contribute back to the

21:02:08 community, and I can give you -- an example, we have

21:02:16 cities that have made mistakes of staying low, and

21:02:20 build less intense buildings in the downtown core, and

21:02:25 they have gone back.

21:02:27 Parkland, you will hear this name again and again, has

21:02:33 done a similar thing.

21:02:34 They have gone back where they had low buildings, low

21:02:40 density, that we are proposing, and I'm being very

21:02:49 sincere and honest with you.

21:02:50 I'm not just looking at this.

21:02:56 >> And the -- forgive me, but they are providing, $6




21:03:04 million just for this.

21:03:05 I think it will be a very good idea if somebody like

21:03:10 this development picks up the flag and says we are

21:03:13 going to be a self-sustaining building.

21:03:16 It's not just a slogan.

21:03:17 We have dedicated nearly 4 million, $3.5 million, you

21:03:26 cannot achieve certification.

21:03:32 There is just no building except one in the entire

21:03:34 world, somewhere in New York, which has attained that.

21:03:41 But it your water resources and those are the things

21:03:48 that you don't see here.

21:03:50 So my solution to you is, please remain open minded.

21:03:54 Do not make your thinking in terms of what is around.

21:03:59 What is around, this is a new area.

21:04:01 And I think it will be well served to allow developer

21:04:10 to develop it.

21:04:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There's a couple of questions that I

21:04:13 have.

21:04:13 First of all, these amenities that you were talking

21:04:16 about, they are not part of the plan right now?

21:04:23 Somebody can answer that.

21:04:30 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I was sworn.




21:04:32 We are kind of getting off course.

21:04:34 I did a couple of days ago send to Marty Boyle five

21:04:38 site plan notes that were not already on the site

21:04:40 plan.

21:04:42 There were 25 site plan notes.

21:04:44 And approximately 20 of those represent what we

21:04:47 consider to be amenities.

21:04:49 The five that I added include the undergrounding of

21:04:53 utilities which you are now saying is required by

21:04:55 code.

21:04:55 It wasn't at the time we did phase one so when thought

21:04:58 that was something we were doing voluntarily so if you

21:05:01 take that off there's only four things that were not

21:05:04 actually on the site plan.

21:05:05 However, they were things that we have discussed with.

21:05:10 Mark Huey, we have actually shown some of the members

21:05:12 of this council, showing plans for the original

21:05:16 building that we were going to apply for.

21:05:19 For instance, the lighted sculpture at the corner of

21:05:21 Channelside and Washington is something that was in

21:05:25 the rendering for months now and just inadvertently we

21:05:29 didn't put a note on the site plan.




21:05:32 So these are just four site plan notes this not on

21:05:34 your site plan until they were asking to put them on

21:05:37 tonight.

21:05:37 But there are approximately, I think, 20 amenities on

21:05:41 your list, that all of them were on the site plan but

21:05:45 for the four and the four all got lighted sculpture at

21:05:48 the corner of Channelside and Washington, the water

21:05:50 feature at the corner of Channelside and Washington,

21:05:52 the paved pedestrian crossing from across Channelside

21:05:57 to the transit stop with a walk signal.

21:06:12 And there was a mural with phase one, and now two

21:06:16 additional murals are being added as part of phase

21:06:19 two.

21:06:19 So those are the four things that your staff didn't

21:06:21 know about until a couple days ago.

21:06:25 Again some other members of city staff did know but

21:06:27 unfortunately we had left them off.

21:06:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So these are have not been reviewed by

21:06:33 the staff?

21:06:34 >>> Not until two days ago.

21:06:35 >> So Ms. Boyle, have you reviewed these amenities?

21:06:42 You said you had no chance to review.




21:06:44 >>MARTY BOYLE: We did receive them and took a cursory

21:06:47 review of them.

21:06:48 However, with Wilson Stair is the design standards,

21:06:53 didn't get a chance to look thoroughly.

21:06:56 So we don't feel comfortable.

21:06:57 I know that you got the list of a men advertise but we

21:06:59 haven't been able to compare that list that you

21:07:02 received with what's on the site plan.

21:07:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.

21:07:10 The other little heartburn that I have is I think the

21:07:15 F.A.R. is a little bit excessive.

21:07:17 And from what the Planning Commission said was that

21:07:23 the 24 or 25 stories structure is a little bit out of

21:07:29 character with the existing projects that are around

21:07:31 there.

21:07:32 That kind of gives me a little heartburn on that.

21:07:38 There's only four of us here tonight.

21:07:40 I don't know if we really should continue this, or go

21:07:43 forward.

21:07:44 It's up to you.

21:07:47 But I'd like to do that but I just want to put you on

21:07:50 notice that there's a possibility that this could be




21:07:53 continued.

21:07:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, whale we are waiting for the

21:07:58 public input, I just had a question.

21:08:00 Either Ms. Law or Ms. Zelman.

21:08:05 Who put this list together?

21:08:06 Was it you?

21:08:10 Let me just qualify something up front.

21:08:16 I think you have been very comprehensive in what you

21:08:18 have done.

21:08:19 The petitioner has been nothing but forthcoming with

21:08:22 us.

21:08:23 He was a perfect host when we went through just as you

21:08:26 were a perfect tour guide.

21:08:28 But, you know, we have talked already of issues about

21:08:31 don't look around us, look at what we are doing, and

21:08:33 still regardless of how we do this, we have height

21:08:36 issues and density issues.

21:08:37 And I think that will be taken up later.

21:08:40 But my real concern is this: What is this?

21:08:43 I can go out and get 160 people that live in

21:08:47 unincorporated Hillsborough County, and not put

21:08:50 addresses on it.




21:08:51 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I didn't put that.

21:08:53 I'm sorry.

21:08:54 >> I want to know what this is about.

21:08:56 It's very distracting to me.

21:08:58 Because anytime we make a decision, we weigh on

21:09:00 pertinent and germane information.

21:09:02 Where do these people live?

21:09:03 That's way want to know first of all.

21:09:07 >>> I apologize.

21:09:07 Actually, it was most by buyers in phase 1 Joan.

21:09:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: People out there in the yellow shirts

21:09:22 can raise their hands and say they are residents or

21:09:24 already buyers of your site?

21:09:28 And the remainder of these people are, too.

21:09:31 160 people?

21:09:33 >>> Yes.

21:09:33 We actually have 250-some future residents.

21:09:38 >> Future residents meaning they gave awe deposit

21:09:41 assuming this will go forward?

21:09:43 Does anybody live out there now?

21:09:45 >>> It's a contract actually.

21:09:46 It's not a deposit that they can take back.




21:09:49 It is a contract --

21:09:56 Phase 1.

21:09:58 For phase 1.

21:09:59 Phase 1 is under construction.

21:10:02 The one you saw is under construction right now.

21:10:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: The people that came to buy, if they

21:10:15 want to buy obviously they are in favor of your

21:10:16 project.

21:10:17 That's what this is about.

21:10:18 That's all I need to No. thank you.

21:10:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

21:10:22 would like to speak on item number 9?

21:10:34 >>> Hi.

21:10:35 I'm Jenny white, president of the Channel District

21:10:39 council, and I have been sworn.

21:10:40 And I'm all for this.

21:10:46 I think Sirdar is giving back a lot to the community.

21:10:49 And I would like to speak to Ken Staltenberg, too,

21:10:53 because he too has given a lot of concessions back.

21:10:56 And we have gone back and forth over the past few

21:10:58 years.

21:10:59 I've lived in the Channel District for 13 years.




21:11:02 And people thought that we were crazy to move into a

21:11:04 warehouse.

21:11:05 But we love it.

21:11:06 And we intend to stay there.

21:11:09 And we were the first ones to fix up an old warehouse

21:11:13 and make it into a living place, where people can

21:11:18 come, and we have 33 working studios for artists, and

21:11:23 both Ken and Sirdar have offered spaces for the

21:11:27 artists.

21:11:28 They are willing to work with us, to keep the arts and

21:11:30 the neighborhood.

21:11:32 So I'm willing to work with them.

21:11:33 And I see no reason that you can't have different

21:11:37 heights in the neighborhood.

21:11:39 It just kind of makes it more interesting.

21:11:42 If you have got a two-story building next door to a

21:11:45 40-story building.

21:11:46 It makes it more interesting.

21:11:48 It doesn't have to all look alike.

21:11:51 That does bother me.

21:11:53 But I'm an artist.

21:11:54 I want things to look different and to be different




21:12:00 views, and have different flavor.

21:12:01 So I have no problem with 24, 25 stories.

21:12:06 So long as it's people friendly, and it's good

21:12:12 architecture.

21:12:12 Basically good design.

21:12:14 And that's what I'm kind of looking at you all to make

21:12:17 sure that the developers give back to the community,

21:12:24 and work with us as the Channel District council to

21:12:28 make the community a vibrant district as opposed to

21:12:33 close down at 5:00 or, you know, we can come up with

21:12:36 all sorts of really great ideas.

21:12:39 If I had money I'd be real dangerous.

21:12:42 (Laughter).

21:12:43 So thank you.

21:12:44 If you have any questions, you know, they did come to

21:12:46 us about Ken Staltenberg's project and it was

21:12:51 presented, and he just simply didn't ask us to speak

21:12:56 to him before.

21:12:57 And I felt like I had to say something now.

21:13:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that you are

21:13:04 indeed, I think, the longest residing folks in the

21:13:09 Channel District.




21:13:11 And I'm really listening to you because I know how

21:13:14 involved you have been in the central way from the

21:13:18 get-go.

21:13:19 And so I really appreciate you coming here tonight and

21:13:24 sharing your thoughts.

21:13:26 >>> Well, we really do care.

21:13:28 >> I know.

21:13:28 >>> And we know you care or else I wouldn't have

21:13:31 bothered to come down here.

21:13:33 Thank you.

21:13:38 (Applause).

21:13:33

21:13:42 >>> I'm Henry Lewis.

21:13:43 I have been sworn in.

21:13:44 And I have been in the Channel District at 119 north

21:13:48 eleventh street since 1968.

21:13:50 I am currently a resident also.

21:13:53 And I was also the first developer of a new project in

21:13:56 more than 40 years.

21:13:58 I'm very much for the project.

21:14:02 I believe this is one of the highest quality projects

21:14:04 that we have seen in Tampa.




21:14:06 And he does nothing but quality work.

21:14:09 Many of the projects proposed are under construction

21:14:13 now in Tampa, specifically in Channelside, are pretty

21:14:16 much glorified college dorm rooms.

21:14:20 We need some high quality projects.

21:14:23 I think with the view corridors in mind, with the guys

21:14:29 and a few other developers, Channelside can perhaps

21:14:33 become a great neighborhood.

21:14:39 Thank you.

21:14:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.

21:14:40

21:15:01 >>> I have been sworn in.

21:15:02 My name is Janell Hanson, south twelfth street north.

21:15:06 The residents of Channelside share your vision of

21:15:08 Channelside, and we thank you for what is our new

21:15:11 home.

21:15:12 Tonight again we have heard conceptual proposal, and a

21:15:17 lovely proposal.

21:15:19 But again we ask the Wilson Miller study is in

21:15:22 progress for Channelside.

21:15:23 It is critical for our neighborhood in relation to

21:15:27 developments being proposed and considered that Wilson




21:15:29 Miller turn out their study.

21:15:31 Our neighborhood has invested two consecutive years,

21:15:34 100% of our tiff study. The study is expected to be

21:15:38 presented to the CRA and our neighborhood next month.

21:15:43 We as residents are looking forward to reviewing

21:15:45 Wilson Miller study and having the opportunity with

21:15:48 the CRA to develop a study into the plan that secures

21:15:52 the vision of our neighborhood Channelside.

21:15:55 We request that City Council postpone decisions on any

21:15:59 development proposed until the Wilson Miller study is

21:16:01 released.

21:16:04 Now speaking for the presentation, the quality of the

21:16:07 building, the way it was presented how it interacted

21:16:13 with the entire neighborhood unlike anything I have

21:16:15 seen earlier tonight or anything when we were here

21:16:19 with Historic Hyde Park.

21:16:20 But we heard down the street, they don't do that.

21:16:25 He has done that.

21:16:25 He showed interaction.

21:16:26 He's shown how it will also compliment districts

21:16:31 neighboring us.

21:16:32 That's what should be expected of every developer when




21:16:34 they show you.

21:16:35 And I understand in the future things are going in

21:16:37 that direction.

21:16:38 But it should be expected.

21:16:39 And if not, it should be commanded hopefully.

21:16:42 Because the question we always ask when I look out on

21:16:45 my balcony, floors and ceilings, and plant trees in my

21:16:51 backyard, I have a Herb garden and view all the way to

21:16:55 the City of Tampa and I wonder, why are all these

21:16:58 towers going in my neighborhood when they could add so

21:17:01 beautifully to the central business district.

21:17:03 And why are they all going down outside area and not

21:17:06 in the central -- what is this community doing wrong

21:17:09 on the bigger picture?

21:17:11 Why aren't they where they want to be?

21:17:12 Because we have a lot of wonderful developments within

21:17:14 visions of the area that are coming coming.

21:17:17 And we have great developments like this that I would

21:17:19 love to have seen instead of the towers at the end

21:17:22 with the lighting.

21:17:23 It's gorgeous.

21:17:24 The muralss, it contributes to the vision.




21:17:28 That's quality if you were going to.

21:17:30 But why isn't it downtown?

21:17:33 Why?

21:17:35 Thank you.

21:17:39 >> Good question.

21:17:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.

21:17:40 Anyone lick to speak?

21:17:42 >> Dennis Campbell.

21:17:44 I'm a proud property owner in the Channel District.

21:17:46 As a matter of fact, my property is exactly across

21:17:49 from the proposed project.

21:17:54 I lived there for ten years.

21:17:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: North?

21:17:59 West?

21:18:00 >>> To the north.

21:18:00 Exactly across Washington on the other corner of

21:18:03 Channelside.

21:18:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn?

21:18:07 >>> No, nothing to do.

21:18:09 No.

21:18:12 I didn't know.

21:18:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that's going to




21:18:12 speak that has not been sworn in?

21:18:13 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?

21:18:15 (Oath administered by Clerk).

21:18:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For those of you that came in I am

21:18:26 going to ask when you state your name, if you have

21:18:27 been sworn I have a little sign to remind you and I

21:18:31 also have a red hat.

21:18:33 Please say that you have been sworn in.

21:18:34 Thank you.

21:18:35 >>> What I would really like to address first is the

21:18:39 lady that was just in front of me, she said residents.

21:18:42 And I have only seen one person up here so I don't

21:18:44 understand why she was speaking for masses.

21:18:47 What I would like to see is everybody out there raise

21:18:53 your hand.

21:18:55 Everybody that's against the project raise your hand.

21:19:00 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.

21:19:02 (Laughter).

21:19:04 >>> I wanted to give council a visual of the people

21:19:06 that are here.

21:19:06 These are your voters.

21:19:07 These are the people that come out here away from




21:19:10 their families, they got jobs tomorrow, they are

21:19:12 spending the evening here to spoke Schoewe support for

21:19:15 something they believe in.

21:19:15 I think it's your duty as an officer to consider what

21:19:20 these people are here for.

21:19:22 And with that being said, being one of the adjacent

21:19:26 property owners, I am here for.

21:19:29 I am supporting it.

21:19:30 I have got an investment over there with potential

21:19:33 retail and commercial space in the ground floor.

21:19:36 And if you don't put some residents in that area,

21:19:40 people like myself that go out there and spend

21:19:43 millions of dollars to invest in the Channel District

21:19:45 that we owned for a long time might have a tough time

21:19:49 if we don't have residents some to support it.

21:19:53 In the paper a week ago, St. Petersburg, showing how

21:19:56 they have a great city and how Tampa has a million and

21:20:00 two square foot of unrented office space.

21:20:02 You know, I think the solution to that is to put some

21:20:04 bodies in there.

21:20:05 And if you don't open your mind to larger densities or

21:20:10 different ideas or have developers that are willing to




21:20:13 come in and do things like this, you might be shorting

21:20:16 the city in the long run.

21:20:18 I think it's important.

21:20:19 I'm real excited.

21:20:20 I can't afford to do it myself.

21:20:22 The city came in and put this streetcar in.

21:20:24 They put this stop right across the street from me.

21:20:28 But they didn't put anything for people to walk across

21:20:30 to get there.

21:20:31 It's extremely dangerous.

21:20:33 Here's a guy, out of his own pocket that's going to

21:20:35 come in, and ask you foramen advertise?

21:20:38 That's a big amenity.

21:20:39 Today maybe it's not.

21:20:40 But when you got thousands or hundreds of people that

21:20:43 want to walk across that busy intersection, how are

21:20:46 they going to do it? How are they going to do it

21:20:48 safely?

21:20:48 And who are they going to thank?

21:20:50 They are going to thank you you gays for helping get

21:20:52 something like this in there.

21:20:53 The city is not going to do it.




21:20:58 They didn't get it done when they built the thing.

21:21:00 I hope I'm not up here shouting a bunch of things to

21:21:02 you that maybe are a little bit stern.

21:21:05 But I'm for it.

21:21:06 I've got my hard money here.

21:21:08 I try living there.

21:21:11 And I want to see the community nice.

21:21:13 Don't want to have things stunned because there's a

21:21:16 few people that might cry about a tower and the height

21:21:22 of it.

21:21:23 Who is up there 200 feet trying to look horizontal?

21:21:26 Not many people.

21:21:27 And if you go to any other major city and you see the

21:21:30 buildings like they have tried to show you tonight,

21:21:36 the landscape, I not just a flat box.

21:21:41 Look down in Dallas and look at that district.

21:21:43 It's all flat, short boxes.

21:21:45 It's dark.

21:21:45 It's not that exciting.

21:21:48 And there's things that they brought up, they have

21:21:51 excellent viewpoints and I hope that you take them

21:21:53 into consideration.




21:21:54 I watched outside because the room was busy.

21:21:57 And I seen some of the comments that you folks have

21:21:59 made on Ken's project.

21:22:02 And there's this study that's coming out.

21:22:05 Well, there's a study right here.

21:22:07 All the people that live here, that work here, that

21:22:09 want this.

21:22:09 Please take that into consideration.

21:22:10 And give this gentleman the opportunity to build

21:22:13 something nice for the community.

21:22:15 I would appreciate it myself.

21:22:16 (Bell sounds).

21:22:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

21:22:18 Mrs. Ferlita.

21:22:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just a comment back to you.

21:22:21 We certainly appreciate the attendance of people

21:22:23 coming in and make and the time that they spend down

21:22:25 here with us.

21:22:26 And the number of hands that are waved in support.

21:22:30 And all of that certainly is part and parcel to what

21:22:32 we do.

21:22:36 I think some of us or all of us I believe had the




21:22:42 opportunity to go see this project before the petition

21:22:45 was submitted.

21:22:46 And it is a very classa project.

21:22:51 However, there are certain guidelines and certain

21:22:53 things that we look at.

21:22:54 And it doesn't mat where there's one person for it or

21:22:57 20,000 against.

21:22:58 It's just simply to make sure that we do our due

21:23:01 diligence and do our job, and make sure that what we

21:23:05 support is something that's compatible for a different

21:23:06 area.

21:23:07 So certainly while everybody's attendance coming is

21:23:11 important, that's for one council member that's not

21:23:15 how I weigh my decision.

21:23:16 I just want to tell you that.

21:23:18 I won't enter into dialogue.

21:23:19 You said yours and I said mine I believe I got the

21:23:23 idea that you're for it.

21:23:25 It's a wonderful thing.

21:23:26 And all I'm saying is, we are not making light of the

21:23:29 people support that we see.

21:23:32 However, we want to make sure that we do what we are




21:23:36 supposed to do before we get there. That's part of

21:23:38 this job, too.

21:23:39 >>> I appreciate that.

21:23:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: Once we get out of here and we support

21:23:43 this or we don't support it, the consensus is

21:23:46 compatibility.

21:23:47 Because those 40 hands dilute in terms of the entire

21:23:51 neighborhood.

21:23:52 In terms of the whole city that we represent.

21:23:54 So sometimes we belabor something not simply because

21:23:57 we are trying to give people a hard time hear or that

21:23:59 we don't see where they are coming from in terms of

21:24:01 support.

21:24:02 One versus 40, 40 versus 40, 20 versus 60, that

21:24:06 certainly matters.

21:24:07 But what matters is that we take everything into

21:24:09 consideration.

21:24:10 So certainly whatever you have observed, whether it

21:24:13 was out there or in here, let me reassure you that the

21:24:16 quality of this gentleman's worth and the hospitality

21:24:19 he showed us when we were there, and the sincerity

21:24:21 with which I believe he presented his case, none of




21:24:24 those things go unnoticed.

21:24:26 But you at the same time, sir, as somebody who we

21:24:29 represent, have to give us the opportunity to really

21:24:31 look at this comprehensively, so that when we go home

21:24:34 we feel like we have treated everybody fairly that.

21:24:37 Means you.

21:24:37 That means the rest of the people in the yellow

21:24:38 shirts.

21:24:39 And that also means the one lady that's in opposition.

21:24:41 So I just want to tell you that we understand what

21:24:44 you're saying.

21:24:44 Point well taken.

21:24:45 So let's work both ways.

21:24:48 Okay?

21:24:48 >> I appreciate that.

21:24:50 And very well said.

21:24:52 And way want to also --

21:24:53 >>GWEN MILLER: No, that's it.

21:24:55 No dialogue.

21:24:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to explain to the

21:25:01 people in the audience who might be relatively new to

21:25:05 the Channel District that council has been working on




21:25:07 this area for 15 years.

21:25:10 15 years ago we started with an overlay plan.

21:25:13 And we started looking at what this area should

21:25:15 become.

21:25:16 Ms. Alvarez has been very active in the development of

21:25:18 this T streetcar which has been one of the incentives

21:25:20 for redevelopment along this corridor.

21:25:23 We have all each of us been very involved in this.

21:25:26 I have been tremendously involved for years and years

21:25:28 and years.

21:25:29 We all take these decisions very seriously, because we

21:25:32 understand the long-term ramifications.

21:25:35 And the reason that I had an issue with you the

21:25:39 presentation by the architect when he was showing the

21:25:42 purple buildings on the other side of the street was

21:25:44 that we have to really think about how this entire

21:25:51 area was developing.

21:25:53 It's tremendously important.

21:25:54 And in our downtown plan, the majority of downtown has

21:25:58 absolutely no height limits.

21:26:00 People can go as high as they want.

21:26:02 Most of downtown has no height limits, it has wider




21:26:07 streets, it has a different character.

21:26:08 I would analogize it to the upper east side New York

21:26:13 thing being like most of downtown, this area being

21:26:16 like channel town, smaller streets, smaller buildings,

21:26:19 a different scale, a different neighborhood feel.

21:26:21 And we council members have worked long enough with

21:26:27 Tampa to recognize, Ybor has a different character

21:26:30 from Hyde Park, downtown from the Channel District.

21:26:32 And that's what we are trying to really get light when

21:26:36 we look at this Channel District plan that's going to

21:26:38 be presented in the future.

21:26:39 We want to make sure that we really support the

21:26:44 character in the Channel District as distinct from the

21:26:49 character of the central business district.

21:26:51 So to explain that.

21:26:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Good analogy.

21:26:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Next person to speak.

21:26:59 >>> Dominick.

21:27:00 I have been in the Channel District since 1996.

21:27:04 I have seen the dust settle.

21:27:05 I have seen the dust get kicked up.

21:27:10 One project start up.




21:27:11 Another one complete.

21:27:12 And one thing I have to say is when Sirdar initially

21:27:18 opened his doors to the neighborhood, he specifically

21:27:22 went door to door introducing himself, inviting

21:27:27 everybody in the Channel District to show him exactly

21:27:30 what he was proposing to do.

21:27:32 And one thing that I did notice among other things is

21:27:36 the fact that he was such a strong supporter of the

21:27:39 arts.

21:27:40 Compared to a lot of the other projects that have gone

21:27:42 on, nobody knocked on my door, or a lot of other

21:27:46 peoples doors saying, look, we want to support the

21:27:49 arts.

21:27:49 Because being in Channel District since 1996, it was

21:27:53 known as the art district.

21:27:55 High rent.

21:27:56 High sale properties.

21:27:59 Forced a lot of artists out.

21:28:02 Fortunately, I was able to stay.

21:28:04 And it was something that I saw that the changes that

21:28:08 were happening, where there are no more artists,

21:28:11 except what Jenny white and bill Waite have put




21:28:16 together.

21:28:16 It's safe haven for them.

21:28:18 But what was happening as far as all the other

21:28:20 projects, take that into consideration.

21:28:23 And at the same time, everything that Sirdar said that

21:28:28 he would do he has honestly delivered.

21:28:30 One thing I was told was find out what everybody else

21:28:33 was doing and do the exact opposite.

21:28:35 That's a prime example.

21:28:37 Thank you very much.

21:28:39 I thought you swore me in.

21:28:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have to say you were sworn.

21:28:45 >>> Oh, I was sworn in.

21:28:46 Thank you.

21:28:47 >> My name is Fru Krushe, and I have been sworn.

21:28:53 Ivan lived in this community for 31 years.

21:28:55 I have seen a lot of change in that time as most of

21:28:58 you.

21:28:59 I have known Sirdar about three years now.

21:29:03 And what started out as a professional relationship

21:29:05 has turned into a very dear friendship for me.

21:29:11 And I just want to attest to the fact that projects




21:29:14 that he gets involved with, that he pioneers, are

21:29:18 first class, I think the fact that he has a world

21:29:23 class architect working on this project attests to

21:29:26 that, and I think that given the vision that we have

21:29:30 for growth in this community is the kind of project

21:29:33 that we would welcome with open arms.

21:29:37 In my work as a practitioner we work with many, many

21:29:43 different types of clients, a lot of commercial

21:29:45 developers, and I can tell you that he is among the

21:29:49 top in terms of quality, and in terms of his vision,

21:29:53 and I don't think that you could find a better person

21:29:57 to welcome to this community, and have work in this

21:30:01 community and help build this community.

21:30:02 So I appreciate your time tonight.

21:30:04 And I appreciate giving me the talk on his behalf.

21:30:09 And I hope that you will make your decisions

21:30:11 accordingly.

21:30:12 Thank you.

21:30:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

21:30:14 Next.

21:30:21 >>> Joe Robinson: I have been sworn.

21:30:26 2338 Palmetto street in West Tampa.




21:30:28 I don't live in the Channel District.

21:30:30 I don't have millions of dollars over there.

21:30:32 But I did serve to help turn from a slum and blighted

21:30:36 community when we started doing the enterprise

21:30:39 community and all of these other special things

21:30:42 including the clean-up of the 12th street yard,

21:30:46 brownfield.

21:30:46 And there's plenty of brownfields because that

21:30:50 basically was all industrial with shipping and all.

21:30:52 What I heard, you will probably be seeing me more

21:30:56 because I think this is in district 5.

21:30:59 And district 5, my concern is workforce units.

21:31:05 Workforce units, I think I heard the attorneys say

21:31:09 that the workforce units were 5%.

21:31:13 I'm not aware that City Council has adopted a standard

21:31:16 for developers when they come in to set aside certain

21:31:20 percentages of workforce units.

21:31:23 Workforce units as far as I'm concerned is more

21:31:27 clever, nicer way of saying affordable units.

21:31:30 And in Tampa, we have millionaires here.

21:31:34 We have a lot of people affording these high rent,

21:31:38 high ownership districts.




21:31:40 But I'm here to say if this is in district 5, it can

21:31:42 be a $100 million project.

21:31:44 If it's residential you will start to see me at the

21:31:47 workforce unit somewhere around, I think, 5%, a modest

21:31:52 10% is reasonable.

21:31:54 So I am starting to suggest and starting to ask City

21:31:56 Council, when we start seeing these multi-million

21:31:58 dollar deals, with residential, that we start asking

21:32:02 for workforce units to be developed and to be

21:32:06 developed by a reasonable amount.

21:32:09 That's no more different than other requirements that

21:32:17 City Council puts on developments, development

21:32:20 agreements for the museum, development agreement for

21:32:23 all of the buildings that we do.

21:32:24 I'm not here asking for minority business utilization.

21:32:27 What I'm saying is in the future, anything in district

21:32:30 5, I'm looking for developers coming out with higher

21:32:37 percentages of workforce unit so that people that

21:32:38 can't afford these, be working there, that will be

21:32:42 taking care of these places, running those shops and

21:32:45 all, will have something that they can afford so we

21:32:48 have a true diverse community in Tampa, Florida.




21:32:50 And that's all I wanted to say.

21:32:52 Thank you.

21:32:52 >>KEVIN WHITE: Let me for a minute.

21:32:56 Hopefully, I might be able to help speed this along

21:33:00 since this is my district.

21:33:02 I think the great majority of the people are here, as

21:33:07 Ms. Ferlita eloquently stated, we take all of those

21:33:11 things into consideration.

21:33:15 I think that with all of the presentations that this

21:33:19 developer has brought forth, all the extras that he

21:33:24 has gone over and above to include, to incorporate in

21:33:27 this particular proposal, are some of the things that

21:33:32 council has been asking for time and time again.

21:33:34 And he has gone over and above and beyond the call of

21:33:38 duty that is what we have required at this current

21:33:42 stage.

21:33:43 And so many times, this audience is full of people

21:33:46 just like you all here tonight that are in opposition

21:33:49 because the developer has not come to explain what it

21:33:54 is that they are doing, they haven't taken the time to

21:33:58 address the neighborhood issues, they haven't taken

21:34:01 into consideration your concerns and what you want.




21:34:03 And here we have a developer that has gone all of

21:34:06 those things right.

21:34:07 We haven't had one person here to to say the developer

21:34:10 has slighted them in one area of this proposal.

21:34:14 And it's also compatible to the neighborhood.

21:34:18 And as the issues that we raise in the Channel

21:34:21 District, as well as Ybor City, with the height, the

21:34:26 F.A.R.s and all of though things, we have come to

21:34:29 realize that none of these areas will fly without

21:34:33 higher density.

21:34:34 None of them will sustain themselves without families

21:34:36 and people living in them.

21:34:38 This is what we need to bring people to our area, to

21:34:43 our downtown area, to our Channelside area, to our

21:34:45 Ybor area, to make these areas vibrant and

21:34:50 economically sound.

21:34:52 We complain about the trolley not being as successful

21:34:58 as it should be.

21:35:00 Well, if we had another 2,000 residents somebody has

21:35:02 to ride it.

21:35:04 We complain about Centro Ybor.

21:35:06 As I stated last week in council, take my family to




21:35:10 the movies all the time, and where do we go?

21:35:12 We go to Centro Ybor.

21:35:14 Why?

21:35:15 Because I know there's never a line there.

21:35:16 We are always guaranteed to see the movie we want.

21:35:20 Never sold out.

21:35:20 We can sit on the front row if we like.

21:35:22 That's what we need to do.

21:35:23 We need to bring more people into the area, create

21:35:26 jobs in the area, create a livable neighborhood, where

21:35:30 we can all live and thrive and work, play, and be --

21:35:35 and have retail in the area.

21:35:37 We don't have anybody.

21:35:38 I don't want to slight anybody but you have all stood

21:35:40 up.

21:35:40 There's not one person in opposition to this project.

21:35:46 We have models which we asked for in the last one.

21:35:49 We have them.

21:35:50 The petitioner had a 3-D presentation on DVD.

21:35:54 But we went to the Elmo, which is fine.

21:35:56 We don't have anything to slow, to stagnate and or to

21:36:00 stop this project.




21:36:01 And it's a wonderful project.

21:36:03 We also have a developer that's asking to do something

21:36:08 that he's already begun.

21:36:09 We have so many other developers that come in and ask

21:36:12 for projects and we haven't even seen the first shovel

21:36:15 go in the ground yet.

21:36:16 This developer is doing what he said he's going to do.

21:36:20 And I think we just need to move this and get off the

21:36:22 dime and let's move forward with this project.

21:36:26 And unless there's someone else that wants to speak in

21:36:29 the public, and or if the petitioner has rebuttal, I

21:36:32 move of that we close the public hearing and move

21:36:34 forward.

21:36:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

21:36:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I still have a problem with the

21:36:43 amenities, and I see that the Planning Commission said

21:36:49 that there were no significant amenities or benefits

21:36:53 in the site plan to validate the requested F.A.R.

21:36:57 And I would like to ask Mr. Snelling to give us an

21:37:03 overview on that, please.

21:37:05 >>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination.

21:37:07 The amenities that are presented to us, there is some




21:37:11 confusion to exactly what that means.

21:37:15 Andrea -- Ms. Zelman, excuse me, on one hand says she

21:37:20 feels the site plan included up to 20 different

21:37:22 amenities on the site plan.

21:37:23 We have a far different count than that.

21:37:25 A lot of the amenities that they may have been

21:37:28 counting are actually code requirements.

21:37:29 We don't use code requirements for building sidewalks

21:37:31 and burying utilities and things like that, as an

21:37:35 amenity that is already required by the code.

21:37:37 So there's some confusion there, that we want to get

21:37:40 to the bottom of.

21:37:42 The other thing, I'm not really sure which amenities

21:37:46 are actual and which are not because on Tuesday, they

21:37:48 came in on Tuesday, and quite candidly, on this this

21:37:52 project, Cathy Coyle had been working on this project.

21:37:55 She was called to the hospital yesterday to take care

21:37:56 of her child.

21:37:57 Otherwise she would have been the one here tonight

21:38:00 analyzing all this data with her staff and giving a

21:38:02 very clear presentation, exactly what is or what

21:38:05 isn't.




21:38:06 She's not here today.

21:38:07 The only reason I'm here is because my staff person

21:38:10 who understands this in and out is not available to do

21:38:12 that.

21:38:12 So there is some confusion about what amenities are

21:38:15 and they did come in on a late date which is

21:38:18 problematic.

21:38:19 Saw you the first presentation that you came when the

21:38:20 site plan didn't match up and there was confusion of

21:38:23 what was on and what was off.

21:38:24 And there's potential for that happening here.

21:38:29 The other thing, and speaking to Mrs. Saul-Sena, and

21:38:31 you said it.

21:38:33 15 years you have been working on this.

21:38:36 I sat down at the warehouse with you and talked about

21:38:38 the thing that got the vision award.

21:38:42 The thing at that time was 60 feet tall.

21:38:45 And as the petitioner said, an area that is in

21:38:48 transition, then so be it.

21:38:49 Then that's great.

21:38:50 And I have to say it is a beautiful project.

21:38:52 But that's not really the question.




21:38:53 The question is, if it is indeed transitioning to

21:38:57 something, you're this close before you're having a

21:38:59 very valid study that says this is what it should

21:39:03 transition to.

21:39:03 This may be exactly what you want it to transition to.

21:39:07 You won't know that for four to six weeks until you

21:39:10 take a look at that.

21:39:11 And that's kind of where the confusion comes.

21:39:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

21:39:19 What would suggest is that we give ourselves that

21:39:22 time, we allow the petitioner to come up with a really

21:39:26 crisp list of the amenities that existed previously,

21:39:28 the additional things that they are offering, that we

21:39:32 continue this to the same date as the previous

21:39:34 petition, in the channel district, which will allow us

21:39:39 as a CRA to address the district channel, and what Mr.

21:39:45 Snelling says is true.

21:39:47 The presentation is beautiful.

21:39:48 The proposed building is beautiful.

21:39:49 We just have to see if it's right in this context.

21:39:52 So my motion would be not that we close the public

21:39:55 hearing, but that we continue this.




21:39:57 And I know that we have a number of public hearings.

21:39:59 But based on tonight as an example, one will probably

21:40:03 fall out.

21:40:04 So we continue this to March 9th at 6:00.

21:40:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

21:40:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Petitioner's position in rebuttal.

21:40:16 >>MARTY BOYLE: I wanted council to know --

21:40:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We know.

21:40:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I wanted to know what you were going

21:40:24 to say.

21:40:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That we have already Maced out.

21:40:28 >>> Eleven new and three continuances already.

21:40:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are optimistic one will fall

21:40:33 off.

21:40:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want council to be aware of the

21:40:36 fact that it is going to be in effect an extra

21:40:42 hearing.

21:40:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: What did we do for the last one?

21:40:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you redo both?

21:40:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we should redo them both

21:40:58 the same night because we have we will have just

21:41:01 discussed the Channel District plan.




21:41:02 ?

21:41:03 >>RHEA LAW: We are offering to you, if you would like
21:41:05 for us to create the model for you for the Channel
21:41:09 District, we would be happy to do that, if we could
21:41:11 come back earlier than March the 9th.
21:41:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For the alcohol channel -- whole

21:41:18 Channel District?

21:41:20 That will save us a bunch of money.

21:41:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What about the study?

21:41:26 The whole district?

21:41:28 >>> Yes, we would be happy to do it.

21:41:29 Just one second.

21:41:42 Law: I told you he goes the extra mile. This is it.

21:41:44

21:41:50 >>> Well, let me ask a question.

21:41:54 As for your request for the model, you want the model

21:41:59 for the entire neighborhood, port authority and

21:42:02 private property to be composed and brought in front

21:42:05 of you.

21:42:07 Is that what you're wishing for?

21:42:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what we had talked with the

21:42:11 University of South Florida school of architecture to

21:42:13 create for us and I believe the scale -- is Mr. Chen

21:42:17 here?




21:42:17 Mr. Chen can speak to the scale because he was in a

21:42:20 meeting with the school of architecture where we

21:42:23 discussed the scale, the model and the boundaries

21:42:25 which were basically Meridian to the water.

21:42:28 The water all around, and Meridian as the eastern

21:42:32 boundary.

21:42:33 >>> We will be happy to get that done actually.

21:42:36 What's the scale?

21:42:38 >>MICHAEL CHEN: Actually, I didn't hear him come up

21:42:41 with a calculation of scale.

21:42:42 Your description was something that was transportable.

21:42:48 So it would be approximately something that could be

21:42:50 carried on perhaps a four by four, four by six sheet.

21:42:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Put on top of a card table.

21:43:01 >>> We will offer to manufacture for you and try to

21:43:06 have it transported over.

21:43:07 We have the means and resources that we can get it

21:43:09 done much faster for you.

21:43:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We appreciate it.

21:43:13 >>> And the amenity will add a contribution to the

21:43:16 neighborhood.

21:43:19 And just one second.




21:43:21 How soon can we do it?

21:43:28 >>JULIA COLE: Sorry.

21:43:29 Julia Cole.

21:43:30 I apologize.

21:43:31 I was in the back for this.

21:43:33 What I'm understanding occurred, and someone may need

21:43:35 to correct me if I am wrong, the applicant has offered

21:43:37 to create a model to be contributed to the study which

21:43:45 is currently going on?

21:43:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe the actual proposal by

21:43:49 Wilson Miller is completed.

21:43:51 And I was holding up our discussion of it until we had

21:43:54 a scale model so that we could better understand

21:43:57 what's being proposed in the study.

21:43:59 I thought that we needed the model as an educational

21:44:01 tool.

21:44:01 This morning at our CRA meeting, we voted to spend

21:44:06 some CRA money to build a model.

21:44:08 And we anticipated that that would take about six

21:44:11 weeks.

21:44:11 So when we were discussing at previous zoning petition

21:44:14 we said let's wait till we get the model, figure out




21:44:17 the study, and then, you know, we'll have something

21:44:22 more coherent to base our decisions on, going forward

21:44:24 for proposals in the Channel District.

21:44:27 >>JULIA COLE: And the applicant has offered to go

21:44:29 ahead and do that as part of his petition?

21:44:32 I'm a little concerned because, you know, money has

21:44:35 already been allocated to go ahead and do this.

21:44:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The city doesn't move that quickly.

21:44:41 It was day.

21:44:42 >>JULIA COLE: I'm concerned there's a perception that

21:44:45 thisth is being offered up as some sort of quid

21:44:48 pro quo and I want to make sure that's not the case.

21:44:50 >>> Sirdar: That's not the case.

21:44:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's just to expedite the

21:44:57 process.

21:44:58 When the city does something it tends to happen more

21:45:01 slowly and it's of the Wilson Miller proposal for the

21:45:04 Channel District, that Mr. Chen and the USF

21:45:07 architecture professor had already discussed and we

21:45:10 had agreed to today.

21:45:11 I mean, I would like it to happen.

21:45:13 I feel like we need the mod toll make good decisions,




21:45:17 to understand the proposed floor ratios and the

21:45:20 proposed heights and all that jazz.

21:45:24 >>JULIA COLE: I think what this applicant can do to

21:45:25 you is say I would like to create something to give

21:45:28 you more information as part of my proposal.

21:45:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, he's saying --

21:45:35 >>JULIA COLE: I'm a little concerned tying it as part

21:45:38 of this process.

21:45:39 That's what I'm a little concerned about.

21:45:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, independent ently.

21:45:45 >>> DAL: It has absolutely no binding on me.

21:45:48 Actually, if I may say to the council, we have been

21:45:51 struggling with this for 14 months now.

21:45:53 Our first application was filed on December 6th,

21:45:56 2004.

21:45:57 And here we are, the cost of opportunity needs to be

21:46:01 factored in, and this is a little cost for us.

21:46:04 In three weeks we will create the model and come back

21:46:07 to you.

21:46:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: That means, sir, if you did this,

21:46:14 which I'm can uncomfortable with already, but if you

21:46:16 did this, then your expectation back would be to come




21:46:19 in three weeks.

21:46:21 >>> Yes.

21:46:23 >> That's unfair to the last petitioner that we said

21:46:25 no to.

21:46:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we should take the last

21:46:28 petitioner --

21:46:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Now we are disrupting -- if we do that

21:46:31 it's unfair to people who have waited.

21:46:33 This is causing a lot of problems.

21:46:35 I think that this is -- the petitioner starting to

21:46:38 tell us, you have this -- with no expectation of a

21:46:42 positive vote.

21:46:43 I love your project anyway.

21:46:44 Forget about what you're saying you are going to do.

21:46:47 But the perception is, he's coming in to build it

21:46:49 because government works slowly.

21:46:51 That will bring him back in three weeks as opposed to

21:46:54 later.

21:46:54 That means we have to go back and rescind what we said

21:46:57 about the last one so that we treat him fairly as

21:46:59 well.

21:47:00 That means where does everybody else sit?




21:47:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can't do that.

21:47:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: I know we can't.

21:47:05 It's not a fair -- this doesn't look good.

21:47:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I will not support it.

21:47:16 >>> Just a request.

21:47:17 How do you propose we should come to you forever?

21:47:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: Sir, what happened this morning was in

21:47:23 order for us in good conscience to vote appropriately

21:47:26 and have all the tools before us that we need, we as a

21:47:30 CRA body asked that the administration give us this

21:47:33 tool, these models.

21:47:35 So that's one of those things that we needed.

21:47:40 And although I appreciate your offering --

21:47:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Besides, it will give the staff time

21:47:47 to research these amenities that they are talking

21:47:50 about.

21:47:50 And they need that.

21:47:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would just say if we can get the

21:47:58 model, spend more time on public workshops about the

21:48:01 plan so that we would be sure that we had a plan in

21:48:03 place by March 9th.

21:48:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: What was the time frame they said it




21:48:08 would take?

21:48:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Six weeks.

21:48:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Six weeks.

21:48:12 He's saying three weeks.

21:48:13 If we pushed us to get it back sooner, then I think

21:48:18 it's okay.

21:48:19 $13,000 allocation should be nothing in the scheme of

21:48:22 things.

21:48:22 That's way said this motorcycle.

21:48:24 Morning.

21:48:24 So I think our charge is to tell Mr. Chen to do some

21:48:29 interacting with whoever is going to do this and get

21:48:31 it back quickly so he can have a fair presentation.

21:48:35 We can vote on this project.

21:48:37 It looks like it's probably going to go at that point

21:48:40 anyway and move on.

21:48:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: This would be my suggestion to

21:48:43 petitioner, if it's okay with council.

21:48:46 What my preference, don't think it's going go but I

21:48:49 prefer to go forward it with tonight and I prefer to

21:48:51 let the next petitioner use your model in their model

21:48:56 to move forward, because I think that's an integral




21:49:00 piece of what they should do.

21:49:01 I don't think that's going to go.

21:49:03 But we have an estimated time of six to eight weeks

21:49:07 from the USF students.

21:49:09 If that's not done by March 9th, I would suggest

21:49:11 that you continue with your model, because if there's

21:49:17 is not done by March 9th then we are going to have

21:49:17 to continue again, because nobody has any conceptual

21:49:21 idea what it will look like.

21:49:23 So if it's no burden upon you I suggest you may want

21:49:26 to go ahead and continue with yours.

21:49:28 That way if USF school of architecture does not have

21:49:32 theirs you can still move forward with your project

21:49:34 because you will have a model and shame on the others

21:49:36 if they don't and they'll have to be continued again.

21:49:39 So that would be my suggestion if that's what you

21:49:42 choose to do.

21:49:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Chen, how do you feel about that?

21:49:46 >>MICHAEL CHEN: I wouldn't care to critique

21:49:49 councilman's white's comments.

21:49:50 However, I would like to suggest something, that we

21:49:53 have discussed, because we always have to be very




21:49:56 careful and squeaky clean about any misperceptions of

21:50:01 what's happening as we deal with zoning issues.

21:50:09 We don't see there would be any problem if this

21:50:11 developer wished to do a full scale model of the

21:50:13 entire Channel District that had his proposed project

21:50:17 within that model, so that co-show how his project

21:50:21 related to the entire district.

21:50:25 And at the conclusion of his -- at the conclusion of

21:50:28 his petition for zoning, that certainly becomes the

21:50:34 property property of the city to do with as we pleas.

21:50:38 >>JULIA COLE: This applicant has the right to say, I

21:50:41 hear what you're saying and I would like to do a full

21:50:43 scale model not withstanding whatever the city is

21:50:45 doing.

21:50:46 And that becomes part of his petition.

21:50:47 And once his peat moves forward certainly that's in

21:50:51 the public record and it can be utilized as evidence

21:50:54 in other zoning petitions.

21:50:55 But I think you have two issues here.

21:50:57 One, you have told an applicant before this

21:51:01 application was going forward, you need to wait this

21:51:03 period of time to wait for the model the City of Tampa




21:51:05 is paying for.

21:51:06 And so there's a fairness issue there.

21:51:08 And we also have an issue --

21:51:12 >>: Can they do it?

21:51:13 >>> I still think there's a fairness issue there and

21:51:15 he's being required to wait.

21:51:17 And I think there's also an usual you with how a model

21:51:19 which has been developed by a petitioner moving

21:51:23 forward on a zoning project versus one that's being

21:51:26 paid for by the City of Tampa and how that's utilized.

21:51:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If the model is supposed to be of

21:51:31 the proposed Wilson Miller study, it's supposed to be

21:51:35 what the study is proposing in terms of massing and

21:51:39 heights and F.A.R.

21:51:41 It's not his -- it's not anybody's.

21:51:44 It's the Wilson Miller study.

21:51:45 If he wants to pick up apiece and stick in what he's

21:51:48 proposing then he can.

21:51:49 But what we need, what council needs, is just the

21:51:52 Wilson Miller study so we can see what's being

21:51:55 proposed.

21:51:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think what Ms. Cole is doing is




21:51:59 giving us a prudent way to get to the same point.

21:52:03 If this gentleman has a tool to represent his project

21:52:06 to us wants to be assured what Mr. White said, bring

21:52:09 your model that we need as far as we are concerned to

21:52:12 make a good decision, bring it back.

21:52:13 Then March 9th, he's for sure going to be heard

21:52:18 just like the other petitioner.

21:52:19 He's got the representation of the entire Channel

21:52:21 District, which we want.

21:52:22 And I don't even know if he needs to do this, Ms.

21:52:26 Cole, he can take that model and submit it after that,

21:52:28 or he can take it back home with him.

21:52:31 But at least he knows that there was no misperception

21:52:33 about anything, like the developer with the million

21:52:37 dollar check.

21:52:38 Yeah, he had to pay it eventually.

21:52:40 He's saying we -- I'll bring you what you need.

21:52:44 It doesn't look good.

21:52:45 It doesn't smell good.

21:52:47 And I don't think that's his intention.

21:52:48 His intention is as an aggressive developer, and don't

21:52:51 blame him, was so long ago that we saw that first




21:52:54 phase, from the standpoint of fairness we already

21:52:58 established on March 9th, that's six weeks.

21:53:01 You come back with that, sir, and yours is in keeping

21:53:04 with that, I guarantee you, we probably won't be very

21:53:07 long on your project when we deliberate.

21:53:09 Because again it is a very good, very attractive, very

21:53:13 well thought-out project.

21:53:15 But the process has to be the same for everybody.

21:53:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to clarify council's

21:53:25 intention.

21:53:25 There is a potential of a 3-D model of what presently

21:53:28 exists.

21:53:30 There's a 3-D model of what exists plus what is

21:53:33 already approved.

21:53:34 And then I hear there is a 3-D model being requested

21:53:38 that reflects what the study is.

21:53:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Correct.

21:53:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be clear than on what

21:53:46 it is council -- first of all what council has

21:53:49 requested this morning at CRA is what the model of

21:53:51 what the study is?

21:53:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's all three things that you said




21:53:55 and we discussed this at the meeting.

21:53:57 It's what exists, what's been approved, and what the

21:54:03 study suggests.

21:54:04 >> I guess for clarification purposes, is council --

21:54:08 council wishes in order to make this determination to

21:54:10 look at all of that?

21:54:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's all in the same model.

21:54:13 It's either -- .

21:54:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The study that Wilson Miller is

21:54:19 putting in on.

21:54:21 >>> SADIR: I was going to clarify that going to the

21:54:25 hearing, will be a complete model existing, of the

21:54:32 construction, and what the Wilson Miller study

21:54:36 proposes.

21:54:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: Exactly.

21:54:39 >>> I will bring to the your attention for your

21:54:42 viewing and hopefully it will be easy for you to see

21:54:46 what we advocate and the direction.

21:54:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does the petitioner agree to a

21:54:55 particular date for this continuance?

21:54:57 >>> My only request, it is council's decision.

21:55:03 My only request that if we can come back earlier.




21:55:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: We didn't have any openings before

21:55:08 that.

21:55:09 That's why we had the 9th.

21:55:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are actually waiving the rules

21:55:14 to get you in on the 9th.

21:55:16 >>> That's fine.

21:55:16 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion?

21:55:19 We have a motion and second to continue to March

21:55:20 9th at 6 p.m.

21:55:21 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

21:55:25 Opposed, Nay.

21:55:25 (Motion carried).

21:55:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Snelling, could you please

21:55:32 provide council in two weeks a description of what is

21:55:34 approved on the other side of Channelside Drive, on

21:55:38 the port side?

21:55:39 Because I don't think we are necessarily up to speed

21:55:43 on that.

21:55:45 Is 30 days better?

21:55:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't think Mr. Snelling can hear

21:55:50 you.

21:55:50 Why don't you wait?




21:55:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we have a five-minute break?

21:55:59 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go in recess for five

21:56:01 minutes.

22:07:33 [Sounding gavel]

22:07:34 69 Tampa City Council is called back to order.

22:07:35 Roll call.

22:07:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

22:07:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

22:07:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

22:07:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

22:07:46 Mrs. Saul-Sena.

22:07:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to clarify earlier

22:07:50 when I referred to a 3-D model I meant a physical

22:07:54 model.

22:07:54 Somebody just explained that in the architectural

22:07:56 profession when you say 3 OD model they might think

22:08:01 you mean a graphic.

22:08:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: I thought you meant the 3-D little

22:08:09 glasses.

22:08:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open number 12.

22:08:14 >> Second.

22:08:14 [Motion Carried]




22:08:15 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

22:08:16 I have been sworn.

22:08:20 Z 05-180.

22:08:22 It's a Euclidean request going from RS-60 to RS-50

22:08:27 designation.

22:08:28 Petitioner, we had objection to the site plan.

22:08:33 And their proposal.

22:08:34 The petitioner has come forward to us and actually is

22:08:39 going to ask for a continuance.

22:08:40 He would like to amend his application to a planned

22:08:43 development.

22:08:45 And in doing so, I think that one of our objections

22:08:49 was we weren't sure what they were going to be

22:08:52 building there.

22:08:53 Under Euclidean we had no say or we could not look at

22:08:56 the design.

22:08:57 And under a planned development we will be able to see

22:09:00 the style and the design of the building they would be

22:09:04 putting on the site.

22:09:05 And I'll let the petitioner speak.

22:09:17 >>CHAIRMAN: We lost our quorum

22:09:25 Truett Gardner: It's only you.




22:09:28 You can do whatever you want.

22:09:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's 55 in here.

22:09:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We feel it up here.

22:09:37 Did you find him?

22:09:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Push the button.

22:09:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Ring the bell.

22:09:44

22:09:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: The next best thing to having a child

22:10:00 is having Kevin White next to me.

22:10:04 >>KEVIN WHITE: I thought Ms. Alvarez was in here.

22:10:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Roll call, please.

22:10:08 You lost the quorum.

22:10:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

22:10:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

22:10:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

22:10:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

22:10:16 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.

22:10:17 Mr. Gardner.

22:10:18 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 south Franklin.

22:10:21 We have a unique situation where four feet from having

22:10:24 two zoning district but having talking to Tony Garcia

22:10:29 and John wise of the neighborhood association we are




22:10:31 amenable to coming back with a PD which would allow

22:10:33 them to address some issues that they would like to

22:10:36 see.

22:10:36 That's fine.

22:10:37 I understand March 23rd is open so we would like

22:10:39 to shoot for that.

22:10:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Can I get a motion?

22:10:44 >> So moved.

22:10:44 >> Second.

22:10:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone here to speak on item

22:10:47 number 12?

22:10:48 We have a motion and second.

22:10:49 (Motion carried)

22:10:52 March 23rd at 6 p.m

22:10:55 We need to open item number 14.

22:10:58 >> So moved.

22:10:59 >> Second.

22:10:59 (Motion carried).

22:10:59 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

22:11:30 This is Z 06-03.

22:11:32 You will see a site plan in front of you.

22:11:34 I apologize for no aerials.




22:11:36 Somewhere between my office and here tonight, the file

22:11:38 disappeared.

22:11:39 So I had to recreate what we had.

22:11:45 We had the site plan.

22:11:46 We have the staff report.

22:11:47 I do not have the aerials for you.

22:11:49 However, Planning Commission submitted their aerial.

22:11:54 This is a request to go from RS-50 single family

22:11:58 residential to a planned development.

22:12:01 There are no waivers associated with this petition.

22:12:04 The reason the petitioner is having to come forward

22:12:09 with this request is it's in the overlay, it is

22:12:12 currently an RS-50 designation, that requires you to

22:12:14 have 50 feet of frontage, and a minimum size of.

22:12:21 The platted lot is only 48 feet wide.

22:12:24 It's lacking two feet to hit that -- it's not a

22:12:28 buildable lot as it is and they have to rezone to a

22:12:31 PD.

22:12:34 The property is located like I said within the

22:12:36 Seminole Heights overlay district.

22:12:38 It is located at 305 west EMMA street.

22:12:43 And they are planning to go to PD.




22:12:46 The platted parcel measures 48 feet wide along Emma

22:12:52 street and only 4,899 square feet of land.

22:12:57 This is lot 188 at the meadow brook subdivision which

22:13:00 is plotted in 1924.

22:13:03 The plat shows a 48 by 102-foot lot. The site is

22:13:08 located within the Seminole Heights overlay, like I

22:13:10 said. The proposed front yard setback is provided by

22:13:13 using the block averaging mechanism which reduce it is

22:13:16 front yard yard to 14 feet 4 inches to the porch

22:13:20 feature. The residents will maintain a 10-foot side

22:13:23 yard set back, and there is a 37-foot rear yard set

22:13:26 back.

22:13:26 If you want to look at the Elmo for location, --

22:13:34 >>: Do we have an elevation?

22:13:35 >>> Yes, we do.

22:13:57 There were objections at the time of staff report.

22:13:59 However, in speaking with the petitioner tonight,

22:14:01 going over the objections, the first one was from our

22:14:07 landscape, Mary priceson, who noted it does not need

22:14:18 to be removed.

22:14:19 It does not need to be removed there. Was

22:14:21 clarification made.




22:14:22 She noted if there was to be a wall or fence put up on

22:14:26 foundation it would be utilized in this area.

22:14:29 So it should not affect the tree.

22:14:32 She noted that there's 12-inch Laurel oak on the north

22:14:35 property line that's in poor condition and that needed

22:14:37 to be removed.

22:14:38 And that one additional tree will need to be planted

22:14:41 based on the removal of that tree.

22:14:44 The petitioner has agreed to make note on a site plan

22:14:47 that additional tree will be planted.

22:14:50 One of our notes, our objections on the site plan, was

22:14:55 that we wanted no -- will comply with Seminole Heights

22:15:00 overlay district, and the petitioner is willing to add

22:15:02 the note stating that it will comply.

22:15:06 Other than that, we find the orientation, the proposed

22:15:11 residence will be oriented towards the front of the

22:15:15 zoning lot, that the creation of a new zoning lot will

22:15:18 fall the precedent of development pattern, that the

22:15:20 setbacks, the front yard is consistent with the

22:15:23 character of the block.

22:15:30 It's consistent with the overlay.

22:15:31 As long as a note is placed on the site plan.




22:15:36 Yes?

22:15:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the notes it said that the

22:15:38 traditional pattern of ribbon driveways, and this is

22:15:42 not a ribbon driveway.

22:15:51 It's just a slab of concrete.

22:15:52 >>MARTY BOYLE: Right.

22:15:54 I believe you can interpret that.

22:15:55 It says ribbon driveway may be constructed.

22:15:59 Don't believe it must be constructed.

22:16:09 That's my understanding.

22:16:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is someone from transportation

22:16:12 here?

22:16:14 Also, could we have someone from stormwater explain

22:16:17 their objection?

22:16:27 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.

22:16:30 You had a question about the ribbon driveway?

22:16:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there one?

22:16:34 Is there not?

22:16:35 You all had an objection.

22:16:38 I assumed that is what your objection was.

22:16:41 >>> It's really not an objection.

22:16:43 They just need to show the sidewalk through the




22:16:45 driveway.

22:16:46 They are showing a sidewalk.

22:16:47 And we would just like to see it through the driveway.

22:16:50 But it's not really an objection.

22:16:54 They just need to shot.

22:16:57 They'll make them do it at construction service and

22:16:59 they are not required to pay on their driveway for

22:17:03 single-family home.

22:17:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And stormwater, can you explain

22:17:09 your objection?

22:17:11 It says objection.

22:17:18 >>> Alex: Yes, 391 cubic feet of volume storage

22:17:22 on-site.

22:17:24 Alex Awad, stormwater, and I have been sworn.

22:17:28 >> Did they provide that?

22:17:29 >>> I haven't seen it on the plan.

22:17:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?

22:17:41 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

22:18:05 I have been sworn in.

22:18:11 You can pretty much see the residential, pretty

22:18:14 consistent in south Seminole Heights area.

22:18:16 Land use category of course is residential 10.




22:18:23 It is pretty much in character with what's been going

22:18:26 on with south Seminole Heights area.

22:18:28 What you have been getting in your past rezoning,

22:18:31 primarily southeast Seminole Heights.

22:18:33 When don't see a lot of rezonings that much in south

22:18:35 Seminole Heights.

22:18:39 But in looking at this, I think the most critical

22:18:41 things, I did -- ask if there's any contact with the

22:18:50 Seminole Heights presidents in this particular

22:18:52 instance.

22:18:57 And representative for the rezoning.

22:19:02 You will probably note on the site plan some of the

22:19:05 most pertinent issues that need to be addressed

22:19:08 underneath the overlay district, are noted on the site

22:19:11 plan, which the 5-inch sidewalks, and of course the

22:19:14 18-inch above finished grade which are two of the most

22:19:17 important ones that they look forward to especially

22:19:19 the 18 above grade and the 6-foot to 12 roof pitch.

22:19:28 The request is consistent with the predominant

22:19:30 residential pattern, single family detached.

22:19:32 And applicant will comply with the Seminole Heights

22:19:37 overlay residential guidelines.




22:19:39 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the

22:19:41 proposed request.

22:19:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?

22:19:43 >>MARTY BOYLE: If I may interrupt.

22:19:50 The petitioner agreed to place the stormwater, that --

22:19:53 a note on the plan stating that they will provide a

22:19:56 half inch stormwater retention, and also that they

22:19:59 would put the sidewalk through the driveway.

22:20:04 >>> Good evening.

22:20:05 Sarah petram, north Nebraska Avenue and I have been

22:20:10 sworn in.

22:20:11 Basically this property was purchased by an individual

22:20:13 who planned on constructing a sing am family

22:20:16 residential across the street because the family

22:20:18 happened to live on the other side of the street.

22:20:20 And unbeknownst to her it was not a buildable

22:20:23 property.

22:20:23 She was told that it was a grandfathered-in lot so

22:20:27 that's why we are here today.

22:20:28 It just doesn't meet the two feet as the RS-50 zoning.

22:20:31 It meets all the setbacks required.

22:20:32 And the owner of the property is willing to meet any




22:20:35 conditions necessary to go forward.

22:20:39 Those all I have.

22:20:40 Thank you.

22:20:40 Any questions?

22:20:41 >>CHAIRMAN: No.

22:20:42 Anyone in the public that would like to speak on item

22:20:45 14?

22:20:51 >>> My name is Jason Donald.

22:20:53 I have been sworn in.

22:20:58 West Emma.

22:20:59 I'm the property owner directly next door to the -- to

22:21:04 build the home.

22:21:07 Just a little background about the house and the

22:21:10 property.

22:21:12 Real briefly.

22:21:13 I bought the home in 2004.

22:21:15 The previous owner sold myself and I believe Ms. Ramos

22:21:19 who is the petitioner the lot.

22:21:23 When he split the lot, when I purchased my home, the

22:21:25 lot was supposed to be split ahead of time.

22:21:27 It was not done so properly.

22:21:29 So unfortunately I stand here in front of you as an




22:21:33 owner of an illegally zoned lot.

22:21:36 RS-50.

22:21:38 The lot, 187, 188 were two lots together, 96 feet

22:21:44 wide.

22:21:45 They split them what the meadow brook plat plan

22:21:48 previously was and they did it -- they didn't do it

22:21:52 properly.

22:21:52 So I now have an illegally zoned house because of this

22:21:55 previous owner.

22:21:57 One of the reasons I'm here is because I am now having

22:21:59 to take legal action against that previous owner in

22:22:01 order to rectify the situation.

22:22:03 So without being able to move forward I'm trying to

22:22:07 help this process along but in the same sense I'm

22:22:09 being hindered by it myself.

22:22:15 I'm objecting to the PD zoning.

22:22:17 Obviously it's 40 feet wide -- the lots are 48 feet

22:22:21 wide, RS-50 is what it's currently zoned.

22:22:28 The PD zoning is something we haven't seen in our

22:22:30 neighborhood yet.

22:22:31 I went through the public records and got as much

22:22:34 information as I could dig up and I haven't found any




22:22:36 other PD.

22:22:37 This will be a new zoning.

22:22:38 I don't know how it can effect things in the future in

22:22:42 future growth.

22:22:43 Certainly I have a concern with that.

22:22:46 Next I have concern for a tree that's on the property.

22:22:49 The city has claimed, or somebody has given me

22:22:51 information that they said the tree is no longer

22:22:54 alive.

22:22:56 I stand to differ.

22:22:58 If I can use this.

22:23:04 That tree is 14 feet 4 inches in diameter measured by

22:23:09 the city, has over 24-inch rise and is approximately

22:23:12 150 years old.

22:23:14 The roots are extensive.

22:23:16 They run under my house.

22:23:18 I'll show you another example.

22:23:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is the your house in the other

22:23:24 picture?

22:23:24 Can you go back to the previous picture?

22:23:29 Is the red porch your house?

22:23:30 >>> Yes, ma'am.




22:23:33 And unfortunately, the tree sits directly on the

22:23:35 property line.

22:23:36 Split right in half.

22:23:41 This is from my backyard.

22:23:43 24-inch rise from the root system.

22:23:46 And potentially if development comes in and any damage

22:23:50 is done to that root system, I think I run a high risk

22:23:53 of it being killed off and doing severe damage to my

22:23:56 house.

22:23:58 If it would even fall and not hit anything the root

22:24:01 system would tear up probably half of my home.

22:24:04 In addition to that, the root system, because of the

22:24:07 rise is so high, which I just noticed we are going to

22:24:10 address the issue with water retention.

22:24:14 I now deal with moisture and have had to install fans

22:24:19 under my house because I have hardwood floors and they

22:24:21 are starting to warp.

22:24:22 By putting another house there, there's less permeable

22:24:27 area and it's going to create more water for me.

22:24:28 (Bell sounds).

22:24:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Time is up.

22:24:31 We have a question for you.




22:24:32 >>> Yes, ma'am.

22:24:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm looking at a plan that was

22:24:35 submitted to us.

22:24:36 Is your house located to the west or the east?

22:24:41 >>> My house is located directly to the west.

22:24:44 Everything runs towards the river which is the west.

22:24:47 >> So that would be there's a picture.

22:24:48 It's a circle that says 60.

22:24:50 I would assume that's the diameter of the tree and

22:24:52 there's an X through it on this plan.

22:24:55 Did we have anybody from parks take a look at that

22:24:58 tree?

22:24:59 >>> Yes.

22:25:00 >>MARTY BOYLE: Dave Riley looked at the tree and made

22:25:03 his determination.

22:25:04 >> What was it?

22:25:05 >>> That it could be removed, that it wasn't a viable

22:25:07 tree any longer.

22:25:08 >> Was it an oak tree?

22:25:12 >>> It's actually a mix, a blend.

22:25:14 It's an older tree.

22:25:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is it split in the middle?




22:25:20 >>> Yes, ma'am.

22:25:22 Across the property line.

22:25:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It looked like from what you are

22:25:26 showing me, it looks like it's split right in the

22:25:28 middle.

22:25:29 >>> It comes up two massive trunks that are probably

22:25:34 two feet.

22:25:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Said they could remove the tree.

22:25:46 Would anyone else like to speak?

22:25:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.

22:25:52 >> Second.

22:25:52 (Motion carried).

22:25:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in

22:25:57 the general vicinity of 305 west Emma in the city of

22:26:02 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in

22:26:04 section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50

22:26:08 residential single family to PD single family

22:26:11 residential, providing an effective date.

22:26:13 69 I have a motion and second.

22:26:15 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

22:26:16 Opposed, Nay.

22:26:16 (Motion carried).




22:26:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just to help the neighbor better

22:26:21 understand, probably his best course of action would

22:26:26 be go for a.

22:26:29 What the PD does is allows people to build a

22:26:33 single-family home so we are very secure what's going

22:26:35 to go there there and that's what I probably recommend

22:26:38 to you.

22:26:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: Also, I think the gentleman that came

22:26:41 up, if there was anybody in this world that was more

22:26:45 protective of trees than Mrs. Saul-Sena, believe me,

22:26:51 it would not fly.

22:26:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: She's a tree hugger.

22:26:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to open number 16 -- number 15?

22:27:03 >> So moved.

22:27:03 >> Second.

22:27:03 (Motion carried)

22:27:04

22:27:04 >>MARTY BOYLE: The last one.

22:27:31 I have been sworn.

22:27:32 Item number 15.

22:27:33 Z 06-04.

22:27:38 The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property at




22:27:41 2302 west Beach Street and 2502 north Howard street to

22:27:47 a PD zoning district.

22:27:50 It's going from an RS-50, a CI and a PD to a PD.

22:27:56 There is an existing two-story structure on-site.

22:28:02 It generally referred S referred to as the Golden

22:28:05 Nugget.

22:28:09 Look at the Elmo.

22:28:09 It shows a side view of it.

22:28:26 The two-story structure is 32 feet in height and it

22:28:29 was previously used as a nightclub hall with a small

22:28:31 apartment on the second floor.

22:28:33 The petitioner intends to have retail, in our staff

22:28:36 report we have restaurant.

22:28:37 However, petitioner called me today.

22:28:39 The plan says restaurant and our staff report says

22:28:42 restaurant, they are not going to do a restaurant in

22:28:45 there so I need to strike that from the plan and

22:28:48 ignore it from the staff report.

22:28:50 And professional offices.

22:28:51 And there is going to be one second-floor apartment

22:28:54 for the owner's personal use.

22:28:56 The existing structure is zoned PD.




22:28:58 The parcel if you look at the site plan, the parcel to

22:29:02 the north is RS-50 and the parcel to the south is CI.

22:29:08 The plan shows 30 parking spaces provided including

22:29:11 two ADA spaces.

22:29:13 Only 16 spaces are required.

22:29:16 The site will have access from the north Howard and an

22:29:19 additional parking lot will have access from west

22:29:22 Beach Street.

22:29:22 The existing building is historical in nature, and

22:29:26 it's going to be renovated.

22:29:28 The site is located within the West Tampa overlay

22:29:31 district.

22:29:36 On the Elmo, the building is -- this is the existing

22:29:40 building.

22:29:40 This will be parking.

22:29:42 To the south and to the north is the additional

22:29:45 parking.

22:29:48 If you will look at your site plan, which I'm trying

22:29:51 to get mine out, you will see that the additional

22:29:59 parking to the south across west Beach Street,

22:30:04 originally the petitioner had that surface parking lot

22:30:07 going fairly close to the property line and almost to




22:30:10 the right-of-way line.

22:30:12 In talking with Hernandez of preservation, with the

22:30:20 West Tampa overlay we encouraged them to pushing push

22:30:24 the parking back.

22:30:25 They lost approximately eight spaces by doing so but

22:30:27 they created a heavily landscaped area, and they made

22:30:31 it more in keeping with the Howard Avenue design.

22:30:37 I will show you also, Dilys from historic -- Dilys was

22:30:44 very interested in taking place because of what she

22:30:46 considered a landmark building right across the

22:30:48 street.

22:30:50 Under staff findings, we have an objection from

22:31:04 landscaping.

22:31:06 We asked -- they took care of the tree debit-credit

22:31:12 table.

22:31:12 But on the five additional trees to be planted they

22:31:15 did have to ask for a waiver from the 50%.

22:31:19 The waivers are -- and I should read those to you --

22:31:21 to reduce the buffer from the property north from 15

22:31:25 to 8 feet, reduction from 15 to 12 feet on the west

22:31:30 property line, and to allow access to west Beach

22:31:31 Street which is a local street.




22:31:32 They also asked for a waiver which I was speaking

22:31:35 about to reduce the number of trees required to be

22:31:38 planted within the use area, and that reduction is

22:31:43 50%.

22:31:46 Also they asked that the required six foot high 8-inch

22:31:50 wall on the west property line at the parking lot

22:31:52 adjacent to the building be set up here and told to

22:31:58 protect the root systems of the trees that are there.

22:32:00 The petitioner has agreed to do that.

22:32:05 There is a stormwater objection that they need to

22:32:07 provide a half inch retention on the property.

22:32:11 And I don't believe that it is on the site plan.

22:32:14 It is on the site plan?

22:32:15 Okay.

22:32:20 I'll ask stormwater in a second after I finish my

22:32:23 presentation.

22:32:31 We pointed out, with the existing building they have

22:32:34 no choice in their setbacks in their buffering so we

22:32:38 had to call that out.

22:32:39 However, we do feel that what they are doing with the

22:32:42 site, and it being a preexisting condition, that they

22:32:46 could not do the normal buffering from some of the




22:32:49 lands from the residential uses that they normally

22:32:53 could do.

22:32:54 So that wasn't an issue for us.

22:32:56 We felt that it met the criteria for the facade, and

22:33:03 that on the parking, that they took our concerns, and

22:33:09 the petitioner redesigned the surface parking lot and

22:33:13 set the parking back 32 feet from the property line,

22:33:15 and they are planning significant trees and

22:33:18 landscaping in the area.

22:33:22 And stormwater says they would like for a note to be

22:33:27 removed.

22:33:27 >>ALEX AWAD: Stormwater department.

22:33:31 And I have been sworn.

22:33:34 There's a note on the plan for the parking lot, I

22:33:38 believe to the south it says half inch requirement, we

22:33:44 want that note "if required" taken out and provide the

22:33:47 half inch.

22:33:58 >>MARTY BOYLE: Petitioner agrees.

22:33:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

22:34:00 On the site plan it says they are going to plant

22:34:03 significant trees around the southern parking lot.

22:34:06 And I wondered if -- I know that if you plant larger




22:34:11 trees you get credit for the additional inches.

22:34:13 If they do that wouldn't that make up for the ones

22:34:18 that they aren't providing or removing?

22:34:21 Are they asking for a waiver?

22:34:23 >>MARTY BOYLE: Yes.

22:34:24 50% removal in the vehicular use area.

22:34:27 But that -- you ask for something and then you give

22:34:33 something back.

22:34:34 >> My question is this is a PD.

22:34:35 If they were to state on the plan that these were

22:34:38 like, you know, four inch trees or six inch trees,

22:34:42 wouldn't that meet the requirement?

22:34:44 >>> Yes.

22:34:45 >> Because I didn't see any sizes identified of trees,

22:34:50 new trees that they are committing to.

22:34:55 So that like didn't occur to them?

22:34:58 Can we suggest it now?

22:35:00 >>> We can suggest it now.

22:35:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because I don't really want to

22:35:03 waive the things.

22:35:05 I want them to commit.

22:35:06 I would like them to be specific about these would be




22:35:09 trees of a certain caliber so we know that we'll get

22:35:12 that screening that we all aspire to.

22:35:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.

22:35:26 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

22:35:27 I have been sworn in.

22:35:31 Ms. Alvarez, this is in the hood.

22:35:33

22:35:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: All over the place.

22:35:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: I have Moses Knott three nights a week.

22:35:52

22:35:54 >>TONY GARCIA: And one of the nature business

22:36:07 corridors in the West Tampa business area, Armenia

22:36:11 directly to the west.

22:36:12 As you can see the photograph over here just a couple

22:36:14 of blocks from one of our most magnificent historic

22:36:18 structures in the West Tampa area, Centro Espanol, as

22:36:21 I heard you mention, Mrs. Alvarez, under your breath.

22:36:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Did you notice he's totally focused on

22:36:30 Ms. Alvarez?

22:36:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Don't be jealous.

22:36:32 >>TONY GARCIA: I know Mrs. Ferlita how you like to

22:36:38 frequent all the different eating establishments.




22:36:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: We know where you parked.

22:36:44 >>TONY GARCIA: And you too, Mrs. Saul-Sena.

22:36:48 (Laughter).

22:36:48 I think I have it --

22:36:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Don't tell him.

22:36:53 >>TONY GARCIA: I would mention you two more times.

22:36:58 Regarding the land use categories, to the east east,

22:37:02 of course heavy commercial along with business

22:37:04 corridors, the lighter colors, as it gets closer to

22:37:09 the intersection of Howard and Columbus drive, CMU 35,

22:37:16 directly across the street from the Centro, and the

22:37:19 bakery, serving people in the community, and of course

22:37:26 the site in question unfortunately, a cigar factory,

22:37:34 the parking lot represents the site.

22:37:40 That's the site we are talking about right now.

22:37:41 Again, more renovation and revitalization to the West

22:37:45 Tampa business corridors.

22:37:46 I do know that there are some technical issues that

22:37:51 will probably still have to be worked out, that will

22:37:54 have to come back.

22:37:54 The only technical issue that we looked at was

22:37:57 probably the pedestrian connection to the actual




22:37:59 pedestrian parking lot which is located directly to

22:38:02 the south of the site.

22:38:04 And the connection from the safety issue from that

22:38:07 parking lot to the actual Golden Nugget, whatever it's

22:38:12 going to become, the employee market is going to

22:38:15 become.

22:38:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Overhead parkway?

22:38:24 >>TONY GARCIA: I don't think so.

22:38:28 And the only other thing would probably be, the

22:38:32 location of the parking lot, it's pretty far back to

22:38:36 the neighborhood.

22:38:36 If they could probably move it up a little bit to the

22:38:39 middle of the parking.

22:38:40 I don't know if that's feasible.

22:38:42 I don't know if transportation will have any issue

22:38:43 with that.

22:38:44 But if they could probably move that ingress-egress a

22:38:48 little further because it does face two single family

22:38:50 residential homes directly behind the Nugget, I think

22:38:54 that would be a little more amenable.

22:38:56 Other than that Planning Commission staff finds the

22:38:59 request consistent with the comprehensive plan.




22:39:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Garcia, would you do that

22:39:04 presentation again? I didn't understand it.

22:39:06 It wasn't too clear.

22:39:08 >>TONY GARCIA: Focus.

22:39:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: Can we do it --

22:39:12 >>GWEN MILLER: I wanted to hear it again so I could

22:39:15 get his attention.

22:39:16 >>TONY GARCIA: One more time?

22:39:19 (Laughter)

22:39:19

22:39:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: For brevity sake is there anyone in the

22:39:34 audience in objection to the project?

22:39:36 Never mind, we'll go forward.

22:39:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, go ahead.

22:39:40 >>> Cathy bird, innovative restorations.

22:39:44 I have been sworn in.

22:39:46 For the petitioner Barbara baker.

22:39:48 This is a project that a lot of the community is very

22:39:52 aware of, not only as a historically contributing

22:39:56 building to the national historic register district,

22:39:59 but it is also in the landmark process at the national

22:40:03 level.




22:40:04 I have over here, to give you a little bit of history,

22:40:11 the project is under rehabilitation right now.

22:40:13 It has been through review at staff level with the

22:40:19 A.R.C.

22:40:20 It is also currently being reviewed at the state

22:40:26 historic preservation office and they have been very

22:40:28 involved -- very involved in everything that we are

22:40:30 doing.

22:40:30 The rehabilitation on the building as commented has

22:40:33 been under way for a few months.

22:40:39 This is the Howard street face. This is a contiguous

22:40:44 building.

22:40:44 This is a two-story wing, followed by a single-story

22:40:48 component with another two-story wing.

22:40:51 It is the owner's intent initially was to have a

22:40:56 two-story antique emporium, and general store on the

22:41:00 first floor, future tenant of some type, yet to be

22:41:05 defined, and then a single apartment above on the

22:41:09 other two-story component.

22:41:10 She has since reevaluated her business plan, and she

22:41:13 is now going to occupy the entire first floor

22:41:17 component as the antiques emporium in the general




22:41:21 store and has decided to take the second story

22:41:23 component which is already originally configured

22:41:26 pretty well for this use to make it professional

22:41:29 office.

22:41:30 And again retaining the single apartment on this other

22:41:33 two-story component.

22:41:36 That is the reason why there was a change in the site

22:41:38 plan in terms of use and it was initially submitted.

22:41:41 This was still envisioned to be the mercantile

22:41:46 component, future tenant, and now it's mercantile

22:41:49 office and residence.

22:41:49 And that's the reason for the change.

22:41:52 That also changed what the parking requirements are

22:41:54 going to need to be.

22:41:56 But to give you a little bit of -- on the aerial, I

22:42:00 think you probably -- it's probably already been

22:42:03 demonstrated fairly well.

22:42:04 This is north direction here.

22:42:07 This is a vacant lot, formerly an underlying zoning of

22:42:13 RS-50 currently vacant and is what we are referring to

22:42:16 as the north lot, the north parcel.

22:42:18 Then this is soon to be balker and company antique




22:42:23 emporium and general store.

22:42:25 And then the south parcel, which is as was mentioned

22:42:28 just moment ago, the cigar factory and is now a vacant

22:42:35 lot.

22:42:35 One of the significant components about this being

22:42:37 able to be heavily landscaped which is one of the

22:42:42 elements that not only appeals to the city, but was

22:42:45 actually a driving force for the property owner, is

22:42:48 she did not -- she desperately did not want this to

22:42:52 read like a surface parking lot where it's paved

22:42:55 corner to corner because she felt that flew in the

22:42:56 face of what she was trying to accomplish in the first

22:42:59 place which was to have something that was very

22:43:01 pedestrian oriented.

22:43:02 She is investing a tremendous amount of her own

22:43:05 private money to rehabilitate and restore all of the

22:43:09 original storefront openings, and so it will still be

22:43:14 completely accessible, and it is being historically

22:43:18 replicated, all being custom fabricated, has been

22:43:22 historically replicated.

22:43:23 One of the beauties that we have is an old photo.

22:43:28 Week see Watt used to look like.




22:43:29 Even though none of those windows were still intact,

22:43:31 we were able to replicate all of them from the

22:43:34 photograph right down to the doors and when could even

22:43:36 tell the hard wear.

22:43:39 So we are getting into detail.

22:43:39 So a lot of the interior components were able to be

22:43:44 salvaged, a lot of the tin ceilings, the original bead

22:43:49 board, the octagon concrete floors are still in place.

22:43:54 It's just been one of those projects that has been a

22:43:56 fabulous opportunity to work on, because so many of

22:43:59 the components are still intact.

22:44:01 So to walk you through what we are doing here, again,

22:44:07 here is the north -- after the design review committee

22:44:12 meeting they asked us to reorient this lot.

22:44:15 It had a different flip.

22:44:17 We were imagining we were going to have to have a

22:44:19 dumpster enclosure at this location just to have truck

22:44:22 access, vehicle access.

22:44:24 But solid waste was able to -- was actually able to

22:44:28 come up with a solution that not only worked better

22:44:30 for the site but worked better for them in terms of

22:44:33 accessible.




22:44:34 So we are putting in a dumpster enclosure that faces

22:44:37 to the Beach Street, and we will be putting in a curb

22:44:41 cut, and those will be roll-out dumpsters, that they

22:44:44 will have.

22:44:44 And that's how they are going to be addressing the

22:44:47 solid waste component.

22:44:49 We have all of the required buffering as far as

22:44:52 landscape buffering.

22:44:55 And additional landscape buffering at the request of

22:44:57 parks.

22:44:58 One of the things that storm particularly liked about

22:45:02 this is there was formerly solid concrete paving all

22:45:07 around the original parcel of the gold Nugget tavern,

22:45:11 and that has all been completely removed and restored

22:45:13 to green space.

22:45:18 And storm loved that part because apparently this is a

22:45:20 problem area for them.

22:45:22 Coming over here to the south parcel, again in keeping

22:45:25 with the owner's desire to have it be extremely

22:45:28 friendly, and heavily landscaped, she is proposing --

22:45:33 she is requesting landscape buffers in excess of what

22:45:38 has ever been required.




22:45:39 And in some cases significantly in excess.

22:45:43 Fortunately, because of the use of the building, the

22:45:46 required parking by code was 16 parking spaces total

22:45:51 between the two lots.

22:45:52 We are able to accommodate 30 parking spaces in total.

22:45:57 And as we all understand, that is something that is

22:45:59 like unheard of in the West Tampa area.

22:46:03 If you don't require any on-street parking, you have

22:46:06 really been able to pull something off.

22:46:07 So we are very happy to be able to say that we are

22:46:12 requesting the waivers as was stated before by Marty

22:46:16 Boyle.

22:46:16 We are requesting a landscape buffer, waiver, here, at

22:46:21 this portion along the west property line, at the

22:46:24 south parking lot, and that is, it requires 15 feet.

22:46:29 We are asking 12.

22:46:30 This came about as a result of noticing to push the

22:46:34 parking back, and desiring not to just keep

22:46:37 eliminating parking spaces, which was starting to

22:46:41 exacerbate a problem.

22:46:43 We are asking for three-foot waiver here.

22:46:45 We were also asking for the -- I have to go back to my




22:46:50 notes.

22:47:02 On the north parcel, there were the two landscape

22:47:07 buffer waivers that we were asking for.

22:47:08 And that really is being driven by the fact that it's

22:47:10 just a small parcel, and to do the turning radiuses

22:47:14 that you need and give them the ADA compliant spaces,

22:47:20 that that is just the way it ended up, because you can

22:47:23 get into the space but you couldn't turn out and turn

22:47:25 to get it back out.

22:47:26 So that's really what's driving the north parcel,

22:47:29 which is the smaller -- which is the smaller of the

22:47:32 lots.

22:47:32 The north parcel buffer.

22:47:34 Then the landscape buffer on the south.

22:47:37 And then again the issue of the trees.

22:47:38 I talked to the petitioner and she has no problems, if

22:47:42 you would like to stipulate to a particular caliper of

22:47:46 tree.

22:47:46 We can certainly do that.

22:47:48 We had had the conversation with parks prior, and

22:47:51 actually asked the question, do you have a particular

22:47:53 species of tree that you want to see or particular




22:47:56 size?

22:47:56 And we were told just to follow the guidelines of code

22:48:00 and the building department.

22:48:02 So that's the reason we didn't stipulate anything in

22:48:04 particular on the site plan.

22:48:06 Although we certainly can and the petitioner is

22:48:08 willing.

22:48:08 So I'm not sure if you have any other questions.

22:48:13 I think I have addressed all of the issues on the

22:48:16 property.

22:48:17 The half inch storm issue that was raised before, at

22:48:22 the time the DRC hearing and we were told this is what

22:48:26 they believed they were going to do because it hadn't

22:48:29 been actually engineered, they felt this was the

22:48:32 criteria we were going to follow and that was the

22:48:34 reason, "if required" because that question stayed out

22:48:37 there as a bit of a question.

22:48:39 But to eliminate the "if required" and say this is

22:48:41 what we are going to do, that just made our engineers

22:48:45 life a lot easier.

22:48:47 He's actually -- he's going to be engineering to half

22:48:50 inch storm.




22:48:51 So we are going to take that out.

22:48:53 I think with that being said, any questions?

22:48:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Good proposal.

22:49:04 What Mr. Garcia said about the pedestrian crosswalk,

22:49:09 is that a problem for you?

22:49:09 >> >> no, not at all.

22:49:12 That actually seems appropriate.

22:49:15 Certainly that would make sense.

22:49:16 >> Good.

22:49:17 Colleagues, Barbara baker, this is a labor of love for

22:49:24 her.

22:49:25 And she is the one that renovated the Morgan cigar

22:49:31 factory north of this property here.

22:49:34 And she has done a great job.

22:49:36 And she's done it all with her money.

22:49:37 She never asked for one penny.

22:49:39 And she's doing the same thing with this project.

22:49:41 This is a wonderful project for the West Tampa area.

22:49:44 It's going to be a show place when she gets through

22:49:48 with it.

22:49:49 And she told me that this place was a bordello until

22:49:55 just a few years ago.




22:49:56 So it's probably got some ghosts in there.

22:50:01 But she has taken this project to heart.

22:50:06 And I'm telling you, she has put her heart and sole

22:50:09 and her money into this thing.

22:50:10 And it's just nothing but beauty.

22:50:14 It will be something that the whole West Tampa area,

22:50:17 and the whole City of Tampa will be proud of.

22:50:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

22:50:22 would like to speak on item number 16?

22:50:24

22:50:24 Number 15.

22:50:34 Come on, lily.

22:50:36 I know who you are.

22:50:38 >>> My name is Janice Williams.

22:50:40 I've been sworn in.

22:50:41 1902 west Conrad street.

22:50:43 I am also the president of the old West Tampa

22:50:46 president neighborhood association and crime watch.

22:50:49 And in all good conscience I cannot support the

22:50:55 petitioner, because to be quite honest with you, I

22:50:58 received no correspondence from her.

22:51:00 And she has not been in contact with me.




22:51:03 And my responsibility being in charge of a

22:51:08 neighborhood association is to let the people, the

22:51:11 residents know what's going on.

22:51:14 I need feedback from them to know whether or not any

22:51:17 desire or need for a change in the area is something

22:51:22 that they can support.

22:51:25 So of course we want change in West Tampa.

22:51:29 And it's wonderful that there are people who want to

22:51:32 invest and spend their own money here.

22:51:34 But I don't think that these people should disrespect

22:51:38 the residents who live there.

22:51:41 And this lady before mentioned that the community is

22:51:43 aware of all of this.

22:51:45 The community is not aware of all of this.

22:51:47 And I don't think it's right to bypass or overlook a

22:51:52 neighborhood association when people want to do things

22:51:56 like this.

22:51:57 I mean, I understand what you're saying, Ms. Alvarez,

22:52:02 and it is wonderful what's happening in our area.

22:52:04 It's great to see all these changes.

22:52:06 But this should be a cooperative effort for people who

22:52:10 live there, people who work there, and people who love




22:52:12 it and I'm insulted that I was not contacted, and that

22:52:20 we received nothing in writing from this individual

22:52:24 about her desire to make these changes.

22:52:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ma'am, when did you become president

22:52:30 of the old West Tampa?

22:52:32 >>> I became president --

22:52:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Don't speak out.

22:52:37 >>> -- October of 2005.

22:52:39 And I do want to say for the record, I have received

22:52:43 no -- there's been no correspondence from the time I

22:52:47 took this position related to this petitioner and what

22:52:51 it is she's asking for.

22:52:58 >> Was McCrane the president?

22:53:01 Did she get information?

22:53:02 She's with the overlay committee.

22:53:04 >>> She's with the overlay committee, Mrs. Alvarez,

22:53:06 but the fact of the matter is there should have been

22:53:07 some printed information or there should have been

22:53:09 some mention of any type of discussion related to this

22:53:14 petition.

22:53:15 Any type of re zoning request.

22:53:17 I have nothing in writing as far as correspondence




22:53:21 that I inherited when I became the president.

22:53:25 You know, I'm trying to be fair to everyone.

22:53:27 Because I represent homeowners, property owners, you

22:53:30 know, everybody.

22:53:35 But I cannot come here before you.

22:53:37 I should be your eyes and ears, too.

22:53:39 Not only I do I represent the neighborhood, but I

22:53:41 should be able to come here, and try to at least

22:53:44 assist you in whatever decision it is you're making.

22:53:47 And I can't do that.

22:53:49 Because I don't have the tools that I need.

22:53:52 Now?

22:53:52 So I can't support this at this time.

22:53:55 What I would like to ask if it's possible is for you

22:53:57 to at least postpone a decision until I have had the

22:54:01 opportunity to meet with the petitioner, and also have

22:54:03 the opportunity to bring this issue to the residents

22:54:08 of old West Tampa.

22:54:10 If I could at least have that, I would appreciate it.

22:54:12 Thank you.

22:54:12 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree, because most of the time, the

22:54:17 developer or petitioner usually meets with the




22:54:19 neighborhood association and presents the plan to them

22:54:21 and let them know what's going to happen to them.

22:54:24 You say they did not meet -- no meetings?

22:54:27 >> Not with the neighborhood association.

22:54:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have a technical question

22:54:33 for the clerk's office.

22:54:33 Can't you see in the petition folder that the

22:54:38 petitioner communicated with the good neighbor

22:54:42 courtesy notice with the neighborhood organization?

22:54:45 Is that something you can look up?

22:54:47 >>THE CLERK: According to what we received as far as

22:54:49 the notices that were mailed, there was a mailing to

22:54:51 the old West Tampa north association, attention to Ms.

22:54:57 Harriet McCray.

22:54:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What was the date?

22:55:00 >>> This was stamped by the post office December

22:55:02 22nd, 2005.

22:55:04 December 22nd.

22:55:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: She was not the president at the time.

22:55:10 >>> This is the first that we received.

22:55:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: An attempt was made.

22:55:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An attempt was made.




22:55:19 Next.

22:55:23 >>> I'm lily, and I have been sworn in.

22:55:27 Please accept my apology.

22:55:29 But the reason I know the date that Janice was

22:55:33 accepted as our president, because it was my husband's

22:55:36 birthday.

22:55:38 And I am one who made the decision along with the

22:55:43 crime watch members that she would be a good

22:55:45 president.

22:55:47 And I think that I made a good choice, because with

22:55:50 her, she gets things done.

22:55:54 She doing a lot of things that Harriet McCray did

22:55:57 not do.

22:55:58 A lot of mail that we received to attend meetings, we

22:56:03 never know anything about it.

22:56:05 So I'm along with Janice.

22:56:08 I will not accept it either.

22:56:10 But I will invite Barbara baker to come to one of our

22:56:14 meetings at Rey Park on the second Tuesday of the

22:56:18 month.

22:56:19 The next meeting will be the 14th, 2006, the time

22:56:26 of the meeting is 6:30 p.m.




22:56:28 And she is very welcome to come.

22:56:31 And address this issue to our other members, and I

22:56:35 will see that other homeowners and people in the

22:56:38 community know what is going on.

22:56:41 Thank you.

22:56:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Lily.

22:56:52 >>> My name is Vivian Triplet.

22:56:54 I live at 2354 west Beach street.

22:56:58 I have been there for 41 years and I own four lots in

22:57:01 the area.

22:57:02 I received this in my door.

22:57:05 I could place this?

22:57:06 This is what she's planning on doing.

22:57:24 And I don't have a problem with the notice but I do

22:57:28 have a problem with her taking the empty lots, putting

22:57:32 a wall -- and I live right on that street next to

22:57:37 those apartments.

22:57:38 When I been looking out my front door every morning

22:57:43 down Howard, then I got to face a wall and a dumpster.

22:57:47 And I pay taxes.

22:57:48 And I been there 41 years.

22:57:50 And I don't think it's right.




22:57:51 I think if she wants to remodel the Golden Nugget, I

22:57:56 don't have a problem with that.

22:57:57 If she want to do something, I don't have a problem

22:57:59 with that.

22:58:01 If she want a parking lot, I don't have a problem with

22:58:05 nothing but the wall she's fixing to put where we have

22:58:10 to look at the wall when I look out my door.

22:58:12 And that's what I have -- and all this market and the

22:58:20 empty lot that's what she's planning on doing.

22:58:22 She's talking about office.

22:58:24 I been there 41 years.

22:58:25 They never brought anything to West Tampa decent.

22:58:28 Everything they bring is either drugs, or something.

22:58:32 I been on Beach Street 41 years.

22:58:35 I dealt with the blind kid, the Nugget, I went through

22:58:42 all of this.

22:58:43 And now, I decided to rest.

22:58:46 But I can't rest after after she put this.

22:58:49 Because it's not going to work.

22:58:52 When she was building they stole stuff out of that

22:58:55 building then.

22:58:56 And they have had a sign on the post in front of my




22:59:00 door.

22:59:01 Now, she's not going to put no antique shop.

22:59:04 I don't think she is.

22:59:06 I don't know what it's going to be.

22:59:08 But it's not going to be no antique shop.

22:59:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Ma'am, come back to the podium.

22:59:13 Miss?

22:59:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

22:59:15 And that is, would you -- the reason that she's

22:59:18 proposing to put a wall is because that's what she's

22:59:21 required to do by our code.

22:59:23 Would you prefer having landscaping along the edge

22:59:26 there rather than a masonry wall?

22:59:30 >>> A fence.

22:59:31 >>GWEN MILLER: What kind of fence?

22:59:34 >>> A wrought iron fence.

22:59:36 Somewhere where I can look.

22:59:39 Don't want to look out the door and look at a wall and

22:59:41 dumpster.

22:59:43 >> Your property is immediately to the west of hers on

22:59:45 Beach Street?

22:59:46 >>> Yes.




22:59:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I can understand that you would not

22:59:51 be wild about a dumpster being next to your house,

22:59:54 because who would be?

23:00:00 >>> I'm across --

23:00:05 >>KEVIN WHITE: Are you next to the empty lot or

23:00:06 directly behind the Nugget?

23:00:08 >>> I'm across on the right -- it's the left of Beach

23:00:12 when you come down Howard.

23:00:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Behind the parking lot.

23:00:22 >>> Beside the apartments.

23:00:23 >>GWEN MILLER: What do you have there now?

23:00:25 >>> Just the apartments and I own the rest of the lot

23:00:27 except Joe Robinson's house.

23:00:31 My fence.

23:00:31 My fence.

23:00:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're on the south part?

23:00:35 >>> South, yes.

23:00:36 >> So you're not affected by the dumpster.

23:00:39 You're on the north side.

23:00:40 >>> Oh, she's not going to put it on the south side?

23:00:42 I thought it was on Beach Street.

23:00:44 If she put it --




23:00:45 >>: It's on the north side of Beach Street.

23:00:51 >>> Where is the dumpster going to be, on the left

23:00:53 side?

23:00:53 Oh, behind the building?

23:00:55 Okay.

23:00:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're okay with that?

23:01:03 >>> If it's going to be behind the building I have no

23:01:03 problem with that. But I do have a problem with the

23:01:03 wall.

23:01:04 >> So you prefer a masonry -- you don't want masonry.

23:01:09 >>> I just don't want to look out my door every

23:01:12 morning and have to face the wall.

23:01:15 >>GWEN MILLER: You want a wrought iron.

23:01:22 >>> Yes.

23:01:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

23:01:23 Next.

23:01:34 >>> My name is Betty walker.

23:01:37 I just bought the house at 2327 west Beach Street

23:01:40 seven months ago.

23:01:41 And I love the area.

23:01:44 I love where it is.

23:01:46 It does need cleaning up.




23:01:48 And I think that Barbara baker's building would be a

23:01:51 great improvement there.

23:01:54 I, like Vivian trip, have a definite problem with

23:01:58 where is the dumpster going to be.

23:02:01 And also I have a problem with there should not be any

23:02:05 ingress or egress on Beach Street because as it is,

23:02:09 there are absolutely no -- on my seed -- side of the

23:02:12 street which is the north side of beach, there's

23:02:14 exactly three driveways, eight houses.

23:02:17 So the parking is all on the street.

23:02:20 The street is little.

23:02:21 It's, you know, just a small street.

23:02:24 And on the other side of the street there's only two

23:02:26 driveways, and that's in front of those three

23:02:33 duplexes.

23:02:34 So there is no parking on Beach Street as it is.

23:02:36 The postman, I have been on the phone with the postman

23:02:39 and the police for a month now, because the postman

23:02:43 does not have to deliver the mail unless he can drive

23:02:45 up to the mailbox.

23:02:47 Well, he can't drive up to the mailbox because they

23:02:50 are parking along the street.




23:02:52 There's nowhere else to park.

23:02:53 So to make an ingress and egress on Beach Street would

23:03:00 certainly make a lot of congested cars in there.

23:03:04 I mean, it would be a bigger mess than it already is.

23:03:07 And it's already a big mess, because her building is

23:03:10 beautiful.

23:03:13 Going to be beautiful, now.

23:03:14 And it will add a lot to the neighborhood.

23:03:16 Because those houses are all under -- they should be

23:03:20 under code enforcement.

23:03:22 They have holes.

23:03:22 They need patching.

23:03:23 They are falling down.

23:03:24 They have poles sitting in the yard.

23:03:29 I knew what the neighborhood was when I moved there.

23:03:32 I cleaned up my house, to the very best of my ability.

23:03:38 I followed code.

23:03:38 I have done everything according to code including

23:03:41 rewiring.

23:03:43 The house is 105 years old.

23:03:45 So I brought in a man from out of town to put 20 piers

23:03:49 underneath my house.




23:03:50 Not exactly a cheap thing.

23:03:52 Okay.

23:03:53 Then I painted.

23:03:54 I lifted the ceilings back up to 10 feet, because they

23:03:57 were lower because cheap plastic stuff down to

23:04:02 whatever it was.

23:04:03 So I have put a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of

23:04:07 prayer, a lot of blood, sweat and tears into this

23:04:11 house.

23:04:11 And I got to keep what is residential, residential.

23:04:16 I would not like to see ingress and egress on Beach

23:04:21 Street because we don't have the space for it.

23:04:30 I certainly back up Ms. Vivian Tripp because she's

23:04:34 been there 41 years and she's the one person that

23:04:37 keeps her yard immaculate and goes out of her way to

23:04:41 keep the neighborhood nice.

23:04:42 But I definitely hope that you will have code

23:04:44 enforcement come over and do their job.

23:04:46 Thank you.

23:04:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?

23:04:54 >>> Yes.

23:04:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The driveway that you're talking




23:04:58 about, is that the one where they were planning to put

23:05:01 the dumpster?

23:05:03 >>> I'm not sure where they are putting the dumpster.

23:05:05 You said on the north side of the building?

23:05:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

23:05:08 >>> Where is the dumpster?

23:05:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Because we're talking about ingress or

23:05:14 egress on Beach Street.

23:05:16 >>> That's what I'm concerned with is the traffic and

23:05:18 the dumpster.

23:05:19 >> The dumpster is required.

23:05:21 >>> Yeah.

23:05:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask staff a question?

23:05:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You certainly may.

23:05:28 >>> I'm fine with that.

23:05:30 Yes.

23:05:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did staff say that -- planning

23:05:35 staff say that they wanted the access point to the

23:05:38 parking lot on the south side to be closer to Howard?

23:05:43 >>> Well, I believe you mentioned Howard and beach.

23:05:47 Am I right?

23:05:51 That's way want to know.




23:05:52 >>TONY GARCIA: Listened to her concern.

23:05:57 I talked with Ms. Calloway, and Ms. Calloway needs at

23:06:01 least 40 feet from the street.

23:06:02 So I think we can meet a negotiated agreement on where

23:06:06 the ingress-egress is on the plan.

23:06:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wasn't it supposed to be closer to

23:06:11 Howard so it would are more directly across?

23:06:15 >>> You will have an interface with the existing

23:06:17 structure there. I think she made a recommendation

23:06:19 maybe that the short ingress-egress for the southern

23:06:22 parking lot, if it could line up to where probably

23:06:26 your access point would be for the dumpster, that

23:06:28 would probably work out much better.

23:06:30 >> Which would move at way from the houses?

23:06:32 >>> So will be negotiated --

23:06:36 >>> Well, if she could put the dumpster behind the

23:06:36 building.

23:06:37 The dumpster is no long area problem.

23:06:39 The problem is the ingress and egress off Beach

23:06:42 Street.

23:06:42 >>TONY GARCIA: Right.

23:06:45 Which is here.




23:06:46 And we are talking about --

23:06:51 >>> Where are you going to put the ingress and egress,

23:06:53 off Howard?

23:06:55 >>TONY GARCIA: Up here.

23:07:03 There was no parking on Beach Street.

23:07:09 Little a little narrow street. The only thing I'm

23:07:12 asking for is no ingress or egress on Beach Street.

23:07:17 Thank you.

23:07:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

23:07:25 >>> Joe Robinson.

23:07:26 2338 Palmetto street.

23:07:31 Been West Tampa household since 1962, 44 years, longer

23:07:36 than anybody speaking.

23:07:37 And I hate to disagree with 'em.

23:07:40 And I'm going to tell you why.

23:07:41 Number one, they don't know what they are talking

23:07:43 about.

23:07:43 Number two, I own more property around there than any

23:07:46 of them do. Number 3, I been over there saving West

23:07:49 Tampa.

23:07:51 They want about egress and parking lot.

23:07:56 No trees, no landscape, a chain link fence right now




23:07:59 violating code and it's got a CO right now, the Centro

23:08:03 Espanol in West Tampa.

23:08:05 Okay.

23:08:06 This is a project that must go forward.

23:08:07 This is not a project that we need to worry about, old

23:08:11 West Tampa, who got notice, because I checked the

23:08:13 record.

23:08:13 It was sent to Ms. McCray.

23:08:16 She didn't get it to them, too bad.

23:08:18 People know what's going on in that building.

23:08:20 They don't speak for all the neighborhood.

23:08:22 I own a quarter block with the Centro Espanol

23:08:25 including a house next to Ms. Triplet who continually

23:08:29 gives me harassment, okay?

23:08:31 The other issue is the dumpster is on an enclosed

23:08:35 gate.

23:08:35 You're not going to see it.

23:08:37 They are only going to pick it up maybe twice week.

23:08:39 And it's on Beach Street where you already have

23:08:42 cutaways.

23:08:44 I didn't move there yesterday.

23:08:45 I didn't move then they're ten years ago.




23:08:47 I been there all my life and I'm gonna die there, so

23:08:50 for these people to say this is not something we

23:08:53 need -- the Golden Nugget was a drug hole, the Golden

23:08:56 Nugget had people get killed, the Golden Nugget had a

23:09:00 wet zoning.

23:09:01 They don't have that anymore.

23:09:03 She's not taling about bringing any alcohol.

23:09:05 They are talking more landscape than a lot than people

23:09:08 play football on.

23:09:09 Then four duplexes before you ever get to her property

23:09:13 and between her property line and her house is another

23:09:16 lot.

23:09:16 So she has plenty of buffering.

23:09:18 She almost had so much buffering she didn't get

23:09:20 notice.

23:09:20 I didn't get any notice.

23:09:21 Because I'm not within 250 feet.

23:09:23 I'm 258 feet so I didn't get notice but I know about

23:09:28 what's going on.

23:09:28 It was adequate signs put up there.

23:09:30 Everybody knows what's going on.

23:09:32 If they knew about it, the fact that people stole




23:09:34 something out of it, they knew that there was going to

23:09:36 be something there.

23:09:37 This is not the first time that people oppose that.

23:09:39 I don't think that this should be delayed.

23:09:41 It's already been on the table for years.

23:09:44 I think that the fact that we need the overlay people

23:09:49 that review it, the overlay, the people that review

23:09:53 every plan, going into West Tampa, I don't think

23:09:57 anybody here said they objected to the.

23:09:58 I think this is more of a personal thing, a personal

23:10:01 vendetta.

23:10:02 And if I continuously get harassed by Mrs. Vivian

23:10:07 Triplet I will sue her.

23:10:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Speak to the subject.

23:10:11 >>> We are talking about code enforcement.

23:10:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We are talking about harassment.

23:10:16 >>> When I hear people that have --

23:10:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Stick on the subject.

23:10:20 >>> Years and years in the neighborhood that Goetz get

23:10:21 something like this to come and then we come here

23:10:23 tonight, and then we hear about, oh, we need to do.

23:10:26 This I stay close than any of them.




23:10:28 And I own more property than any of them.

23:10:30 And I pay taxes more than any of them.

23:10:32 Eight On Your Side want to see this project go

23:10:34 forward, so help me God.

23:10:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

23:10:42 >>> Barbara baker 2802, from the hood and proud of it.

23:10:50 I have been sworn.

23:10:51 And I have been in the neighborhood for 17 years.

23:10:53 >> Is this part of rebuttal?

23:10:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's part of rebuttal.

23:11:01 >>> Absolutely rebuttal.

23:11:02 First of all, I just want to start off and say I'm

23:11:17 absolutely baffled that I'm getting any resistance in

23:11:20 this community at all.

23:11:21 I bought this building seven years ago.

23:11:23 It was a drug hole.

23:11:25 It was an active brothel.

23:11:27 I personally had to clean up the mattresses and since

23:11:30 then I have had some of the female workers there come

23:11:33 back to me and ask me instead of putting an antique

23:11:37 mall in could they go back to work in what they

23:11:39 previously did?




23:11:40 I had cleaned up the building.

23:11:41 It is an absolute showcase.

23:11:46 We are hoping to have our CO within the next 60 days.

23:11:46 I am hoping to open the antique mall, Labor Day

23:11:49 weekend.

23:11:49 I'm appalled at the people saying that I did not

23:11:52 notify them when I did.

23:11:54 I'm appalled that -- that's the reason Vivian has that

23:12:00 flier, I personally went door to door for four city

23:12:03 blocks around is the building to introduce myself,

23:12:05 long ago, on what I was doing, to try and make them a

23:12:08 part of it.

23:12:09 I have been a community leader there.

23:12:11 I have put hundreds of thousands of dollars into this

23:12:14 project.

23:12:14 I put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Morgan

23:12:17 cigar factory.

23:12:18 It's not only a historic landmark locally but

23:12:21 nationally in both cases.

23:12:23 I have every intention of moving forward nationally on

23:12:25 the gold Nugget.

23:12:26 I have gone to great lengths to restore it.




23:12:29 I won't even talk what it was.

23:12:31 I'm talking something that you will walk in and you

23:12:33 will think you're in a real 100-year-old general

23:12:37 store.

23:12:37 I do design work for universal and Disney.

23:12:40 Half of you have been in my building to see, that I

23:12:43 don't know anything but quality.

23:12:45 So to sit here and argue that I am going to put a

23:12:47 stump sister -- dumpster and put a million dollars in

23:12:50 this building that this is even an issue, to sit here

23:12:52 and judge me when I invited you --

23:12:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Baker, talk to us.

23:12:57 >>> All right.

23:12:57 I invited her to come down to my building over a year

23:13:00 ago and find out who Barbara baker is and what I am

23:13:03 about.

23:13:04 I am tired of these public forums of people

23:13:07 criticizing what I am doing.

23:13:08 I have been through vandalism, through criticism, and

23:13:11 all I tried to do is make this neighborhood better.

23:13:13 I started the Howard Avenue kids club eight years ago.

23:13:16 I have had over a thousand kids, and I spent every




23:13:21 damn dime of it. I have not asked for anything.

23:13:24 I have not asked for tax credits for doing any of it.

23:13:26 I do it because I care about these inner city kids and

23:13:28 street kids because I was a street kid.

23:13:30 I came from poverty.

23:13:31 I want to show these kids, you reach for the stars,

23:13:34 and you can accomplish things in life and that is what

23:13:36 I have done.

23:13:37 I have run over 65,000 promotions internationally from

23:13:40 the Morgan cigar factory.

23:13:42 I bought a multi-million dollar business 17 yourself

23:13:44 ago that's still going strong.

23:13:45 I made the commitment to stay in this community when I

23:13:48 could easily liquidate everything or going back to

23:13:53 California or whatever.

23:13:54 You know, I don't understand, people challenging me on

23:13:56 this when in all actuality I have been they should be

23:13:59 doing nothing but support meeting because I have done

23:14:01 nothing but raise the property values, probably 20,

23:14:04 $30,000, Vivian.

23:14:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Barbara, calm down.

23:14:09 >>> I know.




23:14:09 I will calm down but I am just over it.

23:14:11 I really am.

23:14:12 We have done everything to comply.

23:14:14 We have bent over backwards to do whatever it takes.

23:14:18 I will put a nursery in knew want me to. I want to

23:14:20 the look beautiful.

23:14:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.

23:14:23 >>> Why go go to that expense and then worry about a

23:14:25 few trees?

23:14:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Barb remarks let us take our vote,

23:14:28 okay?

23:14:29 >>> I would like to submit what I am -- most of you

23:14:31 know because most of you everybody to my project.

23:14:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we got your message.

23:14:36 I think the rest of the world got your message, too.

23:14:38 >>> As you said earlier, Mary, I am passionate.

23:14:41 And I really do want to see this work.

23:14:43 And this could make a difference in this community.

23:14:46 It will be precedent setting.

23:14:47 I am marketing it as a tourist attraction, people

23:14:50 coming from all over the State of Florida to visit.

23:14:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And we are the one that is care.




23:14:55 And we are the ones that are going to help do you

23:14:58 that.

23:14:58 Okay?

23:14:59 >>> I appreciate the support I can get this evening.

23:15:02 Thank you.

23:15:04 Can I submit these?

23:15:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Give them to our attorney.

23:15:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion to close.

23:15:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

23:15:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.

23:15:12 (Motion carried).

23:15:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I am going to read this.

23:15:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm hopeful, now that everybody has

23:15:19 vented and they got all their neighborhood issues out,

23:15:23 maybe they'll all get along.

23:15:24 I don't know.

23:15:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I am going to go ahead and read this.

23:15:29 And Joe, I don't usually, you know, I'm not usually

23:15:34 with you but this time you did it.

23:15:36 Good guy.

23:15:38 Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general

23:15:40 vicinity of 2502 north Howard and 2302 west Beach




23:15:44 Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

23:15:46 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

23:15:48 district classifications RS-50 residential single

23:15:50 family, CI commercial intensive, and PD, restaurant

23:15:54 bar -- no, we are not doing a restaurant bar.

23:15:59 Hold it.

23:16:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a new ordinance.

23:16:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Wait a minute.

23:16:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we just strike it?

23:16:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's got restaurant and bar on this

23:16:19 thing.

23:16:19 Can you run upstairs?

23:16:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Or we can continue this fight next

23:16:24 week.

23:16:28 >>JULIA COLE: It's such a minor change.

23:16:36 Go ahead and change the ordinance and bring it back.

23:16:39 Go ahead since it's really --

23:16:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Providing an effective date.

23:16:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

23:16:47 I would like to say something.

23:16:48 Barbara, I only wish could you do for people what you

23:16:51 do for buildings. This place was such a negative,




23:16:54 miserable, unattractive, just blight on the

23:16:58 neighborhood.

23:16:59 And it is turning into something that is such a gift

23:17:01 to the neighborhood.

23:17:02 And I'm very excited about what you are doing.

23:17:04 The Morgan cigar factory is gorgeous.

23:17:07 I wish that they hadn't torn the cigar factory down

23:17:10 across the street where you were making your parking

23:17:12 lot or you would probably do something with that too.

23:17:14 It's a pleasure to support this.

23:17:15 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

23:17:17 (Motion carried).

23:17:18 >>JULIA COLE: I want to clarify, the ordinance which I

23:17:24 submitted, the change, is to a PD mixed use.

23:17:29 It changes from a restaurant.

23:17:31 Just so you are aware of that.

23:17:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Receive and file.

23:17:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

23:17:42 >> Second.

23:17:42 (Motion carried).

23:17:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's 11:15.

23:17:48 I have to go home.




23:17:51 It's 11:15.

23:17:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)

23:18:24 The last meeting that we participate in tonight, I

23:18:35 want to personally thank him for the contribution he

23:18:37 made to making me feel welcome, to giving me the

23:18:41 background, and of my coming on board.

23:18:47 I want to say that it's a pleasure of working with

23:18:49 him.

23:18:49 I want to thank him for all that he's done to help me

23:18:52 serve you better.

23:18:53 So very good.

23:18:55 >> Move to receive and file.

23:18:58 >> We've done it.

23:18:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We stand adjourned.

23:19:07 (Meeting adjourned at 11:19)

23:19:10

23:19:11