Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council

Thursday, February 23, 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.


17:23:58

17:24:14

17:47:33 [Sounding gavel]

17:47:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I yield.

17:48:06 >>> Please join me in prayer.

17:48:08 O God, we praise you.

17:48:10 We praise you for you are good.


17:48:12 And your mercy endures forever.

17:48:16 Loving God, we thank you for a workday that is almost

17:48:20 to end.

17:48:21 We thank you for our lives.

17:48:23 We thank you for our families.

17:48:25 We thank you for our city.

17:48:27 We thank you for the many, many blessings we have

17:48:30 received.

17:48:32 Almighty God, we ask for the forgiveness of our sins,

17:48:35 our individual sins and our corporate sins.

17:48:38 We trust in your mercy.

17:48:41 We pray for wisdom to follow the right path.

17:48:45 We pray for blessings upon our City Council.

17:48:48 May each one of them be able to listen to you and be

17:48:51 guided by you, O God.

17:48:54 And dear God, we pray for peace upon the earth.

17:48:58 We pray for the love of God to abide in our lives, in

17:49:01 our city, that we may share all goodness with all

17:49:06 those who are in need.

17:49:09 Dear God, we ask that you bless our nation.

17:49:12 Bless our leaders.

17:49:14 Bless all that are here today as we sent in you for a


17:49:22 moment.

17:49:23 Bless our lives to your service.

17:49:25 And we pray in the name of God our creator, our

17:49:28 redeemer, our sustainer, and the people of God say

17:49:33 amen.

17:49:37 (Pledge of Allegiance)

17:49:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Roll call.

17:49:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.

17:49:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

17:49:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

17:49:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

17:49:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Chairman miller is ill and she

17:50:02 won't be joining us this evening.

17:50:03 And Mr. Harrison is out of town.

17:50:06 So there will be five council members tonight.

17:50:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Actually four right now.

17:50:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But we are four right now.

17:50:14 What we would like to do to start off with is hear

17:50:17 from legal about a water issue.

17:50:21 >>> Good evening.

17:50:22 Jane McLane from the city attorney's office.

17:50:25 I just wanted to bring to your attention two items.




17:50:28 One is the a scheduling matter.

17:50:30 The second is a memorandum that you would have

17:50:33 received by now under the signature of Mr. Smith from

17:50:36 our office regarding our request by motion of the

17:50:40 council last week to have a presentation by staff of

17:50:46 Southwest Florida Water Management District.

17:50:47 Next Thursday, March 2nd, with water staff from

17:50:51 the water department available for comments, and

17:50:55 discussion on the SWFWMD presentation.

17:51:00 And you will see our position as its laid out and the

17:51:03 recommendation as we verbalize with you, another

17:51:06 memorandum that we believe is not an appropriate time

17:51:09 to have this presentation, and that we would request

17:51:12 that it would be delayed until we are in the process

17:51:19 of rule making development and we would be able to

17:51:22 bring you more information as we work through that

17:51:24 process.

17:51:24 But with that said, we were coordinating with the

17:51:27 Southwest Florida Water Management District in order

17:51:29 to have a member here to make the presentation, if you

17:51:35 did take the recommendation.

17:51:36 And we spoke with Mr. David Moore who is the Executive




17:51:39 Director of the district Mr. Moore was a deputy at the

17:51:43 time and was the lead staff member at the time that

17:51:45 the current MFL was set on the lower Hillsborough

17:51:49 River, and he's taken the lead in addition this time

17:51:51 with regard to this matter, and would like to be the

17:51:56 member who would come and make the presentation to

17:51:58 you.

17:51:59 Unfortunately his calendar, since he only had two

17:52:01 weeks, has already filled on Thursdays.

17:52:04 And so he received the letter from the clerk's office

17:52:06 yesterday, and he's reviewing his calendar and is

17:52:09 going to be giving back to us his open date so we

17:52:15 could coordinate with him and have him here.

17:52:17 But still it is the position of the city attorney's

17:52:20 office that we would recommend that you delay this.

17:52:22 We already have the schedule for June 18th.

17:52:26 And --

17:52:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is scheduled for June 18?

17:52:30 >> June 18th is the date that was selected last

17:52:32 week when we had requested that the presentation that

17:52:36 you had requested previously be daylight for 60 to 90

17:52:41 days.




17:52:41 And I received word that June 18th was the date

17:52:44 that was selected for that presentation.

17:52:46 So this would coincide with the progress of the rule

17:52:51 development, and the presentation could be more

17:52:54 completely and accurately made to the board.

17:52:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

17:52:57 Our city clerk just informed me that actually the date

17:53:00 was May 18th.

17:53:01 So what you are asking council to do is to remove this

17:53:04 from our calendar for next week and just plan to

17:53:06 discuss this matter on May 18.

17:53:08 Is that correct?

17:53:09 >>> As long as Mr. Moore is available, and I would

17:53:11 think with that amount of notice that he would be

17:53:13 available.

17:53:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Will you communicate with him

17:53:15 tomorrow and tell him of that date?

17:53:19 Then we need a motion.

17:53:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

17:53:25 >> Motion.

17:53:26 I'll second it for discussion purposes.

17:53:28 When I read your memo and Mr. Smith's memo on this, it




17:53:33 appeared to me that the rule itself might not be

17:53:38 issued until the beginning of June.

17:53:41 >>> That's right.

17:53:42 >> So I think it would be more prudent to put it off

17:53:47 until the middle of June, around the 18th or

17:53:47 whatever.

17:53:48 I don't know if June 18th is even a Thursday.

17:53:50 Is it?

17:53:51 No.

17:53:52 So that must have been part of the confusion.

17:53:55 I would actually feel more comfortable if we would do

17:53:58 it after the rule is actually made because then they

17:54:00 have something to talk about.

17:54:01 Otherwise, it's a little bit premature.

17:54:04 So what's the middle of June?

17:54:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have got a calendar here.

17:54:09 >>KEVIN WHITE: 22nd?

17:54:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we can call it whatever we

17:54:15 want.

17:54:15 I just think we should wait until June 15th.

17:54:18 Otherwise, we have no -- we have nothing to talk

17:54:23 about.




17:54:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to say, Mr. Dingfelder, last

17:54:28 Saturday I attend add two-hour workshop on water

17:54:31 issues that 175 people came to.

17:54:33 There's so much to talk about.

17:54:35 I think that might be why Mr. Smith recommended a half

17:54:38 day workshop.

17:54:39 It not one issue.

17:54:40 There's like six interlocking issues.

17:54:43 It's really complicated.

17:54:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not saying that we won't have

17:54:46 anything to talk about.

17:54:47 I'm sure there will be plenty to talk about.

17:54:49 Environmental issues, water issues, water supply

17:54:51 issues, et cetera, et cetera.

17:54:52 I'm just saying that until the district comes out with

17:54:57 their recommendation or whatever it is, their proposed

17:55:00 rule, then we don't really have any where to start our

17:55:03 discussion at.

17:55:03 You know, if it's too high, then we can have something

17:55:06 to argue.

17:55:07 If it's too low we have something to argue at.

17:55:10 But until it's there we don't have anything to argue




17:55:13 at.

17:55:13 So I'll withdraw my second.

17:55:15 And I suggest a substitute motion for the June

17:55:18 15th meeting.

17:55:19 And -- whatever other day.

17:55:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: June 15th.

17:55:26 Mr. Shelby?

17:55:27 this is deferring an item that is scheduled to appear

17:55:29 on next week's agenda.

17:55:30 That also goes back -- now the question that I ask is

17:55:34 what does council contemplate to take place on May

17:55:37 18th?

17:55:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pull that off.

17:55:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: then that another motion with regard

17:55:43 to that item as well?

17:55:47 Legal has asked you to defer an item that is set for

17:55:50 next week's agenda.

17:55:52 But also I have on the agenda for May 18th

17:55:56 something related.

17:55:57 Does council wish to make a motion for the sake of

17:56:00 clarification to remove that from the May 18th

17:56:02 agenda and set both items for June 15th?




17:56:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, that would be my motion.

17:56:08 >> Second.

17:56:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any further discussion on the

17:56:11 motion?

17:56:11 (Motion carried)

17:56:11 In the meantime I'll meet with you to clarify what

17:56:14 council's role is because it seems to me as a policy

17:56:17 board we do have a role to play in any of these

17:56:19 discussions.

17:56:20 >>> I'll be glad to talk with you.

17:56:21 Thank you.

17:56:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: Real quick, as a matter of housekeeping

17:56:25 from this morning, in reference to the commendation,

17:56:29 three firefighters, I would like to set that for March

17:56:32 2nd, which is next Thursday, at 9 a.m., time

17:56:34 certain.

17:56:35 Also, with the commendation for the three

17:56:37 firefighters, I would like to also include Joyce McCal

17:56:41 ter who was the it 11 operator that stayed on the

17:56:44 phone -- 911 operator that stayed on the phone until

17:56:48 firefighters arrived.

17:56:50 >> Second.




17:56:50 (Motion carried).

17:56:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Way would like to do now is look at

17:56:58 our agenda and see what items are possibly going to be

17:57:01 continued as a way of setting the calendar straight

17:57:03 for tonight.

17:57:07 Staff?

17:57:11 Are there any items on the agenda --

17:57:16 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Marty Boyle is coming in right now.

17:57:18 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

17:57:22 I didn't hear the question, I'm sorry.

17:57:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to take a look at the

17:57:26 agenda right now and see which items have been --

17:57:28 there were continuances requested that the public

17:57:31 might not be aware of.

17:57:32 So we can, you know, have a smooth flowing meeting.

17:57:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I make a suggestion?

17:57:38 We have a 5:30 item, number 2.

17:57:42 Is that planning to go forward, Ms. Boyle, do you

17:57:45 know?

17:57:46 >>MARTY BOYLE: Yes, it is.

17:57:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I suggest we handle the 5:30

17:57:50 item, then handle the 6:00s?




17:57:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

17:57:53 Item number 2.

17:57:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only problem with that is there

17:57:57 might be people sitting here waiting for an item that

17:58:00 won't be heard and then they have another half hour.

17:58:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: According to my clock --

17:58:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's not 6'6" six if you want to

17:58:08 wait four minutes we can.

17:58:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we go with number 2?

17:58:16 Who is going to present number 2?

17:58:17 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager here

17:58:24 for items number 2 and 3.

17:58:25 I would like to request to have those opened

17:58:27 simultaneously.

17:58:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

17:58:30 >> Second.

17:58:30 (Motion carried).

17:58:36 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: The items before dah are

17:58:38 recommendation for the Historic Preservation

17:58:38 Commission on the landmark designation of the facades

17:58:43 of the J.J. Newberry building and a portion of the

17:58:47 F.W. Woolworth building.




17:58:49 I have a short PowerPoint to orient you.

17:58:55 You see on your screen some historic photos of subject

17:58:59 properties of J.J. Newberry building, 815 North

17:59:07 Franklin.

17:59:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me for one minute.

17:59:07 We have to swear everybody in for 2 and 3.

17:59:13 Thank you.

17:59:17 >>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,

17:59:20 the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you

17:59:22 God?

17:59:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

17:59:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At this time I ask that all

17:59:28 communications relative to tonight's hearings that

17:59:29 have been available to the public at council's office

17:59:31 be received and filed into the record.

17:59:34 >> So moved.

17:59:35 >> Second.

17:59:35 (Motion carried).

17:59:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Finally, if there is any member of

17:59:40 the City Council has had any verbal communication was

17:59:42 the petitioner, his or her representative or any

17:59:44 members of the public in connection with any of




17:59:46 tonight's hearings, that before official action,

17:59:48 please disclose the identity of the person, group or

17:59:51 entity with whom the verbal communication occurred,

17:59:54 and the substance of that communication.

17:59:56 Thank you.

17:59:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Fernandez.

17:59:59 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: We go back to the PowerPoint.

18:00:03 Once again, on your monitors, you will see two

18:00:07 historic photographs and two current photographs of

18:00:08 the J.J. Newberry building and the F.W. Woolworth

18:00:12 building.

18:00:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Whoever is controlling our

18:00:16 monitors, if you --

18:00:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't have the image.

18:00:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, they are dark.

18:00:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Go ahead, Dennis.

18:00:29 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I would rather wait for the

18:00:31 photographs if possible.

18:00:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Looks like we are getting closer.

18:00:35 Go ahead.

18:00:41 The PowerPoint won't advance.

18:01:07 I'm not sure if the batteries are working in the




18:01:09 remote.

18:01:35 I think we got it straight end out.

18:01:38 Thank you.

18:01:38 You will see the proximity of what we refer to

18:01:41 commonly as the crest block, Cass Street to the north,

18:01:47 Polk street to the south and Florida Avenue to the

18:01:49 east.

18:01:49 This has traditionally been a retail corridor over the

18:01:53 history of the central business district in Tampa, and

18:01:56 continues to be so.

18:01:57 You see the white lines, just on the left slide

18:02:01 indicating the scope of the designations being

18:02:04 proposed today.

18:02:04 We are talking about facade designation, not the

18:02:07 entire building.

18:02:08 The building itself, the inside of the building would

18:02:11 be demolished.

18:02:12 The portions of the facade in the Newberry in its

18:02:15 entirety are being proposed for designation.

18:02:17 And the art decco portion of the Woolworth building.

18:02:23 I'm not getting any response from this remote.

18:02:26 There we go.




18:02:29 The 800 block of Franklin Street constitutes the last

18:02:32 remaining intact example of retail five and dime

18:02:37 stores in downtown Tampa.

18:02:40 There were a number of them throughout the years.

18:02:42 They have all been either demolished or have been

18:02:45 altered beyond historic significance.

18:02:47 In the foreground you will see the 1940s art decco

18:02:51 facade of the F.W. Woolworth building.

18:02:57 Beyond that the Kress building has received landmark

18:03:01 designation through this council so we are not dealing

18:03:03 with that particular property this evening.

18:03:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While you are on the slide, so what

18:03:09 your recommendation is, is the exterior, not the

18:03:13 interior, of just the facade.

18:03:19 Franklin Street.

18:03:20 And then going around the corner there?

18:03:22 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: What you see in the foreground,

18:03:24 essentially the terra-cotta facade of the Woolworth

18:03:28 wilding that extends to the left of the screen on

18:03:30 Franklin Street, then to the right of the screen on

18:03:34 Polk is the subject of the recommendation.

18:03:36 The red brick building beyond which goes more to the




18:03:39 east is not being recommended by Historic Preservation

18:03:41 Commission for designation.

18:03:49 John J. Newberry founded his department store in 1911.

18:03:52 The store has always been a contemporary design.

18:03:56 It reinforce it is mod motto of it does business in

18:04:00 the modern way.

18:04:01 F.W. Woolworth grew to be the nation's largest chain

18:04:06 of five and dime retail stores.

18:04:12 As seen in this 1927 Burgert Brothers photograph the

18:04:18 Newberry building site was originally the central

18:04:20 office building.

18:04:23 F.W. Woolworth Company was a previous use.

18:04:25 You see through the scope of the photograph that all

18:04:27 three of these buildings that are on the photograph

18:04:31 have been either altered to accomplish the new facade,

18:04:35 or rebuilt into a different design.

18:04:44 The S.H. Kress building constructed in 1929.

18:04:48 The F.W. Woolworth building.

18:04:51 The facade we are looking at today was in 1940.

18:04:54 And the J.J. Newberry Company building in 1941.

18:04:57 The redeveloped retail block was essentially the

18:05:02 result of an architectural revolution that was




18:05:05 happening around the world, and the emerging styles

18:05:07 were applied on Franklin Street.

18:05:09 These styles were evident in larger cities throughout

18:05:11 the United States but were highly unusual for Tampa.

18:05:15 J.J. Newberry's opened at 815 North Franklin Street,

18:05:23 similar to the Woolworth and Kress buildings, Newberry

18:05:27 also addressed North Florida Avenue as well as North

18:05:29 Franklin Street.

18:05:33 The J.J. Newberry building was designed in an art

18:05:36 modern style often referred to as an international

18:05:38 style.

18:05:38 It seeks to feature streamlined appearances of modern

18:05:42 machinery, art modern architecture, express the spirit

18:05:47 after new technological age and was influenced by the

18:05:49 beginning of streamlined industrial design for ships,

18:05:53 airplanes and automobiles.

18:05:54 Historic photographs of the hodge and Sherman building

18:06:00 on North Florida Avenue prior to and after the

18:06:03 Woolworth expansion into that building as well as the

18:06:06 new art decco facade on North Franklin Street. This

18:06:09 picture was taken about 1940 right at the opening of

18:06:11 this particular store.




18:06:17 The Woolworth building was designed in art decco style

18:06:21 which is evident in the smooth glazed terra-cotta

18:06:24 panels, Chevron detailing, and

18:06:32 Chamfer tower.

18:06:34 It sought to seek design of the style that did not

18:06:36 just affect architecture but influenced all of the

18:06:39 fine and applied arts as well.

18:06:41 Furniture, clothing, jewelry, graphic design were all

18:06:45 influenced by art decco style.

18:06:47 Other buildings around the nation you may be familiar

18:06:49 with designed in art decco style are the empire state

18:06:52 building and the Chrysler building.

18:06:53 Also the Miami South Beach art decco district is a

18:06:56 national landmark district.

18:07:13 Sorry the PowerPoint is advancing itself now.

18:07:19 J.J. Newberry and F.W. Woolworth prospered for many

18:07:23 years on the North Franklin Street corridor by

18:07:26 providing local consumers with an urban retail

18:07:28 experience comparable to that of larger cities.

18:07:31 Newberry's closed its doors in 1966.

18:07:36 It opened briefly as daddad's department store until

18:07:42 1979 and has been vacant since.




18:07:44 Woolworth store continued to serve North Franklin

18:07:46 Street until it closed its doors in 1992.

18:07:49 It has remained vacant since.

18:07:53 The Historic Preservation Commission found that the

18:07:56 landmark recommendation of the facades of the J.J.

18:08:00 Newberry and F.W. Woolworth meets the local landmark

18:08:07 designation criterion A which is commerce and trade.

18:08:10 The Franklin Street corridor has been a mercantile

18:08:13 stronghold in the City of Tampa since its inception.

18:08:18 In addition the facade to the F.W. Woolworth building

18:08:23 meets criterion A under social history.

18:08:27 In response to the February 1st, 1960 luncheon

18:08:30 counter sit-in in Greensboro, North Carolina, 57

18:08:34 African-Americans staged a sit-in at the Woolworth

18:08:40 luncheon counter in February 1960.

18:08:44 While it didn't change the policy, the store soon

18:08:48 changed its policy.

18:08:59 Both building facades are also eligible for landmark

18:09:03 designation under criterion C which is architecture.

18:09:07 The revolution of architecture in introducing an art

18:09:11 decco style building and international style building

18:09:13 into a city that otherwise had very classical and he




18:09:17 collect Tim style buildings was both innovative and I

18:09:21 think risky at the time.

18:09:22 And because the significance of materials and the

18:09:24 design, the buildings are both eligible for landmark

18:09:27 designation under the category architecture.

18:09:33 There is a rezoning on the particular property.

18:09:35 You see the facade's featured in the artist rendering

18:09:39 of the rezoning with the Kress building.

18:09:42 This is the Franklin sheet elevation.

18:09:44 Kress building between the two towers. The facade of

18:09:46 the Woolworth building to the right and the facade of

18:09:50 the J.J. Newberry building on the left.

18:09:52 I did want to provide just one more exhibit on the

18:09:55 Elmo.

18:10:00 Just to once again reemphasize that the scope of the

18:10:06 designation are not the entire buildings.

18:10:09 They are simply the facades of the building. This is

18:10:12 the J.J. Newberry building.

18:10:14 This is the F.W. Woolworth building.

18:10:16 There is a small noncontributing portion of the facade

18:10:19 which is boardered by the Kress building and Woolworth

18:10:23 building. That itself is not being proposed for




18:10:25 designation. The reason that this is such an unusual

18:10:28 recommendation by the historic preservation commission

18:10:30 was that through much of the discussion of the

18:10:33 designation, the developer and the owner were in the

18:10:39 process of having a rezoning.

18:10:40 And there was quite a bit of discussion during the

18:10:42 rezoning process on exactly how the facades were going

18:10:46 to be preserved.

18:10:48 Although the notes on the PD do reference a

18:10:54 preservation of sorts, it's not specific.

18:10:56 The HPC sought to craft the recommendation that was in

18:11:00 coordination with the rezoning plan at that time.

18:11:04 Throughout the presentations at the HPC that was

18:11:07 presented by the architect of the developer there were

18:11:09 a number of exhibits that were proposed as a means of

18:11:12 expressing what the intent of the development was.

18:11:15 At that particular time, the owner did show exhibits

18:11:20 of the Woolworth facade and the Newberry facade

18:11:23 intact.

18:11:23 Those were the particular -- what we consider and what

18:11:25 the architectural consultants for the developer,

18:11:33 considered to be the historically important facades




18:11:36 and the character defining facades of the entire

18:11:40 block.

18:11:45 Once again the Kress building, the entire building is

18:11:47 designated.

18:11:48 That's already done.

18:11:49 We are just will go for facades this evening.

18:11:51 Thank you.

18:11:51 I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

18:11:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any questions from council?

18:11:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one.

18:11:57 Mr. Fernandez, the picture that you are showing on the

18:11:59 J.J. Newberry building, it doesn't show a wrap-around

18:12:04 facade all the way from Franklin, goes all the way

18:12:09 from Franklin to, it looks like, on the other side of

18:12:14 Cass Street.

18:12:16 >>> Are you talking about the historical note?

18:12:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, the J.J. Newberry. This one

18:12:22 here.

18:12:24 >>> Okay, that particular photo probably is not the

18:12:27 best exhibit.

18:12:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you have one that wrapped around?

18:12:35 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: This is taken from Florida Avenue.




18:12:36 So this view would be essentially southwest.

18:12:39 This it would be Florida Avenue facade, which

18:12:42 exhibited on the Newberry building.

18:12:45 This would be the Franklin Street facade.

18:12:47 You see there are essentially two storefronts.

18:12:50 There are display panels on the north side of the

18:12:51 building, as well as an alternative entrance.

18:12:56 >> So the facade wrapped around the whole building?

18:13:01 >>> That's correct.

18:13:02 The facade on Franklin Street features more

18:13:07 architecturally unusual materials.

18:13:10 It's essentially glazed terra-cotta tile.

18:13:14 As you reach essentially this point here off of

18:13:16 Franklin and Cass, the materials change to a blond

18:13:20 brick.

18:13:20 So that's where there might be a differentiation

18:13:22 between what one facade to the other.

18:13:25 One was a glazed terra-cotta, the other in a blond

18:13:28 brick.

18:13:29 Those materials are still exist today.

18:13:32 Although the storefronts have been boarded up.

18:13:34 The Historic Preservation Commission, in they think a




18:13:41 very practical and realistic motion, recognize that a

18:13:46 portion of this building will most likely have to be

18:13:49 demolished for the construction of the towers.

18:13:52 The recommendation essentially seeks to ensure that

18:13:57 the front portion on Franklin Street and the portion

18:14:00 to the north on Cass Street is retained.

18:14:04 From that point where the terra-cotta ends and the

18:14:06 blond brick back was being proposed as a

18:14:09 reconstruction using similar materials in a similar

18:14:13 design, so that you can still have a continuity of

18:14:16 design from the historic -- on the historic

18:14:19 streetscape.

18:14:22 There's going to be obviously a large juxtaposition

18:14:25 between the historic components of this project and

18:14:27 the new components, with the towers, you know, sending

18:14:31 more than 20 -- as -- ascending more than 20 stories.

18:14:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

18:14:38 So what you're saying is, it's okay to rebuild the

18:14:42 northern portion of the Newberry building in blond

18:14:44 brick and that that would be acceptable to you in

18:14:47 terms of the spirit of the design?

18:14:53 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: That's correct.




18:14:54 Under historic preservation, one of the components of

18:14:56 the historic preservation is reconstruction.

18:14:59 And essentially what we are proposing on the primary

18:15:02 facade is a preservation measure, and on the remainder

18:15:06 of the facade of the J.J. Newberry building a

18:15:09 reconstruction.

18:15:14 >> My other question is, you talked about the fact

18:15:16 that there aren't many art decco buildings.

18:15:19 There were never many built in Tampa to begin with and

18:15:21 there aren't many left.

18:15:22 Can you tell us any other art decco buildings that we

18:15:25 have that are protected?

18:15:29 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: We have no art decco buildings.

18:15:34 We have one building in the Guida house and that's a

18:15:39 residential structure.

18:15:41 >> So we have no other --

18:15:42 >>> There are no other examples specifically in the

18:15:45 downtown area of art decco buildings,.

18:15:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think the picture that I'm looking

18:15:55 at that's a better picture is the one that Schoewe

18:15:58 opened in 1941, and it shows that the wrap-around

18:16:03 facade goes to, like I said before, wraps around




18:16:09 Franklin Street, and then a little bit into Cass

18:16:12 Street.

18:16:13 And then it shows another, it looks like, can AP I

18:16:19 over the entrance there.

18:16:21 So what you're saying is that -- here it is -- that --

18:16:29 did you want them to continue all the way?

18:16:33 >>> What we are proposing essentially is that this

18:16:35 portion of the facade be preserved as is and not be

18:16:46 demolished.

18:16:49 Rehabilitated.

18:16:49 >> It not there now?

18:16:53 >>> It is there.

18:16:54 It's not changed.

18:16:55 It just essentially covered.

18:16:58 The canopy is missing.

18:17:00 But that can be reconstructed.

18:17:02 And I believe that's part of -- this is the facade we

18:17:05 are talking about today.

18:17:07 Okay?

18:17:09 From this point back, we're proposing that the towers

18:17:15 be constructed.

18:17:16 It would be, I think, unreasonable, that the towers be




18:17:21 constructed with the facade intact.

18:17:22 And that portion of the building using these

18:17:24 photographs be designed to reflect a reconstruction of

18:17:28 the historic facade, with the original openings, and

18:17:32 materials as close as they could be.

18:17:34 >> Right.

18:17:35 So we are not going back to the original 1927.

18:17:39 We are going to the 1941.

18:17:41 >>> Yes.

18:17:42 From the historic preservation standpoint, this

18:17:44 particular building, its current style has gained

18:17:49 significance which outweighs that of the previous

18:17:52 style.

18:17:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions by council

18:17:54 members?

18:17:55 Is there any more staff presentation?

18:17:56 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.

18:18:10 The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed landmark

18:18:14 designations for the J.J. and Newberry building as

18:18:17 well as the F.W. Woolworth building.

18:18:20 At their November 14th, 2005 meeting.

18:18:23 Based on the public comment that was received at that




18:18:28 particular meeting as well as the review of the goals,

18:18:31 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan, the

18:18:33 Planning Commission in separate resolutions for each

18:18:36 of these voted 6 to 4 to make a finding of

18:18:39 inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.

18:18:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Petitioner.

18:18:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did they identify any particular

18:18:54 policies it was inconsistent with?

18:18:56 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: They did not specify any specific

18:18:58 policies.

18:19:01 They provided primarily the information that the

18:19:04 petitioner's representative represented through the

18:19:08 comments at that particular meeting regarding property

18:19:12 rights, involving review of layer of process, as well

18:19:18 as the mention of the rezoning and what was approved

18:19:22 as conditions of the of the approval for the rezoning.

18:19:25 But they did not identify any of the specific policies

18:19:28 for the comprehensive plan.

18:19:29 Thank you.

18:19:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are there any policies in the

18:19:32 comprehensive plan that would discourage historic

18:19:35 preservation?




18:19:36 >>> The policies of the comprehensive plan speak to

18:19:37 the encouragement of the preservation of historic

18:19:45 structures, recognizing Tampa's historical

18:19:47 architectural and archaeological resources, the city

18:19:50 will continue to protect and preserve the City of

18:19:51 Tampa's historic resources.

18:19:54 There are also policies in the central business

18:19:56 district element that speak to promoting the district

18:20:00 and providing financial incentives of existing

18:20:04 structures to assist in the reuse along Franklin

18:20:06 Street.

18:20:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

18:20:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Petitioner.

18:20:11 If the petitioner has anything that requires a

18:20:13 PowerPoint, we just were told by cable that we need to

18:20:16 give them a moment to reboot.

18:20:18 But if you don't have a PowerPoint you can keep going.

18:20:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know that they are a

18:20:23 petitioner.

18:20:24 Are they the owner?

18:20:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The representative.

18:20:29 >>> The owner of the property and of the project.




18:20:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you guys petition to have

18:20:34 this -- that's what I'm saying.

18:20:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Petitioner is the city?

18:20:41 Thank you for the clarification.

18:20:43 So these are people speaking to the issue before us.

18:20:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There you go.

18:20:51 >>> Good evening.

18:20:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's actually a critical point in

18:20:55 terms of how much time like you get 30 minutes or -- I

18:20:59 need legal to advise me on that.

18:21:00 The petitioner in this case is the city.

18:21:02 The HPC.

18:21:04 So Ms. O'Dowd if you would come up and explain.

18:21:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's fine.

18:21:10 City is the petitioner.

18:21:11 And it's three minutes.

18:21:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For everybody.

18:21:16 Thank you.

18:21:19 >>> I would object to that.

18:21:21 We have a presentation we need to make in order to be

18:21:23 able to properly put on the record our position in

18:21:26 this matter, and I would ask for the opportunity to




18:21:28 make that presentation.

18:21:29 We were originally under the impression we were going

18:21:33 to have two separate hearings shown off the agenda.

18:21:36 I can wrap it into one but it's still going to take

18:21:38 awes good 1515th, 20 minutes to clearly show

18:21:42 council what we are planning to do in the property.

18:21:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I make a motion to waive the rules

18:21:46 and provide the owner as a matter of due process 15

18:21:50 minutes total for both items, two or three, and then

18:21:55 when the 15 minutes are over, let's see where we are.

18:22:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a second?

18:22:02 >> Second.

18:22:06 >> Passed unanimously.

18:22:06 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Holland and Knight, 100 North Tampa

18:22:10 Street representing the Kress square partnership owner

18:22:14 and developer of this project.

18:22:17 The developers are here tonight of the project.

18:22:20 John Grandoff is here as co-counsel for this project.

18:22:23 Salvador, our architect and Federoff will be ask

18:22:32 offering testimony in a few minutes.

18:22:34 Let me start off by saying in concept we don't have a

18:22:36 problem with the presentation that Dennis just made.




18:22:39 The portions of the facade that he has asked to be

18:22:42 preserved and restored, we will provide testimony

18:22:47 tonight that we plan to do that.

18:22:48 We think we are required to do that.

18:22:50 With respect to the portion of the Newberry building

18:22:53 that he said would have to come down and then be

18:22:56 reconstructed, we are here to present essentially two

18:22:59 alternatives to the city in terms of the streetscape

18:23:03 but we are objecting to the designation because we

18:23:06 don't believe that designating these facades is

18:23:08 necessary.

18:23:08 Let me run through my presentation, ask Dr. Federoff

18:23:13 to come in and walk through and hopefully council will

18:23:15 agree with us that we are required to do this, we are

18:23:17 going to do this.

18:23:22 We believe everything we are going to say tonight is

18:23:25 consistent with the testimony that we made in front of

18:23:26 the HPC at two or three hearings as well as City

18:23:29 Council during our rezoning hearings.

18:23:38 We also believe that not designating these facades as

18:23:41 local landmarks will give the city a little more

18:23:43 flexibility in reviewing our plans in terms of the




18:23:45 streetscape of the project which you know is very

18:23:47 important to council during our zoning hearings.

18:23:49 We have always proposed a 24-story tower on the

18:23:52 Newberry site and a 27 story tower on the Woolworth

18:23:56 site and those were approved through our zoning.

18:23:59 We are willing to reconstruct the portions of the

18:24:01 Newberry facade, if that's the way council wants it

18:24:04 done.

18:24:06 However, we have another alternative that we think you

18:24:09 might find possibly better.

18:24:11 We believe that the designations now required by

18:24:14 historic preservation ordinance, because first of all,

18:24:17 to achieve the city's and our client's joint objective

18:24:20 of revitalizing this part of the downtown core that

18:24:24 has been vacant for many years, more than 20 years for

18:24:28 part and 15 years for the on the part, this project is

18:24:32 being developed to replace those buildings to.

18:24:35 Accomplish what was approved in the rezoning where we

18:24:36 had no public opposition, it was easily understood

18:24:39 that the structural skeleton and interior appointments

18:24:43 of the buildings could not be preserved.

18:24:45 The florist display cases, lighting, squares, special




18:24:50 relationships that made these buildings functioning

18:24:52 and guided downtown commercial, center that Dennis

18:24:56 spoke about, were not going to be able to be

18:24:58 integrated into the type of project we are proposing

18:25:01 and everybody recognized that.

18:25:02 Still our plan agreed to incorporate portions of the

18:25:05 building facade into the project.

18:25:08 The developer is committed to detailed plans for the

18:25:11 preservation and restoration, and you will hear that

18:25:14 in just a minute.

18:25:15 But we don't believe local landmark designation of

18:25:18 these facades is required under the city's code.

18:25:20 Your code focuses on designation of buildings as

18:25:23 landmarks just like the Kress building that we just

18:25:26 agreed to and was designated the old federal

18:25:29 courthouse, talks about structures as landmarks like

18:25:31 the Bayshore balustrade, for example, talks about

18:25:33 sites as landmark, like Kiley Park or Plant Park. In

18:25:38 this case there's not going to be effectively any

18:25:42 Newberry or Woolworth to be preserved.

18:25:45 The buildings must be almost completely demolished.

18:25:49 And that the city refers to objects or structures




18:25:54 there's no suggestion these terms were to encompass

18:25:58 facades. In fact, structure in the code seems to

18:26:01 refer to objects that have form and function like that

18:26:03 you are own like a wall, a bridge, a monument, a

18:26:05 flagpole, antenna, et cetera.

18:26:07 I am not going to tell that you facades haven't been

18:26:10 preserved in other parts of the country.

18:26:12 I am not aware they have been preserved here in Tampa.

18:26:14 Again I am stating we are planning to do that.

18:26:19 The code's objective is to protect buildings or

18:26:23 structures that are authentic.

18:26:24 There should be little question that something called

18:26:26 a facade is not authentic. In fact the near term

18:26:29 facade suggests that something is superficial or

18:26:32 almost by definition a false front or veneer.

18:26:35 Preserving a facade hardly preserves the face or the

18:26:39 architectural heritage or style of design.

18:26:44 However, despite those comments which I'm making on

18:26:46 the record in order to give you some criteria, in

18:26:48 order to help accept what we want to do, we are

18:26:53 committed to certain key elements that are included in

18:26:55 your ordinance.




18:26:57 One of the key elements in the code is that you keep,

18:27:00 you know, building the exterior portions of a building

18:27:02 in good repair, and plan to do that in connection with

18:27:05 this project.

18:27:05 These facades will be repaired, and restored the way

18:27:09 they used to look.

18:27:11 Another purpose is to provide a snapshot of an area in

18:27:14 local Tampa history.

18:27:15 We don't believe landmark status is needed to achieve

18:27:18 that goal, because we have already agreed to save and

18:27:20 restore the key portions of these facades.

18:27:22 This is not a case where a developer is indifferent to

18:27:25 historic significance of building facades.

18:27:27 In fact in pursuing this whole project we have already

18:27:30 affirmed by calling it the Kress square project that

18:27:33 we appreciate the value of the city's architectural

18:27:36 environment and cultural identity and have agreed to

18:27:39 much additional expense in order to incorporate these

18:27:42 facades into the project.

18:27:45 At this point I would like to ask Dr. OTTO Federoff

18:27:49 from USF the owner's representative to come through

18:27:51 and walk you through exactly what we propose to do




18:27:54 with these facades.

18:27:56 I am going to hand out a number of these.

18:28:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shimberg, if I could, perhaps

18:28:03 it might save some time.

18:28:10 One of the things I'm curious about is what changed.

18:28:14 What changed between when you were here in front of us

18:28:19 asking for the rezoning, and talking about the

18:28:21 preservation, and I think everybody anticipated that

18:28:23 it would be preserved through the HPC ordinance, and

18:28:28 now.

18:28:28 >>JIM SHIMBERG: I could answer, because the answer

18:28:32 from my client's perspective nothing has changed.

18:28:35 When you designate properties, you've got to comply

18:28:40 with strict secretary of interior standards, and we

18:28:42 have had numerous meetings with your city staff over

18:28:45 the last couple of months trying to interpret exactly

18:28:48 what it means.

18:28:49 And they assured us that they were going to be

18:28:51 reasonable and not be a problem.

18:28:52 But we believe that if we can describe exactly what we

18:28:55 are going to do, and it becomes part of the evidence

18:28:58 required by rezoning, then we don't think that there's




18:29:01 a need to add additional complexity to it or

18:29:04 additional regulation or additional possibly

18:29:07 inflexibility from the city standpoint, to get the

18:29:10 project that we promised to provide.

18:29:12 We say nothing has changed.

18:29:13 >> When they are in front of us for the rezoning, that

18:29:18 you anticipated coming in objecting to the historic

18:29:21 preservation?

18:29:22 Because you knew it was going on, right?

18:29:23 Or your client knew it was going on.

18:29:25 >>> We knew the recommendation had been made.

18:29:27 And if you look at the rezoning notes, there's not any

18:29:30 specific note that says these facades or this building

18:29:34 has to be designated as a local landmark.

18:29:37 There's no specific note that says that has to be done

18:29:40 by council.

18:29:41 >> I'll take your word for that.

18:29:44 >>> There are renderings and other pictures showing

18:29:47 waits going to look like and we are saying that is

18:29:50 completely consistent with what we are planning to do.

18:29:52 I think as maybe this is an argument over style as

18:29:54 opposed to substance, but we're saying that you don't




18:29:57 need to designate these facades in order to get what

18:30:00 we have promised and what you want.

18:30:02 That's the argument.

18:30:03 If he's going to just listen to the rest of the

18:30:05 presentation then we are happy to answer any

18:30:07 additional questions.

18:30:09 >>> My name is OTTO Federoff.

18:30:13 I'm with the URS corporation.

18:30:15 Just very briefly, I don't have too much time.

18:30:17 I just wanted to discuss with you from a construction

18:30:19 standpoint what we intend on doing, what the owner

18:30:23 intends on doing with the property.

18:30:24 And I will let Salvador explain what basically the

18:30:31 intent is.

18:30:32 This is the -- I'm sorry, the Kress square block, and

18:30:38 basically, I think everybody is oriented to that.

18:30:40 The facades that we intend, the owner intends on

18:30:44 saving are shown here in the heavy white lines, the

18:30:46 north building, the Newberry, and then to the south is

18:30:49 the Woolworth building and again there's the facade

18:30:52 that doesn't really contribute.

18:30:53 So we are planning on just restoring this facade up to




18:30:57 this point.

18:31:07 This is a little closer up and I think this will give

18:31:09 you a vertical elevation of the facade and the

18:31:12 Newberry side.

18:31:13 And essentially way like to do is review very quickly

18:31:16 what we have to do.

18:31:16 With these facades, we have to abate them first, and

18:31:20 then we are going to have to isolate them

18:31:23 structurally, meaning that on the Woolworth facade

18:31:26 there was no basement so we have to actually dig under

18:31:29 existing foundations, so we will have to isolate that

18:31:33 facade structurally, vertically and horizontally.

18:31:37 On the Newberry facade, we have to also isolate that

18:31:41 structurally so we are going to be doing that as well.

18:31:43 Once we get those isolated we are going to have to

18:31:45 protect those facades from any damage during

18:31:48 construction.

18:31:49 Once we protect those sides we are going to go in and

18:31:52 do to hand demolish immediately up against to the

18:31:57 inside of the facade including the inside of the

18:31:59 facade.

18:32:00 At that point in time we will be finishing the




18:32:04 demolition for mediating any mold, mildew,

18:32:07 environmental damage, water intrusion damage that's

18:32:09 inside those facades, and be able to make those

18:32:12 facades as part of the new building they will be of

18:32:15 veneer or element on the other side of the building

18:32:18 just because of the structural integrity and some of

18:32:19 the other internal issues we have.

18:32:21 At that point in time, what we are going to be doing

18:32:24 is constructing behind it.

18:32:26 And then at that point in time we clip in connecting

18:32:29 those facades to the new structure, and the new

18:32:32 canopies or the new signage, the new canopies,

18:32:38 replacement canopies, and the signs that protrude will

18:32:40 be connected to the structure behind the facade.

18:32:42 Again, a facade will be used as a thematic element

18:32:46 only.

18:32:46 At that point in time once this the old facade is

18:32:49 connected to the new structure, we will be releasing

18:32:53 the temporary supports and structure, and then we will

18:32:56 finish the construction, and we will finish the repair

18:32:59 of those facades.

18:33:00 So that's essentially what we are going to be doing




18:33:02 with those.

18:33:06 The storefronts on these facades, our intention is to

18:33:13 replace or repair any of the tile that was damaged in

18:33:16 the facades.

18:33:17 The windows in the Newberry and the Woolworth facades,

18:33:22 the windows will be replaced.

18:33:24 The black -- we will replace all the window systems.

18:33:29 Not in kind but with the latest materials, energy

18:33:32 efficient materials.

18:33:32 They will look similar to what you have there now.

18:33:35 The storefronts and the display cases and any of the

18:33:38 other areas that affect it at the ground level will

18:33:42 also be replaced.

18:33:43 They will be removed in their entirety and new window

18:33:45 or storefront systems will be put into those.

18:33:49 If you have any further questions on what the intent

18:33:50 of the construction is.

18:33:51 At that point in time I can let Salvador come up.

18:33:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you go back to that last

18:33:57 picture.

18:33:59 >> The Newberry?

18:34:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, no.




18:34:01 That's it.

18:34:02 I noticed on your note here that -- what do you call

18:34:06 the top thing?

18:34:08 >>> A tower.

18:34:11 >> Okay.

18:34:11 I noticed that one of your notes said that you were

18:34:18 leaving the part that we can see there, but you were

18:34:21 eliminating the depth of that tower.

18:34:24 >>> Yes.

18:34:27 I thought a better way to look at that is -- and we

18:34:30 may be -- it's preliminary.

18:34:32 But we are going to be putting a tower and parking

18:34:36 structure up tight to the inside of that facade in

18:34:38 that area.

18:34:39 And the idea is the vast depth of that, which are

18:34:43 these two walls right back inside that go knot and

18:34:46 south, may have to be removed.

18:34:48 If not they may be recessed under the parking

18:34:50 structure.

18:34:50 At that point in time you are not going to see them

18:34:53 the anyhow.

18:34:53 And we are going to have to work through those




18:34:55 details.

18:34:55 But what will end up happening if you wanted to see

18:34:58 that is that we would have to recess this wall on the

18:35:00 south and recess this wall on the west end which

18:35:03 essentially limb nights about three stories of parking

18:35:05 or minimizes or tightens up three stories of parking

18:35:09 in that area so it's very difficult to preserve that

18:35:11 element just because we have to have room for the

18:35:13 parking structure.

18:35:15 >> I just wanted to make sure I was clear.

18:35:17 Thank you.

18:35:29 >>> I'm the architect.

18:35:30 On the booklet that we handed you, there are four line

18:35:33 drawings, black and white, that specifically identify

18:35:37 all the facades, the four facades.

18:35:41 And here to state which ones are going to be preserved

18:35:45 and restored, and which ones would be new.

18:35:55 I have a rendering here showing -- I guess it doesn't

18:36:03 work.

18:36:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There it is.

18:36:10 >>> How we preserve that facade of the Woolworth.

18:36:13 As you can see, we would restore the canopy, the




18:36:19 proportions of the storefront, the windows are exactly

18:36:23 the same.

18:36:24 The veneers are the same.

18:36:25 We took the liberty of assuming that we could use the

18:36:30 Woolworth letters by creating a diner, which would be

18:36:33 very, I would say, historically appropriate to put

18:36:36 there.

18:36:40 When it comes to the new building, unfortunately I

18:36:43 don't have such a good rendering of the Newberry.

18:36:47 But we did have at the time a good record of the

18:36:50 canopy.

18:36:51 But here is to just restore completely as expressed by

18:36:56 OTTO.

18:36:59 Then change the deviation from what we originally

18:37:05 presented, which was the facade on Cass Street out of

18:37:10 Newberry.

18:37:13 We have the portion of the Newberry to be saved, and

18:37:17 the portion of the facade that was going to be

18:37:20 demolished and reconstructed.

18:37:22 At that time, we thought it was the appropriate thing

18:37:25 to do.

18:37:29 And the preservation board agreed, out consulting with




18:37:34 our preservation architect, she mentioned the fact

18:37:37 that rebuilding or replicating the construction was

18:37:43 not appropriate, that we would have to rebuild in a

18:37:46 different manner, something that would really show the

18:37:50 difference between the old and the new.

18:37:55 Then interpreting also certain wishes of the city that

18:37:57 we would have to emphasize a pedestrian egress around

18:38:03 the block with the two -- the base proportions of the

18:38:18 base, more or less for illustration but was different

18:38:21 materials, and something that would allow us to create

18:38:23 a very interesting storefront with a lot of variety,

18:38:31 would like to maintain all around the block and the

18:38:32 new portions, the same proportions by allowing for

18:38:38 each occupant to create the canopies and by the

18:38:46 materials used in their storefronts.

18:38:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And just for the purposes of

18:38:53 preserving the record, I failed to state at the

18:38:56 beginning that I ask that all people who testify

18:38:58 reaffirm that you have been sworn, and that I'm

18:39:02 putting a note up there, a little placard to remind

18:39:04 you to state when you state your name were you sworn

18:39:07 in?




18:39:08 If there's anybody who has testified so far that has

18:39:10 not been sworn, would you please indicate that now?

18:39:13 So everyone who testified at this point has been

18:39:16 sworn.

18:39:16 Would you please for the record, will you state your

18:39:17 name, just reaffirm that you have been sworn.

18:39:19 Thank you.

18:39:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: For Mr. Shimberg.

18:39:26 Mr. Shimberg, are you objecting to the designations?

18:39:37 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Yes.

18:39:38 What we are asking council to do is not designate

18:39:41 these facades but allow to us restore, rebuild,

18:39:45 construct them the way we have described in this

18:39:46 presentation.

18:39:47 The only caveat is on the portion of the Newberry

18:39:49 building that Dennis explained would probably have to

18:39:52 come down in connection with the construction, we are

18:39:55 happy to do it the way originally shown but we think

18:39:59 the second way is better and we have been working with

18:40:00 Wilson and some of the other people in the city.

18:40:02 That's part of the issue.

18:40:04 If it's designated we are going to be held to some




18:40:07 pretty strict secretary of interior standard, and

18:40:09 there's going to be less flexibility and there's a lot

18:40:11 of issues as you heard.

18:40:13 So what we're saying is we want to do exactly what we

18:40:16 said we are going to do but want to do it without the

18:40:19 designation and just with the record and the

18:40:22 testimony.

18:40:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you know there was an economic

18:40:25 feasibility study that goes along with this code?

18:40:29 Did you apply for that?

18:40:31 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Well, to answer the question, just to

18:40:36 make sure that I'm consistent, when we had our HPC

18:40:40 hearings, when they talked about the designation of

18:40:41 the facades and dodging the fact that the towers were

18:40:48 going to go up on the site and it probably wasn't --

18:40:52 they weren't necessarily say save the whole buildings.

18:40:55 They were trying to be careful with us.

18:40:56 We continually said we have to have access to the

18:40:59 site.

18:40:59 So Dennis acknowledged that.

18:41:00 But when we talk about designation we said we would go

18:41:03 back and research and we had a historic architect talk




18:41:08 about whether there were tax benefits or any other

18:41:10 benefits we could gain by designating these portions

18:41:13 of the facade to help recoup some of the investment it

18:41:16 was going to take to do it and we determined there

18:41:18 were not any benefits when quo obtain from a tax

18:41:24 standpoint or otherwise.

18:41:25 That's why worry here saying let douse the

18:41:27 preservation that we said and has been recommended but

18:41:29 do it without the recommendation letter.

18:41:31 That's really the only issue that we have before you

18:41:33 today.

18:41:33 And we are only afraid that's just going to further

18:41:36 complicate it and delay the project.

18:41:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: An interesting situation.

18:41:46 And I know we are going to hear from other folks

18:41:49 because there seems to be quite a few folks who are

18:41:51 here and want to talk about this.

18:41:53 My only other question for you at this time, Mr.

18:41:55 Shimberg, is when you complete the project, if there's

18:42:03 still something left to designate, is it possible that

18:42:09 your client would stipulate on the record tonight that

18:42:14 they wouldn't object down the road?




18:42:17 In other words, what I'm thinking about is possibly

18:42:20 splitting the baby, and saying that we might defer --

18:42:24 not withdraw the application, I'm sorry, but defer it

18:42:27 or continue it until after you're done building your

18:42:30 buildings and preserving this in the manner that you

18:42:33 are testing to.

18:42:35 >>JIM SHIMBERG: One thing, that definitely is a

18:42:40 possibility.

18:42:40 And I don't know if they are willing to commit to that

18:42:42 today but the problem is you are going to have a

18:42:45 number of condominium owners who are going to be

18:42:47 living there and owning and would have some say.

18:42:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not until you close.

18:42:52 >>> Right.

18:42:52 >> When you're done with construction --

18:42:56 >>> Once construction is done then it becomes less of

18:42:59 a concern.

18:43:00 >> That's my point.

18:43:04 >>> After the construction is done, that's something

18:43:06 that's a totally different story.

18:43:07 The issue right now is -- and the other issue is what

18:43:10 if your client never build the project, tanned




18:43:13 position on that is this is a specific zoning and if

18:43:16 someone wants to do something different on that site

18:43:18 they have to come back to you.

18:43:20 I think you can defer it and let the project procedure

18:43:22 along the way we have described and testified in the

18:43:25 way we are required to, and come back later and look

18:43:28 at designating those restored portions of the facade.

18:43:31 >> While we are hearing from those folks you all think

18:43:34 about that as a possibility, and we'll go from there.

18:43:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to hear from Ms. O'Dowd on

18:43:41 this question that I asked.

18:43:42 Because this is going to be something those going to

18:43:47 be coming back to us.

18:43:48 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.

18:43:50 I have been sworn in.

18:43:51 If you will refresh me on the question you asked.

18:43:53 >> Economic feasibility study that's in the code.

18:43:56 >>> The opportunity for the own owner of the property

18:44:00 to request an economic feasibility study would have

18:44:02 been at the first City Council hearing when council

18:44:05 was considering the HPC's recommendation for

18:44:07 designation.




18:44:08 That is the opportunity, and I believe that hearing

18:44:10 was held quite a few months ago.

18:44:13 I don't have the exact date.

18:44:14 We are beyond that point.

18:44:15 The HPC has already made a recommendation for

18:44:18 designation.

18:44:19 City Council acted on that recommendation and approved

18:44:22 it and forwarded this to the Planning Commission for

18:44:24 consideration.

18:44:25 So the way the code is currently written, we are

18:44:27 beyond that point in time where they could request an

18:44:31 economic feasibility study.

18:44:34 For the record --

18:44:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said we approved it and sent it

18:44:37 on.

18:44:38 >>> For initiation of designation.

18:44:40 >> Initiated it.

18:44:41 >>> Yes, based on the HPC designation at the original

18:44:44 hearing where you approved it, you looked at the HPC's

18:44:48 recommendation, made a finding that this met the

18:44:51 criterion and the code and asked that it be submitted

18:44:53 to the Planning Commission for consideration of




18:44:55 consistency of the comprehensive plan. This is now

18:44:57 the subsequent public hearings where you would

18:45:01 actually, if you feel that what has been presented to

18:45:05 you this evening meets the criteria in the code for

18:45:08 designation, and these would be the first of two

18:45:11 adoption hub public hearings.

18:45:13 I just want to say something if I may with regard to

18:45:16 why we are here this evening.

18:45:17 Athletes there's been a lot of discussion about a

18:45:19 rezoning that was approved by City Council, and what

18:45:23 the developer may or may not be obligated to do under

18:45:26 that rezoning, right in my opinion is not before you

18:45:30 on that consideration.

18:45:31 We are here on a quasi-judicial recommendation looking

18:45:34 at two -- whether or not the two facades meet the code

18:45:40 in the designation.

18:45:42 Dennis Fernandez made a presentation for both facades

18:45:44 and has identified why the HPC believes that these two

18:45:48 facades meet criterion A and C in the code so that

18:45:55 really is what council should be focusing on for

18:45:57 tonight's hearing.

18:45:58 And section 27-231-C-5 addresses the actions that may




18:46:04 be taken by council this evening, and it says City

18:46:07 Council shall designate the property a landmark site,

18:46:11 multiple property designation, conservation district,

18:46:13 or historic district, or modify or disapprove the

18:46:17 nomination within 30 days after the second public

18:46:20 hearing.

18:46:20 So the action is really if this meets the criteria,

18:46:23 your action should be to approve the designation.

18:46:25 If you feel that a modification is appropriate based

18:46:28 on the testimony you heard this evening, then that is

18:46:31 before you.

18:46:31 Otherwise, if it does not meet the criteria you would

18:46:35 disapprove it. But the focus with regard to what they

18:46:37 have committed to do on the PD zoning I don't believe

18:46:42 should impact your decision making this evening.

18:46:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You gave us some options, but my

18:46:52 three years on Council tells me that hearings are

18:46:54 often continued.

18:46:55 And I think continuance is possibly another option.

18:46:57 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I think possibly if you heard

18:47:01 enough evidence not to make a determination whether

18:47:03 this meets the criterion continuation could be




18:47:08 considered.

18:47:09 >> One of the discussions that came up was on the

18:47:11 Newberry facade and terra-cotta part which is the

18:47:15 front portion that faces on Franklin should be

18:47:17 protected and, you know, but on the side street it

18:47:23 could be reconstructed.

18:47:25 If council determined that the side street was not

18:47:29 critical but the part facing Franklin Street was

18:47:36 critical, can we modify the HPC recommendation and

18:47:39 take a portion of that, and not the entire --

18:47:42 >>> I believe that the code grants City Council the

18:47:44 authority to modify the HPC's recommendation.

18:47:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

18:47:49 Okay.

18:47:53 Mr. Fernandez?

18:47:56 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: City staff.

18:47:58 I did need to just address a couple of issues that

18:48:01 were brought up by the developer's representative.

18:48:11 At the initiation of the designation in September,

18:48:13 there was a representative of the developer who was

18:48:15 present at the initiation.

18:48:17 At that time, they did not object to the designation




18:48:20 to this council.

18:48:20 That's why the initiation was essentially for the --

18:48:23 it wasn't until the Planning Commission stage that

18:48:25 that actually happened.

18:48:27 In reference to eligible designation a structure is a

18:48:34 facade.

18:48:35 And you can designate a structure.

18:48:37 A wall is a structure.

18:48:39 So however you term this, a facade or wall, it is

18:48:42 eligible for designation.

18:48:45 Another point was the strict guidelines that would be

18:48:48 in place.

18:48:49 What the HPC has recommended are the Secretary

18:48:54 Interior Standards.

18:48:54 These are standards that are accepted nationally, as a

18:48:57 preservation threshold.

18:48:58 It is not an arbitrary standard that one developer may

18:49:07 apply, and then a subsequent developer may decide not

18:49:11 to incorporate that particular facet.

18:49:16 I've printed these very unreasonable standards here

18:49:19 for you, two pages.

18:49:34 The proposal that you see here, I would recommend that




18:49:38 you scrutinize this very seriously because what you

18:49:41 have here, in my opinion, is a proposal of why

18:49:48 preservation cannot occur, not how it's going to

18:49:51 occur.

18:49:53 The standards gives you a guide loin to go by.

18:49:55 It gives you common language that everybody can simply

18:50:00 read, provide direction.

18:50:02 However, in reviewing the proposal by the developer,

18:50:07 what I see are instances where the developer is

18:50:13 suggesting that they are going to have variances, not

18:50:17 these standards but similar standards.

18:50:18 They don't want to address these standards in

18:50:20 particular.

18:50:21 And I think that without having that common dialogue,

18:50:24 without having that common language, we are going to

18:50:27 have a disagreement on exactly what the term

18:50:29 preservation means.

18:50:30 And, you know, I can accept the spirit of cooperation

18:50:35 that the developer is trying to promote.

18:50:37 However, when I walk down Franklin Street and I'm

18:50:39 seeing the Maas brothers building coming down I'm here

18:50:43 to tell you as your city staff, this designation




18:50:46 should happen in the forefront of this development,

18:50:47 not after the fact.

18:50:48 You may not have anything to designate.

18:50:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why?

18:50:56 >>> Why?

18:50:57 Because this is a preservation development.

18:51:04 If you're talking about retaining historic facades

18:51:08 that are over 60 or up to 90 years old, you have to

18:51:11 have the proper methods in place.

18:51:19 This is being done around the country.

18:51:20 This is not something that we are inventing the wheel

18:51:23 on: I think you know with the development we are

18:51:25 going to have to get creative if we want to save some

18:51:28 of our historic resources. This is in Washington,

18:51:31 D.C.

18:51:31 You see the measure that this particular developer

18:51:33 went through to ensure that that facade is not going

18:51:36 to collapse.

18:51:38 It encompasses doing this type of method of preserving

18:51:41 the integrity of this facade.

18:51:43 Doing a controlled demolition, and ensuring that the

18:51:48 foundation of the structure is not compromised during




18:51:50 construction, that requires a review process.

18:51:53 Okay.

18:51:53 That goes beyond accepting someone's word, that this

18:51:56 is going to happen, because a mistake could happen,

18:51:59 and the end result is that you don't have the wall or

18:52:03 facade anymore.

18:52:04 This requires someone who is trained in this

18:52:06 particular field, your review boards, which have been

18:52:12 appointed through City Council and the mayor, to

18:52:13 strictly scrutinize this type of measure before it's

18:52:17 enacted, not after.

18:52:18 And what we don't want to do, we don't want to have a

18:52:21 cheap reproduction of the Woolworth building or the

18:52:24 Newberry building.

18:52:25 We would rather have new construction than have a

18:52:28 reconstructed facade using modern materials, which

18:52:32 vaguely resembles something of such a high and

18:52:35 important architectural significance.

18:52:37 Because you can't pull it off.

18:52:40 You have to do it in the forefront.

18:52:42 These materials aren't available.

18:52:45 If you looked at the rendering that the developer




18:52:48 presented to you, the first time I saw the rendering,

18:52:52 the first thing that jumps out at me is the amber

18:52:56 glass on the Woolworth building is removed.

18:52:58 And that's the original material.

18:52:59 That shouldn't be removed F.we are talking about

18:53:02 preserving the facades, that's one of the most

18:53:04 character defining features of the facade. It should

18:53:06 be row tained.

18:53:08 We cannot go through relying on the good efforts of a

18:53:11 developer who may not have the historical expertise to

18:53:14 pull this off successfully.

18:53:15 And that's your staff's recommendation.

18:53:19 I support the development wholeheartedly.

18:53:21 I think downtown is a very exciting time for the

18:53:23 revitalization.

18:53:24 However, we cannot continue to ignore historic

18:53:26 resources so they end up demolished an that's

18:53:31 essentially what would happen in my opinion finance we

18:53:34 do not have a historic designation on these facades.

18:53:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Dennis, what you're saying is they did

18:53:40 say that they wanted it in the beginning, the

18:53:42 initial -- they did say that they wanted it.




18:53:46 Okay.

18:53:46 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: That's right.

18:53:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to hear from public.

18:53:52 Everybody come to the microphone.

18:53:54 And you have three minutes to speak.

18:53:56 Begin by giving us your name and address.

18:53:58 And if someone has a speaker waiver form, please hand

18:54:00 it to our attorney, Martin Shelby, at the beginning.

18:54:04 Is there anyone from the public who would like to

18:54:06 speak on this?

18:54:07 Please come up.

18:54:08 We have 12 issues tonight and we need to get going.

18:54:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Please reaffirm that you were sworn

18:54:19 at the time you state your name.

18:54:20 >>> Becky Clark, Executive Director of Tampa

18:54:21 Preservation and I'm also the president of the Florida

18:54:24 trust for historic preservation.

18:54:27 I was sworn.

18:54:27 My address is 5139 south Nichols street.

18:54:31 I would just like to encourage you all to move forward

18:54:34 on this designation.

18:54:36 It's been through many hearings.




18:54:39 I was at the preservation commission hearing in the

18:54:42 beginning when this first came before the preservation

18:54:45 commission.

18:54:45 The owners did not object to the designation.

18:54:48 They were all in favor of that.

18:54:50 There was a lot of back and forth, the preservation

18:54:55 commission worked very hard to make sure they weren't

18:54:57 doing something that would impede the development of

18:54:58 this project.

18:55:01 They did want to preserve this facade.

18:55:05 I think the designation is a safety measure to make

18:55:08 sure that that preservation happens.

18:55:10 We have all been involved in development around this

18:55:13 town for many years, and seeing projects come and

18:55:16 projects go, and sometimes they turn out the way they

18:55:18 are designed.

18:55:19 Sometimes they are modified.

18:55:20 We don't have any guarantee at this point that this

18:55:23 project will be developed actually as we are seeing

18:55:27 these renderings for.

18:55:29 I think this designation is the only way to ensure

18:55:31 that if another developer should happen, God forbid,




18:55:36 come into this project we end up with what we want as

18:55:39 a facade to be dealt with.

18:55:41 Thank you.

18:55:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are there any questions?

18:55:43 Anybody else care to speak?

18:55:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.

18:55:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.

18:55:50 Mr. Shimberg?

18:55:52 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Jim Shimberg.

18:55:54 I have been sworn.

18:55:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait a minute.

18:55:55 You're not the petitioner so you don't get to do

18:55:57 rebuttal.

18:55:58 I'm sorry.

18:55:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's council's discretion how they

18:56:03 wish to handle this.

18:56:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I would like to hear from him.

18:56:07 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Just to reiterate I heard from my

18:56:10 client loud and clear we never said we wanted to

18:56:13 designate these facades.

18:56:15 We never said we wanted to designate them.

18:56:17 We said we would save them.




18:56:18 We said we would preserve and restore them.

18:56:21 We said we wanted to designate the Kress building

18:56:24 which we have sun since done and you have approved it.

18:56:27 On the facade you took it initially sort of, you know,

18:56:29 we'll think about it and see if we can figure out some

18:56:32 benefits to doing that.

18:56:32 And that's -- continued, additional work, and I stood

18:56:38 before the Planning Commission in November and said we

18:56:39 did not want the facades designated but we would do

18:56:42 what we said we were going to do and we are obligated

18:56:45 to do. So I don't think our position has changed.

18:56:47 Sorry if people have a different recollection of it

18:56:52 but the renderings are the same.

18:56:53 We have done a lot more work since that last August or

18:56:56 last hearings.

18:56:58 We are still ready to Do exactly what we are going to

18:57:01 do.

18:57:01 And you even heard from the staff in terms of what at

18:57:07 those portions that were going to come down which

18:57:09 Dennis acknowledged were going to have to come down if

18:57:11 we built the building and I remember a number of times

18:57:14 at the HPC saying the building has to be up to get




18:57:17 access to the site in order to -- and the answer they

18:57:20 keep giving us is don't worry, the secretary of

18:57:22 interior standards allow that in certain

18:57:24 circumstances.

18:57:25 The concern is just that there's going to be

18:57:27 additional -- I mean, it's a very delicate market

18:57:32 cycle right now.

18:57:32 There are a lot of projects announced.

18:57:34 There's been a lot of projects that may or may not be

18:57:37 moving forward.

18:57:37 This is a block that has been vacant for over 25

18:57:40 years.

18:57:42 And if we don't make the market cycle, in terms of

18:57:46 after the fact, I think that's still a different story

18:57:49 and after the story is rebuilt, I think they are going

18:57:51 to look at it totally different.

18:57:54 I don't think they want 100% committee to that today

18:57:57 but I think that's a different story.

18:58:00 I think that's some of what we started exploring with

18:58:02 the city.

18:58:03 And I know we don't have a full council today.

18:58:05 I'm not sure if it takes four votes to act either way.




18:58:08 And so we're fine with a continuance.

18:58:12 And I don't know that we can have a continuance until

18:58:14 the building is finished, and then if we could do

18:58:16 that, allow us to move forward.

18:58:19 But we want to work with the city.

18:58:21 We want to build this project.

18:58:22 We are not in favor of the designation.

18:58:24 But we have agreed to preserve these facades, and

18:58:28 restore them in the way that we have shown.

18:58:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Shimberg, this wouldn't have been

18:58:35 initiated without your approval.

18:58:37 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Well, I think it would have because of

18:58:40 the recommendation of the HPC. The HPC

18:58:43 recommendation -- I understood from prior hearings

18:58:45 that you guys have had very recently that the owner

18:58:48 doesn't have the right to say no, under your current

18:58:51 ordinance.

18:58:51 So the HPC made these recommendations.

18:58:53 It was coming back to you anyway.

18:58:56 We are just having more substantive discussion today

18:58:58 as opposed to when it came up for initiation, but

18:59:04 still hadn't acted on it and the Planning Commission,




18:59:05 they found it inconsistent because the property owner

18:59:08 objected.

18:59:08 We are now before you today and we are going into

18:59:11 great detail in terms of what we plan to do and what

18:59:14 we believe we are required to do under our zoning.

18:59:17 It is relevant and this is a very unique situation.

18:59:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder.

18:59:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think I would have recalled if

18:59:29 you all had objected during the initiation hearing.

18:59:32 >>JIM SHIMBERG: I didn't say -- we did not object

18:59:37 during the initiation hearing.

18:59:39 >> Let me clarify there. Was an HPC before it got to

18:59:42 us. Did you object?

18:59:43 >>> We had a lost discussion at the HPC hearing about

18:59:46 what was required.

18:59:46 They made recommendations.

18:59:47 We never agreed to the whole block.

18:59:50 I mean, the whole entire building.

18:59:51 We said all along we had to take out significant

18:59:55 portions of it.

18:59:56 So we never agreed to it.

18:59:57 We were working with them and they were going to City




18:59:59 Council.

19:00:00 City Council had extensive discussion on these blocks.

19:00:05 And in terms of -- the street --

19:00:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just looking for a real short

19:00:11 answer.

19:00:11 Was there a specific objection at the HPC?

19:00:15 An objection like "we don't want this"?

19:00:19 >>> All we said was we were in favor of designation of

19:00:21 the Kress block, we would look at the other portions

19:00:24 to see if there was some benefit to us.

19:00:26 >> When it came to us for initiation you didn't

19:00:28 object?

19:00:28 >>> We never talked at that portion about the

19:00:31 designation issue at the zoning.

19:00:33 >> I'm not talking --

19:00:34 >>> At the initiation hearing for whatever reason it

19:00:36 was late in the day and whoever was here did not

19:00:39 object but we objected at the Planning Commission.

19:00:42 >> When was that?

19:00:42 >>> That was November.

19:00:43 So this has been going on since at least November.

19:00:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anyone else in the public




19:00:51 who would like to speak on this?

19:00:52 There are any other questions that council members

19:00:54 have for staff?

19:00:55 Or anyone who spoke on it?

19:00:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm a little confused because I'm

19:01:01 reading here that it says it is consistent with the

19:01:04 Tampa comprehensive plan.

19:01:06 And it was a 6 to 4 vote.

19:01:10 >>> Staff said it was consistent and the Planning

19:01:12 Commissioners themselves inconsistency.

19:01:15 >> That's not the way I'm reading it.

19:01:18 Gosh, I have seen 6 to 4 Aye.

19:01:23 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission found it

19:01:25 inconsistent by a vote of 6 to 4.

19:01:30 And that's on the resolution.

19:01:33 The executive summary is the staff recommendation of

19:01:36 consistency.

19:01:39 It's the resolution of the Planning Commission with

19:01:41 the vote 6 to 4.

19:01:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Tell me where it says it was

19:01:46 inconsistent.

19:01:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: At the bottom of page 2 of that




19:01:51 report it says be it resolved, it's inconsistent with

19:01:54 the Tampa comprehensive plan.

19:01:56 And telling us that it's a 6 to 4 vote.

19:02:12 That's the second page.

19:02:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions?

19:02:18 I have a question for Cate O'Dowd, if I could.

19:02:23 Just to clarify council's options at this point, would

19:02:26 you mind restating them?

19:02:28 Some of the council members weren't in the room, I

19:02:30 think, when we stated them.

19:02:31 >>> Sure.

19:02:32 Section 27-231 subsection C subsection 5, which

19:02:36 addresses the decision by City Council at this stage

19:02:39 in the designation process, that City Council shall

19:02:42 designate the property a landmark site, multiple

19:02:45 property designation, conservation district or

19:02:47 historic district, or modify or disapprove the

19:02:50 nomination within 30 days after a second public

19:02:54 hearing.

19:02:55 So the options today, unless you feel that you need

19:02:58 additional evidence, which would require a

19:03:00 continuance, the options would be to either designate,




19:03:04 modify the HPC recommendation or disapprove the

19:03:08 recommendation, based on whether or not these two

19:03:09 facades that are before you make the criterion for

19:03:15 designation in your code.

19:03:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And you gave us the criterion, the

19:03:22 stuff that Dennis referred to as historic, played a

19:03:24 role in history, distinctive architecture.

19:03:27 >>> Dennis criteria went through it, I believe it's

19:03:31 criterion A and C.

19:03:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shimberg, would you designate,

19:03:36 or they could designate one of your owners

19:03:39 representatives to talk to us, please?

19:03:51 >> Janett Jason.

19:03:54 I have been sworn in.

19:03:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Welcome back, Ms. Jason.

19:03:57 We heard a lot of great lawyering from Mr. Shimberg

19:04:01 and I mean that with all sincerity.

19:04:03 Why are we here today?

19:04:04 Why is this going on, from your perspective?

19:04:08 >>> Well, from my --

19:04:10 >>: Obviously you have been at this for a long time.

19:04:12 You went through -- we had long rezonings.




19:04:16 Lots of process in the historic preservation.

19:04:19 Give me your own words.

19:04:20 War when doing?

19:04:21 >>> This is an initiative of HPC, not us.

19:04:26 We did have a lot of meetings with HPC.

19:04:31 They did always want to designate every portion of any

19:04:34 building on the block.

19:04:34 We were consistent from the very beginning that we

19:04:37 have no objection to the Kress.

19:04:39 That's why the Kress has already been designated.

19:04:42 We agreed to that. The reason why the other two have

19:04:44 not been designated is because we have consistently

19:04:46 said we don't want them designated.

19:04:49 Yes, we'll save the facades, incorporate them into our

19:04:52 towers but we don't belief they need to be designated.

19:04:54 >> and what's the difference?

19:04:55 From your perspective.

19:04:57 And, you know, the big cry is property rights, now.

19:05:01 But I haven't heard that tonight, which I'm glad not

19:05:04 to hear it.

19:05:05 What's the difference between what you're offering to

19:05:08 do, perhaps in the rezoning, and what Mr. Shimberg and




19:05:13 your experts have shown us as compared to designation?

19:05:16 >>> I believe it's more complication, more confusion,

19:05:18 more chance for additional conversations like this.

19:05:22 We think we have been clear from the very beginning,

19:05:25 and yet worry here in front of you all and you all are

19:05:28 questioning whether we had ever objected to the.

19:05:30 We did.

19:05:31 We objected from the very beginning.

19:05:32 So every time we have to face a new board, and with

19:05:34 the designation, we would be facing A.R.C.

19:05:37 It's just additional requirements.

19:05:39 We just don't want to have to do that.

19:05:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

19:05:43 You're not saying -- when we initiated, this we voted

19:05:46 on this.

19:05:47 It's the only time we voted on it and we sent it over

19:05:50 to Planning Commission.

19:05:51 You didn't object then, did you?

19:05:53 >>> We have objected --

19:05:54 >>: Not that day, we initiated, we sent it over.

19:05:57 I asked Mr. Shimberg if you all objected and he said

19:06:00 he didn't recall that.




19:06:01 >>> I don't know if I was Ivan here when that hearing

19:06:04 was going on.

19:06:04 I can't speak to that. I can just tell you from the

19:06:06 time that this whole issue has been brought forward,

19:06:08 we have said we do not want any portion of those two

19:06:11 buildings designated.

19:06:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

19:06:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions by council

19:06:18 members?

19:06:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I just want to correct something.

19:06:22 I've got two Planning Commission reports.

19:06:24 One says the Newberry building was consistent.

19:06:27 And the Woolworth building was inconsistent.

19:06:32 So I wasn't wrong.

19:06:36 I don't know what's right around here.

19:06:38 We are taking them together, Dennis?

19:06:40 We're taking them together.

19:06:42 So are we then voting for item 2 separately and then

19:06:45 item 3 separately?

19:06:47 How are he would doing this?

19:06:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we should take item 2 and

19:06:55 then item 3 in terms of motions.




19:06:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the topic that you are saying --

19:07:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Woolworth.

19:07:07 Newberry.

19:07:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

19:07:12 Rose, do you want to look at these just to clarify?

19:07:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well --

19:07:20 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Can I ask a question, Madam Chairman?

19:07:22 My understanding, and I'm sorry about, Mr. Dingfelder,

19:07:26 about us not objecting at the right time.

19:07:28 I apologize for that.

19:07:29 I think the relevant issue is we are here today. We

19:07:32 are objecting.

19:07:34 My understanding council recently made a policy they

19:07:36 were going to at least not look into it over

19:07:42 objections.

19:07:43 I am not asking you to necessarily do that today.

19:07:45 I am also asking you not to make a finding

19:07:46 inconsistent with that one.

19:07:49 In that case where the owners objected, you decided to

19:07:54 delay those decisions.

19:08:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Petrucha, are you going to

19:08:05 respond to Mrs. Alvarez?




19:08:16 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Let me use the Elmo.

19:08:21 The Woolworths building has got a certified resolution

19:08:24 on the top.

19:08:26 And on the very bottom.

19:08:29 Paragraph on the bottom, the finding of inconsistency.

19:08:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Right.

19:08:34 That's what I said.

19:08:38 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: This is the Newberry building.

19:08:44 Certified resolution on the top.

19:08:45 What you have on page 2 here is not the page 2 of the

19:08:48 resolution.

19:08:49 That's the executive summary, which is the staff

19:08:53 recommendation of consistency.

19:08:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what I got.

19:08:58 >>> Page 2 of the Newberry building -- page 2 of the

19:09:05 Newberry building, this is the resolution.

19:09:07 Page 2 of the Newberry building.

19:09:09 Resolution is inconsistency.

19:09:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for the clarification.

19:09:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thanks for the clarification.

19:09:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions of staff?

19:09:21 Is there a motion to close the public hearing?




19:09:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

19:09:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you want to continue it?

19:09:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who made the motion?

19:09:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion to close and somebody down

19:09:33 there made a second.

19:09:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 2 and 3.

19:09:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second to close the

19:09:41 public hearing.

19:09:42 >>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, no.

19:09:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion would be take each one

19:09:48 individually.

19:09:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then number 2 is the Newberry

19:09:54 building.

19:09:58 Discussion on the Newberry building.

19:10:01 I would like to hand my gavel over for a moment to say

19:10:05 something.

19:10:11 >>KEVIN WHITE: Hand to the me, Madam Chair.

19:10:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Absolutely, Mr. White.

19:10:21 I have been working beginning, very recently working

19:10:25 very hard with Ms. Miller who is in charge of that

19:10:30 portion of city government to improve the process and

19:10:34 make the A.R.C.'s process more user friendly.




19:10:37 But in the interim, while we are working on making

19:10:39 this process more user friendly, the only guarantee we

19:10:44 have to keep historic buildings intact is to designate

19:10:49 them and protect them.

19:10:53 I know that the petitioner is going to be working with

19:10:56 preservation architects on the Kress building.

19:10:59 This building is right next door.

19:11:01 It is important, I think, for our community, for the

19:11:06 City of Tampa that we main as much historic fabric as

19:11:10 we can.

19:11:10 It's been stated on the record that this is one of the

19:11:13 few decco facades in the community.

19:11:15 I know that other communities have successfully saved

19:11:20 the facades of buildings and built new buildings

19:11:23 behind them.

19:11:23 I have seen in the Philadelphia, Boston and New York.

19:11:26 And based on the competent substantial evidence of our

19:11:30 staff, based on the fact that this is a very rare and

19:11:34 special facade in downtown which is going to change

19:11:37 dramatically in the future, this is significant from

19:11:40 our past, I would move to support the staff

19:11:42 recommendation to landmark this.




19:11:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

19:11:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: Motion and second. All in favor of the

19:11:48 motion?

19:11:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does this require reading of the

19:11:53 ordinance?

19:11:54 I believe it does.

19:11:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

19:11:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's usually opportunity for

19:12:06 discussion on the motion.

19:12:06 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you.

19:12:08 Mr. Dingfelder, that was a motion, and a second.

19:12:11 Then there's an opportunity for question on the

19:12:12 motion.

19:12:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm going to support this.

19:12:23 Brought to my attention, first of all, I think this

19:12:26 was initiated by the owners.

19:12:28 I think they gave their approval or it wouldn't have

19:12:33 gone that much further.

19:12:34 And you know how I feel about they have -- it's got to

19:12:38 be voluntary or else I wouldn't do it.

19:12:41 Second of all I was swayed by the argument that these

19:12:43 buildings could be sold and not be protected.




19:12:47 So there's always the chance.

19:12:50 And I believe somebody made the argument, too, that

19:12:57 there's a lot of building going on, but not a lot of

19:12:59 them are coming to fruition.

19:13:01 So these buildings are very, very precious to the

19:13:06 downtown area.

19:13:07 And for that fact, and for the fact that you never

19:13:13 know whether the buildings are going to go on, the

19:13:17 development is going to go on, I'm going to support

19:13:19 this, because I think they need to be protected.

19:13:25 >>KEVIN WHITE: Other council members have comments?

19:13:26 Mr. Dingfelder?

19:13:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought the tough one was going

19:13:35 to be later, the Harbor Island bird issue.

19:13:40 But on my way over here, I was listening to NPR, and

19:13:44 there was a little piece about five minutes long

19:13:46 talking about preserving a sense of place in the State

19:13:51 of Florida.

19:13:52 And it talked about all sorts of old things that are

19:13:56 near and dear to us: University of Tampa, and other

19:14:00 things around the state, the old hotel down in

19:14:06 Sarasota, the art museum down in Sarasota, those types




19:14:08 of things.

19:14:09 A sense of place.

19:14:11 What does it mean?

19:14:12 It means what we were.

19:14:16 What we were as a state and what we were as a city.

19:14:21 And then, you know, you contrast that with he would

19:14:26 want downtown development, he would want those

19:14:30 residences, the residential to be built.

19:14:34 We have a developer here who has already pretty much

19:14:37 voluntarily saved the Kress building in between.

19:14:42 And now we have probably two lesser buildings on

19:14:45 either side of it.

19:14:48 We had asked them to save the facade.

19:14:50 It's not very clear in the rezoning.

19:14:55 Unfortunately it's not abundantly clear in the

19:14:57 rezoning, you know, what they will do exactly.

19:15:01 Mr. Shimberg and his client are on record tonight with

19:15:05 their structural engineer saying they want to preserve

19:15:08 the facade, they just don't want to go through the

19:15:13 A.R.C. and all the bureaucracy.

19:15:15 They'll have to, I guess, on the Kress.

19:15:17 Is that correct?




19:15:18 Okay.

19:15:20 I guess it's a long way of saying sometimes I guess

19:15:25 you have to trust folks for what they say, and their

19:15:30 word.

19:15:32 And I guess I'm willing to trust the developer and

19:15:35 their attorneys and their engineers to say if they

19:15:38 want to preserve their facades then they are going to

19:15:41 preserve these facades.

19:15:43 I would rather not reject this petition.

19:15:46 I would rather defer it until they are done with their

19:15:49 construction and see if the remaining facade is

19:15:53 something that could be still be preserved.

19:15:57 But in light of all that, I'm not going to support the

19:16:00 motion.

19:16:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: Do any other council members have

19:16:07 comments?

19:16:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would just like to address Mr.

19:16:07 Dingfelder.

19:16:07 First of all one of the experiences we have all had

19:16:09 today is watching the Maas brothers building come

19:16:12 down.

19:16:12 Maas brothers is one of our outstanding downtown




19:16:15 structures.

19:16:16 We have very, very few things left.

19:16:17 And these are high quality.

19:16:19 And the HPC is not asking that the entire building be

19:16:23 saved.

19:16:23 Just the facade.

19:16:24 This has been done successfully in other places.

19:16:27 They are asking for veneer.

19:16:29 Their engineers already figured out how to do it.

19:16:32 And I think to respect our history, we need to support

19:16:35 the staff recommendation on this.

19:16:37 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Ferlita.

19:16:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:16:43 I think the part about this that confuses me, and we

19:16:45 have gone through many of these historic designation

19:16:48 attempts versus property rights versus something else.

19:16:50 But the late coming about what they want to do to one

19:16:53 building and to another building and totally in

19:16:56 contrast confuses me.

19:16:58 I think a lot of council members' positions tonight

19:17:01 confuse me but that's another story.

19:17:06 I'm concerned if in fact that's what the historic




19:17:10 designation is about, Ms. Saul-Sena, that's what you

19:17:13 just addressed, that we are in the process of

19:17:16 struggling with property rights versus historic

19:17:18 designation when you have the same owner.

19:17:21 It's okay with this in one location and directly next

19:17:24 to it they are not.

19:17:27 I don't understand that.

19:17:29 And I think from the standpoint of struggling between

19:17:32 what's right and what trumps something else. The late

19:17:37 coming of this request disturbs me.

19:17:38 I don't know what's going on, if there's perhaps the

19:17:40 possibility of a sale or not, strictly speculating on

19:17:44 my part.

19:17:45 But I'm going to have to support the motion.

19:17:52 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mrs. Saul-Sena?

19:17:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:17:55 Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

19:17:56 designating the facade, the property known as the J.J.

19:18:00 Newberry building located at 815 North Franklin

19:18:02 Street, Tampa, Florida, as an addition to the North

19:18:05 Franklin Street, downtown local landmark, multiple

19:18:09 properties group as more particularly described in




19:18:11 section 3 hereof as a local landmark, providing for

19:18:13 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for

19:18:16 severability, providing an effective date.

19:18:19 >>KEVIN WHITE: Motion and second.

19:18:20 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

19:18:23 All opposed Nay.

19:18:24 Motion passes unanimously.

19:18:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:18:28 I'll trade you this for the gavel.

19:18:34 >>> Number 3, please.

19:18:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

19:18:40 Number 3.

19:18:42 Motion from council, the public hearing has already

19:18:45 been closed.

19:18:48 We have already closed it.

19:18:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record, Madam Chairman, you

19:18:52 have returned the gavel from Mr. White.

19:18:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes. Would any council member like

19:18:58 to make a motion on the ordinance number 3?

19:19:01 Okay, Mrs. Alvarez.

19:19:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: (Off microphone) Move an ordinance of

19:19:07 the, 801 North Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida as an




19:19:16 addition to the north Franklin Street downtown local

19:19:19 landmark multiple properties group described in section

19:19:22 3 hereof as a local landmark providing for repeal,

19:19:26 providing for severability, providing an effective

19:19:27 date.

19:19:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:19:30 There's been a motion and discussion.

19:19:32 Any discussion?

19:19:33 All in favor say Aye.

19:19:34 Opposed, Nay.

19:19:35 Passed unanimously.

19:19:36 We are going to take a five-minute break.

19:19:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you should tell people what

19:19:40 we are going to hear and not hear.

19:19:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, I'm so sorry.

19:19:44 I am so sorry.

19:19:45 Number 1, I believe is going to ask for a continuance.

19:19:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Why don't we go through that?

19:19:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

19:19:54 Mr. Michelini?

19:19:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Boyle.

19:19:59 Do you want to take a break now or go through it --




19:20:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are just taking a five-minute

19:20:06 break and come back and deal with the rest of the

19:20:08 agenda.

19:20:08 (City Council recess.)

19:34:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask you to take a

19:34:07 look at tonight's agenda.

19:34:10 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

19:34:11 Good evening.

19:34:12 First off, item number 1.

19:34:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have to do roll call?

19:34:16 Sorry.

19:34:17 Roll call.

19:34:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.

19:34:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

19:34:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

19:34:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

19:34:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

19:34:24 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 1.

19:34:30 Z 05-55.

19:34:31 Petitioner is asking for a continuance.

19:34:34 We do have an open slot for March 23rd.

19:34:41 In the evening.




19:34:42 Petitioner is requesting a day meeting.

19:34:44 I need to look to see if there's any openings for

19:34:47 that.

19:34:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.

19:34:49 Council members?

19:34:51 To have a day meeting I think you need a unanimous

19:34:53 waiving of the rules.

19:34:54 And I won't support that.

19:34:55 >>MARTY BOYLE: We have an opening in the p.m. for the

19:35:01 23rd.

19:35:02 She doesn't support it.

19:35:03 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me speak to the, please.

19:35:06 Council, we have been working very closely with the

19:35:08 homeowners association, and they were supportive of us

19:35:11 going to a day meeting.

19:35:17 We have already had two meetings with them.

19:35:17 We have a third meeting scheduled this coming Monday

19:35:17 and they are here to support our request for a day

19:35:19 meeting.

19:35:22 >>> I'm not sworn yet.

19:35:26 I'm president of the homeowners association.

19:35:28 Walter crumbly.




19:35:29 And we said is true.

19:35:30 We have met with him for the last two Mondays.

19:35:33 Hopefully the last meeting this Monday.

19:35:35 And because it's making substantial changes, we have

19:35:40 no objection to the continuance, or to a day meeting.

19:35:52 >>KEVIN WHITE: He said he made a few changes.

19:35:58 >>> You can't see the cast.

19:36:01 (Laughter).

19:36:01 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We had asked for three weeks but

19:36:04 your calendar is very full in three weeks so we were

19:36:07 asking for four weeks where you don't have such a busy

19:36:10 morning.

19:36:11 We are asking for 9:30.

19:36:14 On the 23rd.

19:36:14 But in the morning.

19:36:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 9:30s are second readings.

19:36:26 >> 10:00.

19:36:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have to waive the rules?

19:36:29 >>> No.

19:36:30 Council rules do say that by council's discretion by

19:36:34 unanimous vote these cases may be placed on a future

19:36:38 day agenda, without hardship to interested parties.




19:36:41 You may want to open the floor to see if there's

19:36:44 anyone from the association.

19:36:49 Alvarez.

19:36:50 >> Would you anybody lick to weigh in on this?

19:36:53 >> I November set it for March 23rd at 10:00.

19:36:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second.

19:36:57 All in favor say Aye.

19:36:59 Opposed?

19:37:00 Passed unanimously.

19:37:00 Thank you.

19:37:02 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number had.

19:37:04 Z 05-40.

19:37:05 It cannot be heard.

19:37:06 They misnoticed.

19:37:07 They did come N.they paid their fee and they are

19:37:09 asking to be rescheduled.

19:37:11 They are considered a new case.

19:37:13 The first opening for a new case is April 27th, 6

19:37:16 p.m.

19:37:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

19:37:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: Second.

19:37:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Discussion on the motion?




19:37:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that with full renotice?

19:37:29 >>MARTY BOYLE: They need to notice.

19:37:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So that's signs and mailings.

19:37:35 >>MARTY BOYLE: Yes.

19:37:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 6 p.m.

19:37:41 >> Passed unanimously.

19:37:43 Item 5.

19:37:45 V 06-14.

19:37:46 They did misnotice.

19:37:47 They paid their pay and would be rescheduled, what's

19:37:51 considered new, full notice. The first available date

19:37:53 for that one we have an April 13th, 6 p.m.

19:37:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a quick comment on that one.

19:38:03 Whoever puts together that language on the agenda, if

19:38:05 it's just a flagpole, fine.

19:38:07 When I read the backup on this, it's a cell tower

19:38:13 disguised as a flagpole.

19:38:15 Let's make sure it's properly defined.

19:38:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think the 27th is looking better

19:38:21 than the 13th.

19:38:22 We have quite a few.

19:38:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: April 27th at 6 p.m.




19:38:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

19:38:34 >> There's a motion and second.

19:38:36 Passed unanimously.

19:38:37 Anything else?

19:38:38 >>MARTY BOYLE: Yes.

19:38:41 We have item number 6, Z 06-09.

19:38:46 They are asking for a continuance.

19:38:49 They are here to speak on their behalf.

19:38:52 They are requesting -- there is a spot for a

19:38:54 continuance for March 9th.

19:38:57 But they would like to speak to you.

19:39:00 Petition worry like to speak.

19:39:03 >>> Steve Reynold, here on behalf of the petitioner.

19:39:07 We have been working very diligently towards a public

19:39:09 hearing this evening until two days ago, we found out

19:39:12 we had some issues with our neighbors.

19:39:14 Some of our neighbors.

19:39:16 And we will have a revised site plan available for

19:39:19 filing with the city, modifying a parking garage

19:39:24 component of the design.

19:39:29 We can file that on Monday.

19:39:31 What we need to ask is that we get a waiver of the




19:39:34 13-day prior to filing of the site plan.

19:39:37 It would only be 12 days.

19:39:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does staff have any objections to

19:39:43 that?

19:39:44 >>MARTY BOYLE: The petitioner has come in and

19:39:45 satisfied all but one of the objections, and that was

19:39:49 our objection to the parking garage, and that is what

19:39:52 he's wanting to come in with to modify.

19:39:55 I don't know what the modifications would be.

19:39:57 But we feel like there would be enough time to review

19:40:00 it in that time frame.

19:40:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: According to our schedule, on March

19:40:06 9th we have the community, CDBG funds program at

19:40:10 5:30.

19:40:11 And they ever we have got five continued land use

19:40:16 zonings, and -- land rezoning, five.

19:40:20 So we are booked.

19:40:21 >>MARTY BOYLE: That's correct.

19:40:23 There are five new cases and five -- sorry.

19:40:26 I have four continuances.

19:40:34 It would be a total of ten cases.

19:40:40 >> Plus the CDBG grant.




19:40:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anyone in the audience who

19:40:44 wants to speak to this continuance?

19:40:46 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm representing adjacent property

19:40:49 owners who would prefer that the date be April

19:40:51 13th instead of March 9th.

19:40:53 They believe that there are significant issues that

19:40:56 they would like to meet and address the petitioner on

19:40:59 regarding this project.

19:41:01 And there is a date on the 13th available.

19:41:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Petitioner, how do you feel about

19:41:07 April 13th?

19:41:08 It strikes me that's not a lot of time to get out and

19:41:11 speak to the neighborhood again.

19:41:12 >>> Well, we are hoping we can meet with the owners

19:41:16 early next week.

19:41:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We did a lunch of April 13th this

19:41:24 morning.

19:41:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Marty, do you have the number for

19:41:30 the 13th?

19:41:32 >>MARTY BOYLE: According to what we know are

19:41:33 scheduled, there are ten new cases.

19:41:35 And currently two continuances.




19:41:38 There is room for one continuance.

19:41:47 >> Seven map amendments and two text amendments

19:41:49 scheduled at 5:01.

19:41:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's worse.

19:41:55 How about the second meeting in March?

19:41:57 How are we doing that evening?

19:42:00 >>MARTY BOYLE: Second meeting in March is full.

19:42:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think these days, they are all full.

19:42:10 And it appears that April is more full.

19:42:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't we consider a daytime

19:42:16 meeting for this one?

19:42:17 Is this a true neighborhood issue?

19:42:21 We could consider a daytime meeting.

19:42:23 >>MARTY BOYLE: There does appear to be opposition and

19:42:26 typically we like to go nighttime meetings.

19:42:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But it depends on what type of

19:42:33 opposition.

19:42:34 If it's Mr. Michelini representing immediate adjacent

19:42:36 neighbor, and he's here during the day, he's here

19:42:39 during the night, it's not an issue.

19:42:41 If there's true neighbors, then it's a different

19:42:42 issue.




19:42:43 >>STEVE MICHELINI: They are here.

19:42:45 I would be happy to have them stand up.

19:42:47 They are homeowners in the adjacent --

19:42:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And they prefer night meetings.

19:42:52 Okay, that's fine.

19:42:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do I hear a motion from council?

19:42:57 >>ROSE FERLITA: To do what?

19:42:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To reschedule.

19:43:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to continue to the

19:43:03 27th at 6 p.m.

19:43:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 27th of April?

19:43:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

19:43:09 That will give everybody a lot of time.

19:43:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: Does that create any kind of hardship

19:43:18 for your particular client?

19:43:20 It appears that you're asking for a continuance so you

19:43:22 can work it out with them.

19:43:24 I don't know that you need that much time or they need

19:43:28 that much time to agree with what you have to offer.

19:43:31 >>> We would like to think that we can make our best

19:43:33 offer within the next very few days, and that any

19:43:37 additional time will just be time that they'll be




19:43:39 waiting and we'll be waiting to see how it goes.

19:43:45 We would like to think that sooner would be better

19:43:48 than later.

19:43:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, if I could.

19:43:51 Mr. Shelby will confirm that when you are in front of

19:43:54 a judge and the judge really wants to you resolve

19:43:56 issues, that you -- the judge puts your feet to the

19:43:59 fire and schedules things quickly.

19:44:01 In other words, I think that the best thing to do it

19:44:05 is the earlier date, the March -- is it March what?

19:44:09 March 9th.

19:44:10 Put their photo to the fire.

19:44:11 Let them get it resolved and let's move on.

19:44:13 Because obviously there's no good date March, April,

19:44:16 there's no good date.

19:44:17 Let's just do it.

19:44:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dingfelder, I agree with you but

19:44:20 for different reasons.

19:44:21 I don't think we need to make any comparisons of him

19:44:25 being in front of a judge but it appears if they can

19:44:27 work out their differences I'm agreeing with you for

19:44:29 different reasons.




19:44:30 It appears that every agenda is full during the next,

19:44:33 and as he would continue to procrastinate it gets

19:44:35 worse.

19:44:36 So it looks like maybe this is going to be something

19:44:38 that both parties are not so far apart on.

19:44:41 So I agree with John.

19:44:42 Let's just do it early and just bite the bullet and

19:44:44 let's just go.

19:44:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move that.

19:44:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a motion and second to

19:44:48 continue this hearing until March 9th at 6 p.m.

19:44:51 Any discussion on the motion?

19:44:56 >>> Recommended: I do get the 13 day waiver?

19:44:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

19:45:00 Good question.

19:45:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's a good question.

19:45:04 >>> Any discussion on the motion?

19:45:04 All those in favor say Aye.

19:45:06 Opposed, Nay?

19:45:12 One Nay.

19:45:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have 5:30.

19:45:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: April is worse.




19:45:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anything else?

19:45:24 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item 7.

19:45:26 Z 06-10.

19:45:28 They are also asking for a continuance.

19:45:30 I need to check here real quickly, please.

19:45:33 There would be an available spot for April 27th.

19:45:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would anyone in the audience like

19:45:42 to speak to this continuance?

19:45:45 Do I hear a motion from council?

19:45:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

19:45:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a motion.

19:45:49 Is there a second to continue item number 7 to April

19:45:52 27 at 6 p.m.?

19:45:54 All those in favor say Aye.

19:45:55 Opposed, Nay.

19:46:02 >>MARTY BOYLE: I do have additional.

19:46:04 I'm so sorry.

19:46:04 Item number 10.

19:46:08 Z 06-13.

19:46:09 The petitioner is here, and they are actually going to

19:46:12 be asking for a graphical change waiver.

19:46:17 They have representing themselves, a 13-day rule,




19:46:23 excuse me.

19:46:24 They are representing themselves.

19:46:25 They have worked hard with the staff.

19:46:29 She has worked hard to try to resolve this issue.

19:46:32 There were some late comments coming in from some

19:46:35 different staff.

19:46:36 And that caused the graphical change.

19:46:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you need to do that now?

19:46:43 >>MARTY BOYLE: The last few meetings I have been at I

19:46:46 bring it forward, you can read it and have first

19:46:48 reading a week from now, after we have submitted -- I

19:46:51 submitted a plan.

19:46:52 We have not distributed that plan.

19:46:56 It does appear that the plan resolves the issues at

19:46:56 hand.

19:46:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had an opportunity to chat with

19:46:59 you about this.

19:47:00 And it appears to be extremely minor.

19:47:04 So do I hear a motion to allow the graphical waiver

19:47:07 for tonight?

19:47:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: You said you had actually --

19:47:14 >> I chatted with the staff about it.




19:47:16 We were trying to figure out how to get through

19:47:17 tonight.

19:47:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: I'll go along with it if it's extremely

19:47:20 minor.

19:47:21 I don't want to sit here for potentially an hour for

19:47:24 something that's going to be continued for a week

19:47:26 anyway.

19:47:29 >> I think it's really, really minor.

19:47:32 >>KEVIN WHITE: I'll go with your feeling, Madam Chair.

19:47:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.

19:47:36 >> Second.

19:47:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second to allow them.

19:47:42 Passed unanimously.

19:47:43 >>MARTY BOYLE: I have got more.

19:47:44 Item 12 and item 14.

19:47:47 Item 12 is actually the DRI that belongs with the

19:47:51 rezonings Z 05-179 so they really need to be heard

19:47:55 together.

19:47:55 Of course the DRI first and then the rezoning.

19:47:57 So in clearing the agenda if we could hear those

19:48:01 together, however you want to do that.

19:48:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.




19:48:04 Thank you.

19:48:06 So we are at number --

19:48:13 >>: 6.

19:48:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 8.

19:48:15 There's a motion to open number 8.

19:48:18 Is there a second?

19:48:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we could just swear in the

19:48:21 witnesses.

19:48:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:48:23 Anybody who is going to speak on any of these

19:48:25 hearings, please stand now and get sworn in.

19:48:27 Then when you come to testify, remind us that you have

19:48:29 been sworn in.

19:48:40 (Oath administered by Clerk).

19:48:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's been a motion and second to

19:48:47 open number 8.

19:48:48 Did we vote on that?

19:48:51 All those in favor of opening number 8 say Aye.

19:48:54 Opposed, Nay.

19:48:55 Passed unanimously.

19:48:57 Number 8 is now open.

19:49:00 Buoy Boyle land development.




19:49:01 I have been sworn.

19:49:06 06-11 you are being passed a round the rezoning map

19:49:09 and the aerial.

19:49:09 This is a Euclidean request.

19:49:12 So you will not have a site plan.

19:49:18 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property

19:49:21 from an RS-60 single family designation to RS-50

19:49:27 designation. The property is located at 6107, 6111,

19:49:34 6113, 6115, and 6117 Interbay.

19:49:39 I will show you the aerial.

19:49:44 On the Elmo these are the configurations of the lots.

19:49:48 This is Interbay.

19:49:51 And this is MacDill.

19:49:54 Also on the rezoning map, it shows the ras 60

19:50:01 designation.

19:50:02 You have got commercial neighborhoods to the west.

19:50:05 Commercial general.

19:50:08 All up and down Interbay, there's several commercial

19:50:10 uses.

19:50:12 What the petition worry like to do is to reorient the

19:50:18 lot.

19:50:18 And I'll show that on the Elmo.




19:50:40 It shows the lot on Interbay.

19:50:44 They would like to orient the lot and come off of

19:50:47 6th street, and four coming off of 5th street.

19:50:53 There's a total of seven buildable lots and they are

19:50:55 proposing single family detached structures.

19:51:05 Even though they are going to RS-50 designation three

19:51:08 of the lots are still staying at the 60-foot frontage.

19:51:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Talk fast.

19:51:15 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm sorry, talk fast.

19:51:17 They are located within the APZ 2 zone.

19:51:20 There's a misprint or a typo on your staff report.

19:51:24 It should be 2.

19:51:26 And it not subject to the temporary abatement

19:51:29 ordinance.

19:51:30 Staff has no objections to this.

19:51:33 If you look at the aerial the predominant lots are on

19:51:36 that block of residential on nonconforming.

19:51:39 However, I do have one point.

19:51:41 Stormwater brought to our attention one of their

19:51:45 stipulations, that they want the developer to provide

19:51:48 swale or pipe systems on 5th and 6th and to

19:51:52 regrade existing system to inlets on 5th street




19:51:56 and 6th street.

19:51:56 They ask that staff pass this on to construction

19:51:59 services as part of the record so that at time of

19:52:02 permitting they will be aware of that.

19:52:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:52:07 Planning Commission?

19:52:07 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

19:52:12 Yes, I have been sworn.

19:52:16 Thank you, Mr. Shelby.

19:52:17 Just a couple of additional comments to add to what

19:52:20 Ms. Boyle had stated regarding the future land use

19:52:23 map, we put on land use zoning area along CME 35,

19:52:29 residential 20 which is the dark brown color and

19:52:31 residential 10 which is the orange color.

19:52:34 As she had correctly stated this is located within APZ

19:52:38 2 so it is not within the abatement which is

19:52:40 restricted to APZ 1.

19:52:44 Potentially if this were not in the APZ 2 they could

19:52:47 have potentially requested up to 14 units but since it

19:52:50 is within 10, they are within the restrictions under

19:52:53 the res 10 standards and they are asking for seven

19:52:55 units.




19:52:56 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the

19:52:58 proposed request.

19:52:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Petitioner.

19:53:05 >>> Good evening, Dennis Johnson, 2707 west Azeele.

19:53:11 I'll be quick.

19:53:11 Actually, we have eight conforming lots.

19:53:12 I know that sounds crazy.

19:53:14 We had seven.

19:53:16 There were seven units on the property.

19:53:18 You can see when we purchased them, we met with Gloria

19:53:21 and Susan and we have the ability to do eight

19:53:24 conforming lots under the RS-60 district.

19:53:27 Mike, if you want to show that plan.

19:53:30 We just thought it would be a transportation hazard

19:53:34 back on Interbay.

19:53:35 That's a very congested street.

19:53:36 And also it wouldn't be very neighborhood friendly.

19:53:40 So what we did was reorient working with Susan Johnson

19:53:43 and Gloria, seven bigger lots, because of the curves

19:53:47 in the street, a couple of them don't have 60 feet of

19:53:51 building line but they are all between 7500 and 11,000

19:53:54 square feet so they are huge lots.




19:53:58 It's an interesting project so I won't bore you.

19:54:00 But if you have any questions I will be glad to

19:54:02 answer.

19:54:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you talk to stormwater?

19:54:07 Are you familiar with the comments made?

19:54:10 >>> Actually we spent about four months and went

19:54:12 through clear sailing through everything and we never

19:54:15 heard a word about it.

19:54:16 Susan told us that since it was Euclidean we went from

19:54:20 seven to even seven, it would just be three

19:54:23 single-family homes.

19:54:24 We generously added a 50-foot stormwater easement

19:54:28 ourselves and then ten minutes ago I just heard about

19:54:30 what they mentioned to us.

19:54:31 I'm not really sure exactly what they want but I don't

19:54:33 think we have a problem with it.

19:54:35 I think we'll have plenty of retention.

19:54:36 We may even have enough retention to hold the majority

19:54:39 of water on-site. The only thing to shut off one of

19:54:43 the streets would be the driveways and we would

19:54:46 probably run those down to the culverts which are the

19:54:48 boxes going north on each street.




19:54:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In addition we received

19:54:51 correspondence, and hopefully it's in the record, if

19:54:54 not I'll put it in the record, from Mr. Steenson of

19:54:56 the neighborhood association.

19:54:58 >>> Yes, I met with him.

19:55:00 >> He said they have no objection but they just want

19:55:02 to make sure the construction traffic goes from

19:55:04 Interbay directly onto 5th and 6th and doesn't

19:55:08 cut through the neighborhoods.

19:55:09 >>> To be honest, we are not the builders.

19:55:11 We are land developers.

19:55:12 And this will be built by scar homes, a local Tampa

19:55:16 guy.

19:55:16 They are not here tonight.

19:55:19 >> It's not a PD with conditions but hopefully you

19:55:21 will ask them to do that.

19:55:23 >>> I'll pass it on to them, absolutely.

19:55:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn in.

19:55:27 >>> We have been sworn in, yes.

19:55:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions by council

19:55:32 members?

19:55:32 Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak




19:55:34 on this?

19:55:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

19:55:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second to close.

19:55:40 (Motion carried).

19:55:42 Mr. White?

19:55:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When you ask the builder to do

19:55:48 that, will you put it in writing?

19:55:50 >>> We will do that, absolutely.

19:55:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe at second reading you can

19:55:54 share that.

19:55:58 >>> Want the traffic on Interbay.

19:56:00 So construction on Interbay.

19:56:02 Okay.

19:56:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in

19:56:06 6107, 6111, 6113, 6115, 6117 Interbay Boulevard more

19:56:13 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

19:56:14 district classifications RS-60 to RS-50 residential

19:56:19 single family providing an effective date.

19:56:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say I think this

19:56:26 configuration is much better, with five people backing

19:56:30 out onto Interbay is very scary and you have a couple

19:56:33 of terrific trees just shy of grand but you should be




19:56:36 able to build around them and the new configuration

19:56:38 and the old configuration --

19:56:40 >>> It works bet they are way and the trees work

19:56:43 better as well.

19:56:44 >> Other comments by council members?

19:56:45 All in favor say Aye.

19:56:46 Opposed, Nay.

19:56:47 Passes unanimously.

19:56:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open number 9.

19:56:51 >> Second.

19:56:51 (Motion carried)

19:56:51 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 9.

19:57:08 Z 06-12.

19:57:11 The petition to go from RS-60 to a planned

19:57:17 development. This is, if you will, council, most of

19:57:19 you know it, the Seville apartment condominiums, at

19:57:29 the site.

19:57:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are really familiar with this.

19:57:32 So move faster.

19:57:35 >>MARTY BOYLE: The reason they are proposing to go

19:57:36 from RS-60 to a PD is because of the nonconforming

19:57:42 use.




19:57:44 And so that's the reason behind it. The staff report

19:57:46 that you have in front of you, you do see objections.

19:57:49 However, since the time of staff report, petitioner

19:57:52 has come in and placed notes on the site plan to

19:57:55 alleviate our objection, which was we were asking them

19:57:59 to place a note on the site plan speaking about the

19:58:01 encroachment, and they have done that.

19:58:04 Also, transportation had objections.

19:58:07 They have come in and satisfied their objections.

19:58:10 So we have no objections to it anymore.

19:58:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

19:58:15 Planning staff.

19:58:19 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission.

19:58:23 I have been sworn in.

19:58:27 As Ms. Boyle stated,

19:58:30 This is the state site of the Seville apartments built

19:58:34 in 1926 and part of the historic district, in the Hyde

19:58:36 Park preservation neighborhood.

19:58:38 Predominant use category is residential 35,

19:58:40 recreation, open space, community mixed use 35.

19:58:43 This does not correctly designate -- this is an older

19:58:47 map.




19:58:48 We haven't actually changed.

19:58:49 This color will be this color now to correctly

19:58:51 identify the density for the site.

19:58:55 You did approve the plan amendment request correctly.

19:59:02 The density on the existing site.

19:59:04 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the

19:59:06 proposed request.

19:59:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.

19:59:11 Petitioner?

19:59:11 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: 501 East Kennedy and I have been

19:59:15 sworn and I am here tonight representing the property

19:59:18 owners.

19:59:20 I also have with me engineering.

19:59:24 I know you want me to keep this quick so I will just

19:59:26 remind you the purpose of this rezoning is simply to

19:59:30 address exactly what's there, not to make any changes

19:59:33 to the building, to the landscaping or anything, the

19:59:36 property owners were having trouble because prior to

19:59:39 the plan amendment and this rezoning, this was

19:59:42 considered a nonconforming use.

19:59:44 So if they tried to get zoning letters when they

19:59:48 wanted to refinance, or their insurance company was




19:59:51 questioning, could the unit be rebuilt if the building

19:59:55 was destroyed by fire or hurricane, and without this

19:59:58 zoning, the answer would be no.

19:59:59 Again, I know you want to make this quick but I just

20:00:02 had to show you this great picture that your historic

20:00:04 preservation department found for me.

20:00:09 That's the building in 1926.

20:00:11 I think it actually looks better today with all the

20:00:15 landscaping.

20:00:18 Mrs. Saul-Sena, I thought you might be interested in

20:00:19 this.

20:00:20 We also found the original building plans from 1925

20:00:24 for the building.

20:00:25 It's really amazing that they kept them.

20:00:28 But in any event, again, that's the sole purpose for

20:00:31 this rezoning.

20:00:31 No changes whatsoever to the building are being

20:00:33 proposed.

20:00:34 I did speak awhile back with Anna Thomas from historic

20:00:39 preservation, Inc., and e-mailed back and forth today

20:00:41 with Steve deBILBA with Hyde Park preservation, Inc.,

20:00:49 the neighborhood association.




20:00:51 And it's my understanding they don't have any

20:00:52 objections.

20:00:53 So we would appreciate your approval.

20:00:54 Thank you.

20:00:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe the history museum might be

20:00:58 interested in the plans.

20:01:01 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Yes, isn't that great?

20:01:04 I don't know if I will give them up but I might ask.

20:01:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anyone from the public to

20:01:09 speak?

20:01:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion to close.

20:01:11 >> Second.

20:01:11 (Motion carried).

20:01:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: This is a gorgeous address, by the

20:01:15 wait.

20:01:16 Rezone property in the general vicinity of 902 South

20:01:19 Dakota Avenue city of Tampa, Florida from zoning

20:01:22 district classifications RS-60 single family

20:01:25 residential to PD multiple family residential,

20:01:28 providing an effective date.

20:01:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a second?

20:01:34 >> Second.




20:01:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is such a great

20:01:40 example of preservation.

20:01:41 It's beautiful.

20:01:43 All those in favor say Aye.

20:01:44 Opposed, Nay.

20:01:45 Passed unanimously.

20:01:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to open 10.

20:01:51 >> Motion and second to open number 10.

20:01:52 Passed unanimously.

20:01:53 Thank you.

20:01:59 >>MARTY BOYLE: Item number 10.

20:02:24 Marty Boyle, land development.

20:02:26 I have been sworn.

20:02:26 Item number 10, Z 06-13.

20:02:29 Petitioner is requesting to rezone from an RM-24

20:02:34 multifamily residential to a planned development, a T

20:02:39 he-room, single family detached residential use.

20:02:42 On the Elmo, the site is located south of Kennedy,

20:02:49 along Willow, and it's north of Cleveland.

20:02:51 Just to the north is the fire station.

20:02:56 And the proposed parking will be in this area right

20:03:02 here.




20:03:05 On the Elmo, you will see the zoning map.

20:03:08 RM-24.

20:03:09 This area, there is a planned development below.

20:03:13 There is a PD across the street.

20:03:15 And what you don't see on that aerial, I have pictures

20:03:27 but across the street there's a large three-story

20:03:29 office building being built.

20:03:33 They are asking for this to go to a tea room.

20:03:38 The waiters they are going -- waivers they are going

20:03:40 to need to request are reduce the number of spaces

20:03:44 from 8207, to reduce the drive aisle in the parking

20:03:48 lot from 26 to 24 feet.

20:03:53 The proposed site shows its conversion.

20:03:55 It contains 994 square feet.

20:03:58 The existing building will stay.

20:04:00 There will be no additional additions to it or any

20:04:04 structural changes.

20:04:06 It is one story and it will not be altered.

20:04:10 Like I previously said the parking will be located to

20:04:12 the north but adjacent to the site.

20:04:14 It is the location of the City of Tampa fire station,

20:04:18 and it would provide the eight space it is petitioner




20:04:20 will need for the rezoning request.

20:04:22 The petitioner is entering into a five-year renewable

20:04:25 license agreement with the City of Tampa in order to

20:04:27 have the required parking spaces for the tea room.

20:04:30 There is an unimproved alley to the rear, the property

20:04:35 has future plans improving the alley to provide

20:04:38 parking to the rear of the site. The hours of

20:04:40 operation are shown on the site plan.

20:04:41 They are from Tuesday through Saturday, 11 to 4.

20:04:45 The tea room will have 27 feet.

20:04:49 The site is located within the Hyde Park historic

20:04:51 national district.

20:04:52 It's not locally designated.

20:04:54 Historic preservation had no comments based on the

20:04:56 structure not being altered.

20:04:58 Originally on the site plan, we showed objections.

20:05:03 The petitioner -- this is the waiver of the 13-day

20:05:06 rule.

20:05:06 They did come in with a site plan that addressed one

20:05:12 of the issues that was one of the largest issues, and

20:05:14 that was they showed a dumpster to the rear of the

20:05:18 property.




20:05:18 The alley is not improved so solid waste could not

20:05:21 access the dumpster.

20:05:22 And working with solid waste, they were able to

20:05:25 negotiate, using pull-out parts.

20:05:30 They have shown that on the new site plan.

20:05:33 They have satisfied, to my knowledge, transportation

20:05:37 issues with their notes on the site plan.

20:05:40 And they are satisfied our condition stating that it's

20:05:44 for a tea room or single family residential use.

20:05:49 We also asked to have -- the petitioner place add note

20:05:54 on the site plan stating that in the event the

20:05:56 property is used as a tea room as for the PD so you

20:06:00 need to demonstrate required number of parking spaces

20:06:02 as approved.

20:06:03 In the event the developer cannot demonstrate the

20:06:06 required number of spaces to develop the tea room the

20:06:08 tea room operation shall seas until such time as the

20:06:11 develop Kerr provide the required number of parking

20:06:13 spaces.

20:06:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

20:06:15 Mr. Dingfelder?

20:06:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Boyle, I would suggest, since




20:06:22 they are leasing the parking spaces from the city --

20:06:26 is that correct, from the fire department?

20:06:31 That there's some kind of trigger in the lease, so in

20:06:33 other words at the end of five years if the city for

20:06:36 whatever reason didn't want to renew it that they

20:06:38 would notify zoning, because my guess is that if they

20:06:41 didn't renew it, you guys would never know about it

20:06:45 necessarily.

20:06:46 So I don't know how we do that necessarily in the

20:06:49 zoning.

20:06:51 However, I think you could probably notify the real

20:06:55 estate department when they negotiate the lease to

20:06:57 make sure that somebody notifies planning and zoning.

20:07:02 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.

20:07:03 I have been sworn in.

20:07:04 I think we could address that issue in the lease

20:07:06 agreement.

20:07:07 It has not yet gone before council for approval so we

20:07:10 can address that there.

20:07:11 And that is the reason why we added the note on-site

20:07:14 plan with regard to the need to have that in order to

20:07:18 commence that use, continue that use.




20:07:20 They must always have that parking available to them.

20:07:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So just make sure it's on the

20:07:28 lease.

20:07:30 >>MARTY BOYLE: I don't know if you want to see the

20:07:32 pictures.

20:07:32 I just got them.

20:07:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real fast.

20:07:36 >>MARTY BOYLE: Real fast.

20:07:37 There is the fire station.

20:07:38 This is the parking lot that would be leased.

20:07:44 Where the parking is.

20:07:45 And this is the proposed tea room.

20:07:47 Another picture of the tea room.

20:07:49 This is the building directly across the street, an

20:07:52 office building that's been approved.

20:07:55 And this would show the unimproved alley in the back.

20:07:58 That's why she came up providing parking in the rear

20:08:03 at this point.

20:08:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

20:08:05 Planning Commission?

20:08:07 Excuse me, do you have a question?

20:08:08 Okay.




20:08:10 Planning Commission?

20:08:10 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:08:18 I have been sworn.

20:08:21 Prey dominant land use categories in this area for the

20:08:24 Crosstown Expressway, residential 35 which is what the

20:08:27 subject property consists of, heavy commercial 24 and

20:08:30 urban mixed use 60 which is along the Kennedy

20:08:32 Boulevard corridor.

20:08:35 From a context aspect so you can see Ferman Chevrolet

20:08:39 is located northwest of the intersection of Willow and

20:08:42 Kennedy.

20:08:43 Fire station is here. The adjacent parking area.

20:08:47 This whole area north of Cleveland, south of Kennedy,

20:08:52 and east of the railroad tracks all the way to

20:08:58 Boulevard, away from residential to a great degree,

20:09:01 and a of course low density office uses you all have

20:09:07 recently approved these two parcels over here are for

20:09:10 an attorney's office.

20:09:11 There is an existing attorney's office.

20:09:12 So there is an integration of uses in the area.

20:09:14 The site does meet locational criteria since Willow

20:09:18 and Cleveland are correct, in close proximity to those




20:09:24 proposed corridors.

20:09:25 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the

20:09:27 proposed request.

20:09:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you so much.

20:09:30 Petitioner, come forward.

20:09:31 Give us your name and address.

20:09:33 >>MARTY BOYLE: If I may, council.

20:09:35 I need to make it clear that you did waive the 13-day

20:09:39 rule.

20:09:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, we did.

20:09:40 >>MARTY BOYLE: We are hearing it now but it would have

20:09:43 to come back for the ordinance to be revised.

20:09:48 It can come back in a week's time two, weeks' time but

20:09:51 if there is no opposition I guess it could be daytime

20:09:56 depending on what council wants to do.

20:09:56 >> Petitioner.

20:09:58 >>> I'm Pam Cannella, 108 south Willow and I have been

20:10:01 sworn in.

20:10:02 Basically, everything has been said for me.

20:10:06 Is there any questions?

20:10:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll see.

20:10:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anyone from the




20:10:10 neighborhood, from the audience who would like to be

20:10:12 speak on this item?

20:10:13 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.

20:10:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a motion to close.

20:10:17 >> Second.

20:10:17 (Motion carried).

20:10:25 >>KEVIN WHITE: Send to legal to prepare the ordinance.

20:10:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

20:10:28 (Motion carried).

20:10:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do we want to set to a certain date

20:10:40 and time?

20:10:41 Or is it not necessary for this?

20:10:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Next Thursday the morning meeting.

20:10:44 >>MARTY BOYLE: That's good.

20:10:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that in your motion?

20:10:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

20:10:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

20:10:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It will come back next Thursday

20:10:53 morning.

20:10:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 11.

20:10:57 >> Second.

20:10:58 (Motion carried).




20:10:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 11 is now open.

20:11:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good luck with your project.

20:11:27 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

20:11:28 I have been sworn.

20:11:30 This is a petition to rezone from RS-50 to a planned

20:11:34 development.

20:11:35 There are no waivers requested with this petition.

20:11:38 The petitioner is proposing to rezone a property

20:11:40 located at 308 and 310 west Sligh Avenue and 219 west

20:11:45 elm street from residential RS-50 to PD.

20:11:49 For RS-50 zoning designation, requirement of 50 feet

20:11:53 of front and 5,000 square feet.

20:11:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have site plans?

20:11:58 Anybody have site plans?

20:12:03 They are PD.

20:12:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have it.

20:12:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

20:12:10 Sorry.

20:12:11 >>MARTY BOYLE: That's okay.

20:12:13 These plotted parcels measure 50 feet wide and 90 feet

20:12:16 deep.

20:12:17 I'll show you in the Elmo.




20:12:19 Actually let me show you the location so you can get

20:12:22 your bearings first.

20:12:23 I'm sorry.

20:12:25 West Sligh Avenue.

20:12:26 This is Florida.

20:12:27 It is just west of Sligh.

20:12:30 To your west is the Hillsborough River.

20:12:32 Do you have the bridge that comes over this area.

20:12:36 There are two lots located right here.

20:12:39 And one block, elm trees.

20:12:44 The reason they are coming forward with the PD, all of

20:12:46 the lots within the subdivision were platted 90 feet

20:12:52 deep and 50 feet wide so they have 50 feet of

20:12:55 frontage.

20:12:55 They do not have the minimum parcel size.

20:12:58 All the lots within that subdivision are considered

20:13:02 nonconforming.

20:13:04 The two lots on Sligh, however, measure around 86 feet

20:13:08 deep because there was a previous right-of-way taken.

20:13:15 The proposed structures have front yard setbacks that

20:13:19 were derived using the block averaging mechanism, as

20:13:24 promoted in section 27-77 table 4-2.




20:13:28 It is in the Seminole Heights overlay district.

20:13:31 The front yard setbacks of existing structures along

20:13:35 Sligh Avenue range from 30 feet to five feet. The

20:13:38 proposed structures will remain -- will maintain 21

20:13:42 feet, 20 feet and 19.5 feet front yard setbacks. The

20:13:46 rear yard setbacks are 23.5, 20 feet and 21 feet.

20:13:51 The side yard setbacks range from 10 feet to 8.9.

20:13:55 And there is one lot, 12, that has a side yard setback

20:13:59 of 6.3.

20:14:01 99% of the lots within the tuxedo springs subdivision

20:14:04 are nonconforming.

20:14:07 At the time of the staff report we had objections.

20:14:09 However, petitioner has come forward and under land

20:14:13 development you saw an objection about needing an

20:14:17 accurate tree survey, about the tree table not being

20:14:20 correct.

20:14:20 The petitioner has come in before the 13 days and they

20:14:23 took care, placed a note on the site plan taking care

20:14:26 of that.

20:14:28 Stormwater, they revised the site plan to correct

20:14:31 that.

20:14:33 And that resolves any objection that is staff had.




20:14:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

20:14:37 Mr. Dingfelder?

20:14:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The report seems to indicate that

20:14:47 we would be approving some tree removals.

20:14:50 Is that correct?

20:14:51 >>MARTY BOYLE: Mary Daniel is here and she reviewed

20:14:59 this thoroughly.

20:14:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you could perhaps put the map up

20:15:02 and show us.

20:15:03 It's a busy site plan.

20:15:07 It's about having trouble finding trees that will be

20:15:09 removed.

20:15:10 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, I went over this and I could not

20:15:12 find it.

20:15:12 I've had this lady show me where they are.

20:15:14 It's the most confusing site plan I have ever seen.

20:15:18 Mary Daniels Weiss, land development, tree and

20:15:23 landscaping, and I have been sworn.

20:15:26 >> So this slide is to the north, to the top?

20:15:28 >>> Correct.

20:15:29 There are several trees that are in poor condition.

20:15:31 And severe decline.




20:15:37 There are several trees that are in severe decline

20:15:40 that are being removed that we didn't object to.

20:15:46 The site plan originally did not have all the trees

20:15:48 identified correctly.

20:15:50 And we had the petitioner revise the site plan showing

20:15:55 those trees.

20:15:56 And the trees that were being -- some of the trees

20:16:00 that were being removed were incorrectly identified on

20:16:04 different lots.

20:16:05 And they have since fixed that problem.

20:16:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I see a 30-inch oak tree on the

20:16:11 debit side of things.

20:16:12 Sound like it's being removed.

20:16:14 >>> It is being removed.

20:16:15 That is right here.

20:16:18 >> And that's between two houses, two proposed houses.

20:16:22 Why have they taken it out?

20:16:25 >>> It is because it is in severe decline.

20:16:27 >> And is it a protected tree or grand tree?

20:16:30 >>> It is a protected tree, not a grand tree.

20:16:32 >> And then what other major trees are there that are

20:16:34 being removed?




20:16:37 >>> There are actually two 30-inch trees, very close

20:16:40 together.

20:16:42 One of them is on lot 11 and the other is on lot 26.

20:16:52 >> Do you have any pictures of the trees?

20:16:54 >>> Yes, I do.

20:17:09 Apparently I don't have any pictures in the file.

20:17:11 The lots are heavily overgrown.

20:17:18 It was difficult to get into the lots.

20:17:20 But --

20:17:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the 24-inch oak?

20:17:25 I guess that's lot 12?

20:17:28 >>> Okay.

20:17:35 That is also one that is in decline.

20:17:41 >> Are there any trees being left?

20:17:43 >>> Yes, there are.

20:17:47 There's a 35-inch oak on lot 12.

20:17:51 There's a pecan tree on lot 12.

20:17:54 There's a 16-inch oak that's on lot 26.

20:18:00 A 30-inch oak.

20:18:07 The lot is littered with citrus trees which are being

20:18:10 removed.

20:18:10 They are not protected.




20:18:14 And we are asking for replacement trees.

20:18:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Planning Commission?

20:18:35 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:18:37 I have been sworn.

20:18:38 The predominant land use category for this entire

20:18:42 site, which is within Seminole Heights, greater

20:18:45 Seminole Heights area, because you have three

20:18:47 neighborhood associations here, but specifically it's

20:18:49 in Old Seminole Heights.

20:18:52 The predominant land use category is residential 10.

20:18:57 I wanted to show you and give you a little -- this

20:19:01 gives you a little perspective because that other one

20:19:04 was not zoomed out far enough to show you the

20:19:06 relationship of the Hillsborough River so now you can

20:19:08 see this.

20:19:10 There has been quite a bit of this occurrence in the

20:19:12 area and this particular developer has worked with the

20:19:18 associations as far as conformance to the residential

20:19:20 guidelines.

20:19:21 As far as compatibility with the surrounding uses, it

20:19:23 is consistent with that.

20:19:24 The only concern that we have, we believe that has




20:19:26 been addressed under site plan, is the proximity of

20:19:29 the bridge to the site with the two lots, the

20:19:34 ingress-egress, from the driveways of these two

20:19:38 particular parcels, onto Sligh.

20:19:41 You know that Sligh is a pretty busy arterial.

20:19:45 So there's a little bit of a visual impediment as one

20:19:49 goes over the bridge.

20:19:51 But that has been addressed as far as, from way

20:19:53 understand, by the applicant as far as how the

20:19:57 vehicles will maneuver within the lots.

20:20:00 And I think they'll probably speak to you from that

20:20:03 particular issue.

20:20:04 Planning Commission staff has no objection to the

20:20:05 proposed request.

20:20:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There are any council member

20:20:09 questions?

20:20:09 I have a question for Ms. Boyle before we get to the

20:20:12 petitioner.

20:20:12 And that is, it appears from the site plan that there

20:20:17 are just going to be ribbon driveways and it doesn't

20:20:20 appear that there's alley access so are people going

20:20:23 to back out onto sly?




20:20:26 Oh, I'm sorry.

20:20:28 >>MARTY BOYLE: It would be backing out onto Sligh.

20:20:32 >> Didn't transportation have a problem with that?

20:20:35 >>MARTY BOYLE: They did not object to that.

20:20:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there somebody from

20:20:39 transportation who can tell me why they didn't object

20:20:41 to that?

20:20:44 That was Mrs. Alvarez's question.

20:20:47 I read her mind.

20:20:50 >>> We are getting Melanie Calloway.

20:20:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like staff to come into the

20:20:55 room and be here for the remainder of the meeting.

20:20:57 No fair not being here.

20:21:00 Mrs. Alvarez has a question.

20:21:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: (Off microphone).

20:21:08 >>MARTY BOYLE: I will let the petitioner speak to

20:21:11 that.

20:21:11 She will probably be able to do her presentation, if

20:21:13 you will, please.

20:21:18 I'll let petitioner speak and then come back with

20:21:20 Melanie.

20:21:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sure.




20:21:22 Petitioner?

20:21:26 >>> Jenny Murphy, I'm an agent for the petitioner.

20:21:30 >> Speak directly into the mike.

20:21:31 >>> I'm an agent for the petitioner regarding property

20:21:33 at 308 west Sligh Avenue.

20:21:35 I have been sworn in.

20:21:36 We are requesting to rezone the properties from RS-50

20:21:39 to PD in order to build three single family

20:21:43 residential homes, on the four platted buildable lots.

20:21:49 The two properties on Sligh as Marty mentioned are 50

20:21:52 by 86 feet deep.

20:21:53 The one on elm is 50 by 90 feet deep.

20:21:56 They are originally platted like that.

20:21:58 With the exception that four feet was taken from the

20:22:01 Sligh properties for the Sligh road expansion.

20:22:04 And as they also showed you, all of the lots in that

20:22:08 area are also nonconforming.

20:22:10 They are also do not meet the minimum square footage,

20:22:13 5,000 square feet.

20:22:17 And they are three bedroom houses.

20:22:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You said they were three bedroom, two

20:22:27 bathrooms?




20:22:28 >>> Three bedroom, two bath, yes, ma'am.

20:22:30 >> And downtown have a garage or carport or anything

20:22:33 like that?

20:22:34 >>> We actually don't have a carport on this one or a

20:22:36 garage.

20:22:39 >> On the three house that is you are building?

20:22:39 >>> Yes.

20:22:39 No garage.

20:22:40 They are bungalow style houses.

20:22:42 Without a garage.

20:22:43 >> Is there on-street parking there?

20:22:45 >>> No, there's not.

20:22:46 And actually to address the parking issue, we have

20:22:49 drawn up a preliminary, or just something to show you

20:22:52 where we could put somewhere for people to maneuver

20:22:55 around.

20:22:56 There wasn't enough radius for to us do like a circle

20:22:58 driveway but I have a site plan where we could do like

20:23:01 a concrete parking pad just to get people enough room

20:23:04 to be able to maneuver around so they don't have to

20:23:06 back out onto Sligh.

20:23:09 And Mr. Barrett is here from the neighborhood




20:23:13 association to speak.

20:23:14 They would be willing to waive the standard they

20:23:16 usually ask for, the ribbon driveways in order for the

20:23:18 safety issue to allow to us put a parking pad on

20:23:21 there.

20:23:21 >> So you would have tandem parking?

20:23:25 >>> If you want to see the site plan.

20:23:29 We sketched on there we where we could do a concrete

20:23:39 parking pad.

20:23:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's like a swingout in the front

20:23:44 yard, right?

20:23:54 >>> Basically here's the two properties.

20:23:55 They are still going to have the ribbon drive.

20:23:59 So they will be able to move in and back out.

20:24:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that like a concrete square

20:24:04 front yard?

20:24:05 >>> It's just a pad.

20:24:07 >> Well, is it a concrete square in the front yard?

20:24:10 >>> Yes.

20:24:12 >> That's not con congruent with the -- do the

20:24:17 historic people know this?

20:24:18 >>> I don't know if the historic people said anything




20:24:21 about it but the person from the association --

20:24:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We will let him speak for himself.

20:24:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: When you have a three bedroom, two

20:24:33 bath house, you normally have at least three people

20:24:36 that are driving.

20:24:37 So where would they park?

20:24:39 Would they park on the street?

20:24:40 >>> No, actually, the ribbon driveway is consistent to

20:24:44 allow two people to park one behind the other and fit

20:24:46 two cars up on the drive.

20:24:49 >> Park on the drive?

20:24:50 >>> On the ribbon driveway, yeah.

20:24:56 >> So you're planning a parking pad in the front?

20:25:00 >>> Well, if the board allows us to do that tonight.

20:25:03 For safety issues, to allow people to be able to

20:25:06 maneuver around.

20:25:07 >> And what about landscaping?

20:25:09 Are you planning on any landscaping on this thing?

20:25:12 >>> We'll probably have landscaping.

20:25:14 Like I said, we went back and forth whatever ways that

20:25:19 we could get some sort of turnarounds on there and we

20:25:21 just don't have enough radius to do a half circle




20:25:25 drive.

20:25:25 >> I don't think a half circle drive would have been

20:25:27 compatible with this either.

20:25:30 Thank you.

20:25:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I'm thinking is, you have a

20:25:40 problem there.

20:25:41 And I'm thinking -- but you also have a PD.

20:25:44 And since you have a PD, maybe the two neighbors could

20:25:46 share, or something.

20:25:50 I mean, did you all look into that at all, as a

20:25:52 possibility that you could have some sort of cross

20:25:56 easement access, that sort of thing, to better resolve

20:26:01 that issue as opposed to the concrete pads that Mrs.

20:26:05 Saul-Sena brought up?

20:26:07 >>MARTY BOYLE: If I could just speak for a minute.

20:26:10 Marty Boyle, land development.

20:26:12 Just in refreshing your memory which you probably

20:26:14 already know.

20:26:14 Seminole Heights overlay district doesn't require

20:26:17 carports, doesn't require garages.

20:26:19 I realize the Sligh issue that you are talking about

20:26:22 but in the Seminole Heights area, there are many, many




20:26:25 bungalow style homes without garages, without

20:26:27 carports.

20:26:28 >> But they don't back out onto Sligh necessarily.

20:26:31 >>> And I understand your point on Sligh.

20:26:33 But just to refresh your memory.

20:26:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: They also don't have concrete pads in

20:26:40 the front yard.

20:26:40 >>> I think she was trying to pose it as an

20:26:43 alternative in case tissue came up.

20:26:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other comment I was going to

20:26:48 make, I am on a 50-foot lot and I have a ribbon

20:26:55 driveway and a portico, a little carport on the side,

20:26:59 that's built in a consistent manner, and sort of a

20:27:03 historic consistent manner with the rest of the house.

20:27:07 And I think that it adds a lot to the house without

20:27:13 intruding on the neighborhood, the garage is totally

20:27:16 opened, that sort of thing.

20:27:18 So is that something you all have looked at?

20:27:20 >>> It is something that we looked at, and we are

20:27:23 thinking of incorporating things like that into our

20:27:27 future models.

20:27:28 We worked diligently with the neighborhood association




20:27:30 and came up with other alternatives, changes to the

20:27:32 house that's more in style with the Old Seminole

20:27:34 Heights neighborhood association.

20:27:36 >> This bungalow is okay.

20:27:37 But I would just suggest that we could make the

20:27:40 improvement today if you included the portico on

20:27:44 there.

20:27:45 But let's see what the neighborhood --

20:27:48 >>> Would you like me to submit these elevations into

20:27:51 the record?

20:27:52 These are the ones we negotiated with Old Seminole

20:27:53 Heights neighborhood association.

20:27:57 Saul-Sena Saul-Sena are those the ones we have?

20:28:00 >>> We just finalized and they are negotiated the

20:28:02 changes.

20:28:04 >>MARTY BOYLE: Just to let you know, staff has not

20:28:06 seen these elevations, just to go on record.

20:28:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Neighbors, please come, give us

20:28:13 your name and address.

20:28:15 You have three minutes.

20:28:16 >>> Good evening.

20:28:17 Randy baron, Old Seminole Heights neighborhood




20:28:20 association, president.

20:28:20 Mr. Shelby, I have not been sworn.

20:28:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If anybody else wants to be sworn,

20:28:26 this is your swearing opportunity.

20:28:28 Please stand up and be sworn.

20:28:30 >>THE CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,

20:28:33 the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

20:28:36 >>> Yes.

20:28:39 We worked with New Millenial on this particular

20:28:43 project.

20:28:44 The two sites on Sligh are difficult mostly because

20:28:49 that hill by the bridge.

20:28:51 And we were concerned about that.

20:28:53 There is -- there really is no easy way to solve that

20:28:57 absent putting some sort of circular driveway in.

20:29:00 The parking pad option is probably the safest, and if

20:29:04 properly landscaped, we have no objections to that for

20:29:07 the two Sligh, because there's really no other safe

20:29:11 way to put cars on those two lots and have them back

20:29:14 out into traffic safely.

20:29:16 At least with the parking pad they can pull in, and

20:29:18 they can back out on the ribbon driveway and go out in




20:29:22 a forward fashion hopefully.

20:29:24 As you know, we are concerned about line of site and

20:29:27 streets in Old Seminole Heights.

20:29:30 With respect to the plan itself, we have no

20:29:33 objections.

20:29:36 We also work with New Millenial to add some space on

20:29:41 their front porch.

20:29:43 As you know, they have a standard model that they just

20:29:46 in all their areas, and they kind of put accouterments

20:29:53 on them.

20:29:54 They have what we call the porch yet, which is the

20:29:56 3-foot porch that they can barely get a chair on.

20:30:00 The house on elm has a full size porch, at least in

20:30:05 terms of width.

20:30:06 It doesn't go all the way across the house.

20:30:08 But we are hopeful that once they build one house with

20:30:13 a full size porch, they will understand that they

20:30:15 can -- it will be a profitable model and they will

20:30:19 start putting full size porches on the rest of their

20:30:21 houses.

20:30:22 They have also agreed to put some additional things

20:30:28 just to make the houses fit in more with the




20:30:30 neighborhood.

20:30:32 There is no requirement under the overlay to do this.

20:30:34 And we are hopeful that New Millenial is moving in a

20:30:41 new direction with some of these models.

20:30:42 I don't know what to say about the parking issue on

20:30:46 the Sligh issue.

20:30:47 We are concerned about that.

20:30:48 And I would suspect that anyone who purchases those

20:30:50 two homes will be concerned.

20:30:52 But I don't know what the solution to that is absent

20:30:56 just not letting anyone park or figuring out some way

20:30:59 to get access out to the side street, which I don't

20:31:02 think is possible.

20:31:05 So absent that, we have no objections.

20:31:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, did you ever

20:31:12 discuss the idea of a portico share?

20:31:17 >> There's no requirement to put a portico share.

20:31:20 We have suggested it.

20:31:22 And we have suggested many changes.

20:31:25 We don't like the fact there's a hip on the back of

20:31:27 the house instead of a full gabled roof.

20:31:30 We think that a full gable would look better, and more




20:31:34 consistent.

20:31:35 We would like the front porch to be the entire width

20:31:38 side to side of the house.

20:31:39 That would be more consistent, we think.

20:31:42 But again there's no requirement under the overlay to

20:31:44 do that.

20:31:45 In fact there's no requirement for a front porch,

20:31:47 although we like to see that in the overlay, also.

20:31:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yeah.

20:31:52 >>> That's something we are looking into with land

20:31:54 development to add that.

20:31:56 But, yeah, we have been trying to evolve their model,

20:32:01 so to speak.

20:32:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Baron, do you know of any -- what

20:32:08 type of homes they have around these lots that they

20:32:10 are planning to build these homes on?

20:32:12 >>> Along Sligh, there's some concrete block, 50 style

20:32:20 homes along Sligh.

20:32:21 Along elm, of course, that has more historic

20:32:24 structures.

20:32:24 That's why we were more concerned with making sure the

20:32:27 house on elm had some additional detail.




20:32:32 And I believe they added a roof vent, on the front of

20:32:37 that.

20:32:37 And I thought there was going to be some sort of --

20:32:42 right.

20:32:42 I thought there was going to be some sort of plat ago

20:32:46 long the side that was kind of a faux siding effect.

20:32:50 It's going to go on at least one of the homes.

20:32:53 Is that correct, Ms. Murphy?

20:32:54 Okay.

20:32:55 So it's not going to be that concrete block look that

20:32:59 most of the New Millenial Homes have, but as you look

20:33:04 at the back it all looks like blocks.

20:33:07 So they are skin coating it and putting some sort of

20:33:10 covering on it.

20:33:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that what Simonticious is?

20:33:19 >> I believe that is. And congratulations on

20:33:24 pronouncing that correctly on the first try.

20:33:24 >> I never heard of that either.

20:33:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions?

20:33:28 Next neighbor, come on up.

20:33:29 Please give us your name and address.

20:33:33 >>> Stanley Gow, I have been sworn in, I am actually a




20:33:37 property owner currently. The lots on Sligh Avenue,

20:33:39 there's currently a stucco house on lot 11 that has a

20:33:43 ribbon driveway that backs out onto Sligh.

20:33:47 There are four houses to the east of that house that

20:33:51 has the same or worse condition.

20:33:53 So given that, I mean, if this doesn't go through,

20:33:58 then that house is going to stay there.

20:34:01 If new millennium build the three houses, they will

20:34:04 destroy that house and remove it and make a better

20:34:07 condition there than exists at this point.

20:34:12 That's my comment.

20:34:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

20:34:15 Next.

20:34:21 >>> John Marino.

20:34:22 I was sworn about three hours ago.

20:34:25 I'm a neighbor.

20:34:26 I live over at 207 west elm street, just up the street

20:34:31 from their lot 26 or 25.

20:34:34 I was basically here to find out what was going on

20:34:36 with the elm street side, because when I first got the

20:34:39 notice in the mail about the 307 west elm, when I

20:34:43 brought it up on the Hillsborough County property




20:34:46 appraiser web site, I saw it entails four properties.

20:34:50 Now why are we just talking about three when all the

20:34:53 maps are showing four?

20:34:56 Two on elm and two on Sligh?

20:35:01 FROM THE FLOOR: On the tax roll, the lots --

20:35:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Please put that on the record.

20:35:14 >>> Lot 11 and 12, and 26 are the subject lots.

20:35:19 I own the four lots.

20:35:20 But the fourth lot, number 25, is not in question, is

20:35:24 not for sale, and no contract on it.

20:35:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

20:35:28 Sir, do you have any other comments?

20:35:30 Do you support this?

20:35:33 >>> Well, I wasn't sure what PD was.

20:35:34 Which PD is it?

20:35:35 There's about ten or twelve of them, right?

20:35:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This particular one that's before

20:35:43 juice if you bring up PD as a classification on the

20:35:45 web site, where I look, there's a list of PDs.

20:35:48 Which one is this PD?

20:35:50 >> This is residential single family.

20:35:52 This picture.




20:35:53 >>> I didn't know if it was going to be commercial or

20:35:55 what it was.

20:35:57 No, that answers everything I've got.

20:35:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

20:36:01 Anybody else care to speak on this petition?

20:36:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

20:36:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.

20:36:10 We have our staff.

20:36:11 Talk to us about backing out onto Sligh.

20:36:14 >> Melanie Calloway, transportation.

20:36:16 I have been sworn.

20:36:18 I thought the same thing when I first looked at it.

20:36:22 I went out into the field and looked.

20:36:23 And here's a picture.

20:36:26 And this is the existing condition.

20:36:31 >> Is that you in the rearview mirror?

20:36:34 >>> Yes.

20:36:37 (Laughter).

20:36:39 >> Were you eating and talking on the cell phone at

20:36:41 the same time?

20:36:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Looked like a private detective.

20:36:48 >>> Here's the house over here.




20:36:49 There are several -- I think he have I have talked

20:36:55 about this before. The familiarity of living in a

20:36:57 house, and you're familiar with the conditions around

20:36:59 you.

20:37:00 Because you live there.

20:37:01 You're there every day.

20:37:02 You back out into it.

20:37:03 The people who buy this house are very aware of what

20:37:08 Sligh looks like.

20:37:08 It's four lane road.

20:37:10 They are very aware of how that works.

20:37:12 They may provide a turn-around and they may use that

20:37:16 the way, if the pad is there or not.

20:37:18 They may use it for maneuvering if they would like to

20:37:20 do that.

20:37:21 But again you live in that area, you buy the house,

20:37:24 now writs located, you're familiar with the area.

20:37:26 So backing out would be -- you would be used to that.

20:37:31 Thank you.

20:37:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you close.

20:37:35 Madam petitioner?

20:37:40 I mentioned the portico share. The neighborhood




20:37:44 mentioned the size of the porch.

20:37:48 This is a PD.

20:37:49 So everybody had some flexibility in terms of what

20:37:51 you're proposing or whatever.

20:37:53 What is the size of the porches that are on this site

20:37:57 plan that you're asking us to approve on Sligh?

20:38:04 >>> It's two feet, from five feet to seven feet deep.

20:38:08 The one on elm is going to have a seven foot deep

20:38:10 front porch.

20:38:11 The two are five feet.

20:38:14 That's our stand.

20:38:15 >> So the five feet is your standard.

20:38:17 >>> Uh-huh.

20:38:17 >> Is there a reason you can't make those seven feet

20:38:20 so they are a little more consistent with the

20:38:21 traditional neighborhood?

20:38:23 >>> We can consider making some changes to our

20:38:25 bungalow style houses.

20:38:26 And Mr. Baron was concerned about the one on elm that

20:38:29 we were able to do that for him on that one.

20:38:32 >> I know.

20:38:32 But if you have a design that will work on elm, and we




20:38:35 approve this with the seven foot porch on Sligh, it

20:38:39 sounds like could you do that, too.

20:38:41 >>> Well, there's also the taking of Sligh of four

20:38:45 feet so that's an extra two feet.

20:38:48 So we would have to change our setbacks.

20:38:51 >> We change your setbacks.

20:38:52 >> Then we would be open to doing that.

20:38:54 >> The other question, is there any logistical reason

20:38:57 why you couldn't put the portico shares to accommodate

20:39:01 the little carport, now, to match?

20:39:04 >>> Well, we are thinking of things like that for

20:39:08 future models.

20:39:09 I mean a lot of times the end user will add garages,

20:39:13 add carport, that kind of thing and it's something

20:39:15 we'll discuss in the future.

20:39:16 And we are going to work with Mr. Baron after this

20:39:19 meeting, to see about changes in our style.

20:39:22 >> Hopefully the next time we see you will come back

20:39:25 with portico shares.

20:39:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you happen to have any pictures of

20:39:31 your other homes that you built?

20:39:35 >>> I do have a picture of a bungalow style home.




20:39:39 This is similar to what is going to be built on these

20:39:52 properties.

20:39:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.

20:39:58 Thank you.

20:39:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions by council

20:40:02 members?

20:40:04 >> Move to close.

20:40:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So -- okay.

20:40:07 Well, let's deal with it then.

20:40:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a motion to close.

20:40:12 Is there a second?

20:40:14 >>> I just wanted to remind you guys that these are

20:40:16 buildable lots of record and we are working with the

20:40:18 neighborhood association.

20:40:19 We have made some design changes to accommodate that.

20:40:21 We are complying with all of the city's departments,

20:40:25 in the comprehensive plan as well as the neighborhood

20:40:26 association for these lots.

20:40:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

20:40:29 Move to close.

20:40:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a motion and second to

20:40:32 close.




20:40:33 Excuse me, yes.

20:40:35 Did you speak?

20:40:36 >>> I'm the western neighbor to this development.

20:40:40 I just want to -- if you are going to turn everything

20:40:43 into PD, that's all four lots.

20:40:45 Is that it?

20:40:50 What's happening to the fourth one?

20:40:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The gentleman says it's not part of

20:40:54 the site plan.

20:40:54 It's not part of what's in front of us tonight.

20:40:57 They have the two lots on Sligh. The fourth lot is

20:40:59 not in front of us.

20:41:00 You have to ask him but it's not before us.

20:41:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anybody else from the

20:41:07 neighborhood or anyone who would like to speak on

20:41:09 this?

20:41:09 Okay.

20:41:12 You've already spoken.

20:41:13 You only get one shot.

20:41:14 There's a motion and second to close.

20:41:16 All in favor say Aye.

20:41:17 Opposed, Nay.




20:41:20 Mr. Dingfelder.

20:41:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move to approve this with a

20:41:24 modification in the site plan which I think can just

20:41:27 be done with a quick note saying that all three front

20:41:32 porches would be seven feet deep, at least seven feet

20:41:35 deep.

20:41:36 You can put that with a note and not a graphical.

20:41:39 Say all three front porches will be seven feet deep.

20:41:42 And then you don't have to start over.

20:41:46 >>MARTY BOYLE: Change the setbacks?

20:41:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.

20:41:49 It doesn't change the setback.

20:41:50 It just -- because there is no setback.

20:41:54 There is no standard setback.

20:41:55 It's whatever it is on the site plan.

20:41:57 >>MARTY BOYLE: On the plan development when they go to

20:42:00 construction services they look to see their setbacks

20:42:03 and if we show on the site plan it's 21.5 feet --

20:42:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right, make the change and come

20:42:10 back in a week.

20:42:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a second to that?

20:42:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that enough time?




20:42:16 Just continue it so they can revise the site plan,

20:42:20 bring it to staff.

20:42:21 Two weeks?

20:42:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that a question for petitioner

20:42:25 whether petitioner is going to do that?

20:42:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.

20:42:27 We already resolved that.

20:42:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: She said they could.

20:42:34 Is there a second?

20:42:36 >> Second.

20:42:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you address the question of

20:42:40 pads no, pads?

20:42:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right now it does not include a pad

20:42:44 so I think it will not include a pad.

20:42:47 >>MARTY BOYLE: Daytime reading?

20:42:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two weeks.

20:42:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two weeks would be March 9th.

20:43:00 10:00.

20:43:02 Is there any more discussion on the motion before us?

20:43:07 All those in favor say Aye.

20:43:08 Opposed, Nay.

20:43:09 Passed unanimously.




20:43:10 Thank you.

20:43:13 Okay.

20:43:14 We have an interesting question.

20:43:15 Do we go with number -- the we are requested that we

20:43:19 take two things together.

20:43:28 Number 12, and number 14.

20:43:33 Okay.

20:43:34 We are going to go ahead with number 13.

20:43:42 Council?

20:43:42 We are going to go ahead with number 13.

20:43:45 It's a continued public hearing from January 26th.

20:43:50 Staff?

20:43:51 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm coming.

20:44:23 Thank you.

20:44:31 Land development.

20:44:31 I have been sworn.

20:44:32 This is a planned development office.

20:44:36 It is going to a planned development.

20:44:38 Multifamily.

20:44:43 It is the property of 2907 west Bay to Bay Boulevard.

20:44:46 They are asking to construct a 27-story residential

20:44:50 tower and associated parking garages.




20:44:53 Petitioner is proposing an 84-unit structure, which

20:44:57 will -- the units will vary from 17 Hawn square feet

20:45:01 to 3400.

20:45:05 The there will be a pickup and drop-off part I can oh

20:45:12 share.

20:45:13 If you want to be look at the he will movement it is

20:45:15 located -- you're very aware.

20:45:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It wasn't that long ago.

20:45:25 >> Council directed staff, or the petitioner, excuse

20:45:26 me, to -- when they were here before there were

20:45:30 graphical changes needed.

20:45:31 There was concern that the fire department for the

20:45:34 circular drive.

20:45:35 They weren't showing a grand tree in the protected

20:45:39 radius.

20:45:40 Let me just refresh my memory.

20:45:41 There was concerns with solid waste in the dumpster

20:45:45 where it was located.

20:45:46 Since that time, they did submit a plan.

20:45:48 They did -- were able to remove all the objections

20:45:54 except for the Planning Commission, and land

20:45:56 development.




20:45:57 And that was pertaining to the height of the

20:46:00 structure.

20:46:00 We found that it wasn't consistent with the

20:46:02 surrounding area.

20:46:03 We felt it was too tall.

20:46:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Planning Commission.

20:46:08 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.

20:46:20 I have been sworn.

20:46:21 Briefly, because you are familiar with the site.

20:46:24 Again when you look at the context of this, we realize

20:46:27 that the Presbyterians towers are a little east of

20:46:31 this site.

20:46:32 It has been there for quite a significant period of

20:46:34 time.

20:46:35 The highest structure adjacent to this is a little bit

20:46:38 further down to the west.

20:46:39 That is only at a maximum height of 250 feet.

20:46:41 The proposed height for this particular site, which is

20:46:44 not on Bayshore, but on Isabella, would be 300 feet

20:46:49 making it one of the tallest structures on Bayshore,

20:46:52 and not exactly on Bayshore.

20:46:54 Due to its location and the context and the




20:46:56 relationship of the existing uses and the site plan,

20:46:59 Planning Commission staff found it incompatible with

20:47:01 its location.

20:47:02 Planning Commission staff objected to the proposed

20:47:04 request.

20:47:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Council members, do you have any

20:47:07 questions?

20:47:10 I have a question.

20:47:10 Okay, Mr. Dingfelder.

20:47:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Actually, I can hold it for the

20:47:16 developer.

20:47:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question to you is what is the

20:47:20 height of the senior high-rise that's located to

20:47:22 the --

20:47:25 >>> I think it's 17 stories.

20:47:27 >> Do you know what the height is?

20:47:28 >>> 17 stories, approximately 10-foot, I think it

20:47:30 would not be in excess of 200 feet.

20:47:34 It would be well under 200 feet.

20:47:36 >> Do you know what the setback is on that structure?

20:47:38 >>> No, ma'am, I do not.

20:47:39 >> Do you know what the F.A.R. is?




20:47:45 >>> No, historically on that piece, that was

20:47:46 constructed way before -- prior to 1989 when we did

20:47:50 conformance so I really didn't have elevations.

20:47:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.

20:47:55 Petitioner.

20:47:57 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 South Franklin Street.

20:48:01 I would like to introduce the team that's here

20:48:02 tonight, the developer, Steve Sloddy of Southeast

20:48:04 Capital in Atlanta.

20:48:06 Jay Taggart is the current owner of the property. In

20:48:11 addition, Ray Cohen is our traffic consultant who is

20:48:13 here as well.

20:48:14 Again we are requesting to amend the PD to eliminate

20:48:16 100,000 square feet of office and replace it with 84

20:48:19 residential units.

20:48:20 Since last hearing as Marty said we removed objections

20:48:23 from fire department, solid waste, and the Parks

20:48:26 Department on the tree issue.

20:48:28 Just to clarify that, the initial reading we got, that

20:48:31 oak tree is in the right-of-way and a power line.

20:48:35 Initial reading was that it could be removed.

20:48:38 Later the Parks Department requested that it remain.




20:48:40 We decided to abide by that, and we are keeping the

20:48:45 tree.

20:48:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is the tree?

20:48:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right there.

20:48:55 Do you have a photograph?

20:49:16 >>> Right here.

20:49:17 This is Isabel A.bay to Bay.

20:49:20 The tree is in the city right-of-way.

20:49:22 You can see the power lines there and there.

20:49:24 But we do have a plan that parks signed off on to keep

20:49:28 the tree.

20:49:30 Next, I wanted to clarify, an issue came up.

20:49:33 I believe, Mrs. Saul-Sena, you raised it on the

20:49:35 entitlement so they remain intact and what the stat

20:49:39 with us those is.

20:49:40 We did meet with land development as well as the city

20:49:42 attorney's office, the 100,000 square feet of office

20:49:45 do Rae main.

20:49:46 We would have to comply within current code, as it

20:49:49 comports to stormwater, as well as to landscape.

20:49:53 The site plans already been approved for the office,

20:49:56 which deals with parking, things of that nature.




20:49:59 And so really the other two would be stormwater, as

20:50:02 well as landscaping.

20:50:07 And another point of clarification, the developer has

20:50:16 gone above and beyond that and has identified in the

20:50:19 site plan additional areas that he would like -- we

20:50:23 worked with the neighborhood on those, various

20:50:25 transportation improvements that would be over and

20:50:27 above what code would require, and those of course

20:50:31 would not be required if it were to go forward.

20:50:34 Just want to make that point as well.

20:50:36 Lastly before I turn things over, just wanted to

20:50:40 clarify a misconception that seemed to be raised the

20:50:43 last time, as to whether we bullied the neighborhood

20:50:47 into this decision, and the fact of the matter is, Jay

20:50:50 Taggart bought the property, it was already entitled

20:50:54 for office development, Shatish came along to see if

20:51:06 they would want the residential or the office.

20:51:08 They are in support.

20:51:09 As far as being bullied or anything like that, there

20:51:12 was absolutely none of that.

20:51:13 We just went to them, hat in hand, laid out what the

20:51:19 developer was initially intending to do and what




20:51:21 Shatish was proposition to do and that's where we are

20:51:26 tonight. With that I'll turn things over to Shatish.

20:51:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Gardner, you probably went over

20:51:33 this last time and I apologize for not being here.

20:51:36 How tall as building A and building B, the two

20:51:39 existing buildings?

20:51:45 >>> Three stories and five stories.

20:51:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Building A is only five stories?

20:51:58 Five stories.

20:51:59 Okay.

20:52:01 And Mr. Gardner, Mr. Garcia didn't necessarily have

20:52:05 the answer but perhaps you know.

20:52:07 Do you know how tall the nearby -- closest --

20:52:14 >>> The Presbyterian towers?

20:52:17 I actually drove by there today.

20:52:19 I don't know in feet but in stories I counted 16.

20:52:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought you might know.

20:52:32 Thank you.

20:52:36 I would like to submit a handout for you all.

20:52:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sure.

20:52:43 >>> My name is Shatish Loddy.

20:52:51 I want to reiterate what Truett said earlier that the




20:52:54 property is currently zoned for 100,000 square feet

20:52:56 office condominium.

20:52:57 All the entitlements are in place.

20:52:59 And I approached Joe about the opportunity to purchase

20:53:02 this site to do a residential development with the

20:53:06 idea that that might be a project that would be not

20:53:10 only economically viable, but would be a project that

20:53:13 would be welcomed by the neighborhood as a much

20:53:16 preferable alternative to 100,000 square foot office

20:53:20 building.

20:53:21 Joe was kind enough to give me the opportunity to

20:53:24 present that idea to the neighborhood, which I did

20:53:26 almost eight months ago.

20:53:28 And over the course of eight months, I've worked hand

20:53:30 in hand with the neighborhood to develop a plan that

20:53:35 not only addresses concerns related to my specific

20:53:41 development, but also addresses a number of

20:53:44 preexisting concerns, specifically traffic, throughout

20:53:49 the neighborhood, and actually even outside the

20:53:51 neighborhood.

20:53:53 So as you hear tonight from other neighbors, you will

20:53:56 hear the number one concern of neighbors is traffic.




20:54:01 And that traffic concern exists with or without my

20:54:05 project.

20:54:06 And it's a concern that I have worked very diligently

20:54:10 with the neighborhood association to address to the

20:54:13 best of my ability, because as you will hear from many

20:54:16 of the neighbors who speak tonight, they feel like the

20:54:19 city has not addressed those traffic problems over the

20:54:22 12 years that they have been complaining about them.

20:54:26 There's a number of reasons why I think this property

20:54:30 and this petition has the favorable support of the

20:54:32 neighborhood as demonstrated by their vote at their

20:54:35 annual meeting a few months back.

20:54:37 And I've trade to enumerate those in the handout that

20:54:39 Mr. Gardner passed out.

20:54:41 Number one, there's an opportunity here to correct a

20:54:46 perceived mistake of the past that allowed for this PD

20:54:50 to be done that permits 100,000 square foot office

20:54:54 building in this neighborhood.

20:54:56 You know, nobody created that.

20:54:59 It's something that existed for a long time.

20:55:03 But we are sitting here today with an opportunity --

20:55:06 an opportunity to correct that, and put a use in there




20:55:08 that is more compatible, and more in keeping with what

20:55:11 the neighbors would prefer to have in their

20:55:15 neighborhood.

20:55:16 This represents a significant down-zoning from a very

20:55:21 high intensity use being an office building to a much

20:55:24 lower intensity use of 84 residences.

20:55:27 As I mentioned, the number one issue that you will

20:55:29 hear from the neighbors tonight, as I have heard over

20:55:31 the past eight months, is traffic.

20:55:34 This neighborhood has a lot of cut-through traffic, a

20:55:37 lot of traffic.

20:55:41 Traffic is their number one concern.

20:55:42 Under the current zoning that is approved, you're

20:55:46 looking at potentially 1900 to 2,000 car trips a day.

20:55:54 As determined by Randy Coen who did our traffic study.

20:55:56 The residential development would result in 1400 fewer

20:55:59 car trips per day, which is extremely significant.

20:56:05 In addition to such a drastic reduction in car trips,

20:56:09 I have agreed with the neighborhood and the city's

20:56:11 request for a significant number of off-site

20:56:14 improvements to correct preexisting traffic problems.

20:56:18 Many of these are outlined on the site plan.




20:56:22 And if I could ask Randy Coen to come and speak for a

20:56:28 few minutes to walk through what those traffic

20:56:30 improvements are, both on-site and off site, to

20:56:33 address the problem of failing intersections at

20:56:37 McGill -- or MacDill and Bay to Bay, cut-through

20:56:41 traffic on palm, and a number of other things

20:56:45 including nonconform parking spaces on Isabella,

20:56:48 et cetera.

20:56:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Didn't you make this presentation

20:56:51 last time?

20:56:52 >>> No.

20:56:53 He wasn't at the meeting last time.

20:56:59 >>> Randy Coen, Cohen and company, and I have been

20:57:02 sworn.

20:57:03 I was not at the hearing the last time around.

20:57:06 Let's just quickly go over the transportation.

20:57:09 One thing mentioned was the intersection of

20:57:13 MacDill and Bay to Bay.

20:57:14 Actually the intersection has level of service E

20:57:18 currently is Bayshore and Bay to Bay.

20:57:20 One of the conditions that we have is at the time of

20:57:22 the first building permit, Mr. LODDY's company will




20:57:27 provide $50,000 to the City of Tampa for improvements

20:57:30 at Bay to Bay, and Bayshore.

20:57:32 The city has looked at doing pedestrian improvements

20:57:35 there as the primary, pedestrian signals, crosswalks,

20:57:40 traffic signals, things of that nature.

20:57:43 The second item is to place a four-way stop sign at

20:57:47 Barcelona.

20:57:48 And Isabella, which is a great deal of cut-through

20:57:52 traffic that utilizes Isabel.

20:57:55 Also happens to be a bus route so we have to be very

20:57:57 sensitive to the things we can and cannot do to this

20:57:59 route since we have a prohibition of heavy trucks on

20:58:03 Bayshore itself.

20:58:05 Another item is along Isabella itself to create left

20:58:09 turn lanes where appropriate from Isabella so a

20:58:11 left-turning car into the site will not impede folks

20:58:14 that are using Isabella being residents of Isabel @.

20:58:17 Another important item is that this particular

20:58:20 intersection, which is the primary driveway serving

20:58:22 the two parking structures, is that it will be

20:58:25 designed such that you'll be able to make a left in, a

20:58:29 right in, but only a right turn out, thereby reducing




20:58:33 the probability of folks coming through Isabella to

20:58:37 try to go to the east and around Bayshore.

20:58:44 Going to the other items, four-way stop.

20:58:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many spaces are along Isabella

20:58:52 right now, adjacent to building B, what will be the

20:58:58 middle building, I guess?

20:59:00 >>> There are actually 14 spaces there today.

20:59:02 Those are all to be removed under this opposition.

20:59:06 >> And turning around back there?

20:59:10 >>> Yes, sir.

20:59:10 They will be on what is the street here which is

20:59:12 currently, if you will, a surface parking lot.

20:59:17 This will be the street, parking garage to the

20:59:19 residential tower will be here with the residential.

20:59:23 >> Those ostensibly will be public spaces?

20:59:26 >>> The residential, I believe will be public spaces.

20:59:29 The office -- these will be public.

20:59:32 These will be on demand spaces.

20:59:35 >> For the office.

20:59:35 >>> For the office user primarily and visitors to the

20:59:37 office.

20:59:42 These will not be private spaces although it's with




20:59:44 the existing office building itself plus a parking

20:59:46 structure that's for the office building to replace

20:59:48 the parking that's there.

20:59:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess what I'm confused about is

20:59:53 number 6, you say create an opportunity to provide

20:59:56 parking during non-business hours to replace parking

20:59:59 lost at patriot park.

21:00:02 You said that they wouldn't be available to the

21:00:04 public?

21:00:05 >>> No, no, they are available to the public.

21:00:06 I'm saying --

21:00:08 >>: Just after hours.

21:00:09 >>> Yes, after hours.

21:00:10 Of course when the office is there, it's parking for

21:00:12 the office.

21:00:13 When the office is not there, all surface parking is

21:00:16 easily available for everyone.

21:00:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does building B have access in that

21:00:22 direction so somebody could walk in the building from

21:00:25 parking along that little street there?

21:00:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It does now.

21:00:30 >> It does?




21:00:30 Great.

21:00:31 >>> It does at this point.

21:00:32 As a matter of fact, that's the predominant parking is

21:00:34 the surface parking on this area, as well as this lot.

21:00:38 So the building is already oriented.

21:00:40 This is actually a good use of structured parking,

21:00:42 pretty convenient for the folks that are there.

21:00:46 The existing office buildings.

21:00:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions from council

21:00:50 members?

21:00:57 >>> As Randy mentioned, there are a number of both

21:01:00 on-site and off-site traffic improvement that we have

21:01:03 agreed to implement in consultation with the

21:01:05 neighborhood to be try and address many of their

21:01:08 concerns.

21:01:10 I need to be clear that none of these traffic

21:01:12 improvements are a requirement of the office PD.

21:01:18 In addition to the off-site and on-site traffic

21:01:21 improvements and working with the neighborhood, we

21:01:23 have also agreed to a number of streetscape

21:01:26 improvements along Isabella in order to again improve

21:01:31 the neighborhood.




21:01:32 And as you can see on the site plan, many of those

21:01:36 Randy has already touched on including the elimination

21:01:39 of the spaces that were on Isabella, creation of a

21:01:44 sidewalk, extensive planting of trees, connecting that

21:01:48 sidewalk all the way to Bay to Bay, and all the way

21:01:51 back to Barcelona, crosswalks at Barcelona and

21:01:56 Isabella, all of these things in an effort to meet the

21:02:00 neighborhood's desire to create a much more

21:02:02 pedestrian-friendly environment on Isabella, and

21:02:05 provide a safe and convenient way for the residents of

21:02:08 the neighborhood to access Bayshore.

21:02:14 As Mr. Dingfelder noted, as part of this

21:02:17 redevelopment, we do create the opportunity to provide

21:02:21 parking to the public for using -- for meeting the

21:02:27 parking needs of Bayshore, people who want to use

21:02:30 Bayshore, and replacing the parking that's potentially

21:02:33 going to be lost as a result of the proposed

21:02:35 redevelopment of the patriot park.

21:02:38 And Mr. Taggart, the owner of the office building, has

21:02:41 been generous enough to propose that that opportunity

21:02:45 could be worked out with the city to allow for

21:02:49 off-hours parking, to relieve a major concern of not




21:02:54 only residents, the people from outside the

21:02:58 neighborhood who want to make use of that amenity.

21:03:01 The building as it's situated provides an excellent

21:03:05 buffer between neighborhood and the Crosstown

21:03:07 Expressway.

21:03:09 As you can see from the photograph where the

21:03:13 residential building will actually go, is set back

21:03:17 significantly from Bayshore, again being sensitive to

21:03:21 the concerns of a canyon effect developing along

21:03:25 Bayshore.

21:03:25 In fact, the residential tower sits back hear, backing

21:03:32 up basically to the Crosstown Expressway, providing

21:03:36 what the neighborhoods have acknowledged is a nice

21:03:39 buffer to the highway.

21:03:42 There's been much concern expressed about the height

21:03:45 of the building.

21:03:46 And we have explored the height of the building and

21:03:49 the design of the building, really from day one with

21:03:52 the neighborhood.

21:03:53 The existing PD allows for either the office building

21:03:58 or 84 units.

21:04:00 And from an economic standpoint, it was critical that




21:04:05 the 84 units be developed on the site.

21:04:08 And in close consultation with the neighborhoods over

21:04:11 several months, the question was posed to them, how

21:04:15 best to Do we put 84 units on this property and make

21:04:18 it something that's a positive addition to the

21:04:20 neighborhood?

21:04:21 And the overall conclusion was that the most preferred

21:04:26 design was a tall, thin building that did not bring an

21:04:32 imposing mass at the street level.

21:04:38 And also ensuring that the streetscape was consistent

21:04:42 and upgraded from what it currently is.

21:04:45 And with those concerns and those overriding concerns

21:04:48 expressed by the neighborhood, that is the direction

21:04:50 that we drove our design, and that design does result

21:04:54 in a 300-foot tall building, and it's a small

21:04:58 footprint building.

21:04:59 There's only four homes per floor, and the intent was

21:05:02 to live up to the neighborhood's concerns about having

21:05:06 a building that was short and fat, and took up the

21:05:10 entire block, and represented just an imposing mass at

21:05:14 the street level.

21:05:15 By doing the taller and thinner structure, it also




21:05:19 allows us significantly more room on the site to do

21:05:24 more landscaping, plant more trees, and provide a much

21:05:28 nicer streetscape and pedestrian environment, as

21:05:34 demonstrated on the landscape plan that we have

21:05:37 proposed to implement.

21:05:39 Again the building design features a lot of glass,

21:05:43 again to give it an open and airy look as opposed to a

21:05:47 big solid concrete block, and really the overriding

21:05:54 design factors have been to try and meet the

21:05:57 neighborhood's desire for something that would fit

21:06:01 into the neighborhood, and not be imposing.

21:06:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.

21:06:07 Madam Chair?

21:06:08 Thank you.

21:06:11 You had mentioned repeatedly that you have approval,

21:06:14 or has approval right now of 100,000 square foot

21:06:19 office building.

21:06:21 >>> That's correct.

21:06:21 >> Is there a height limitation on the a proved -- is

21:06:27 there a height limitation on the approved 100,000

21:06:30 square foot office building?

21:06:32 >>> The plan that was approved for the office




21:06:34 building, I believe, is 150 feet?

21:06:39 It's 16 stories, or 150 feet, and represents a mass

21:06:45 that takes up the entire block.

21:06:51 >> Is there a clarification?

21:06:56 FROM THE FLOOR: 115 feet.

21:06:58 >>> I'm sorry.

21:06:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 115 feet that you can build today.

21:07:05 Thank you.

21:07:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have you submitted pictures of

21:07:09 elevations? You have this map up here but what we

21:07:11 have doesn't show any landscaping.

21:07:13 There are no notations.

21:07:15 Do we have a copy of that in our packet?

21:07:17 That's a question for staff.

21:07:22 We don't have a site plan that indicates landscaping

21:07:24 and we don't have a rendering of a facade on any

21:07:29 elevation.

21:07:31 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

21:07:31 To answer your question, there's been several

21:07:33 continuances.

21:07:34 We did get elevations originally.

21:07:36 But we have got one left.




21:07:38 I don't believe -- I believe the rendering is -- what

21:07:42 did you submit to us, what you showed?

21:07:50 That's what we received.

21:07:54 >>> Truett Gardner.

21:07:55 We turned in various iterations of the site plan, one

21:07:57 a full package showing elevation, the colored site

21:08:00 plan, as well as individual unit layouts.

21:08:04 And --

21:08:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have something that shows

21:08:07 what's happening on the pedestrian level?

21:08:11 >>> The best representation is what's on the Elmo now.

21:08:14 >> Well, do you have anything that shows what's

21:08:15 happening on Isabella?

21:08:19 >>> That's what this is.

21:08:20 >> Yes, but that's if you're up real high.

21:08:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the bird's eye view.

21:08:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A pedestrian on the street that

21:08:28 shows the front of the building, if you're a

21:08:30 pedestrian on the street.

21:08:36 >>> No, we did not do a rendering from the street.

21:08:38 We did this in planned view primarily because we

21:08:40 wanted to be able to identify specific location where




21:08:42 is we had agreed to plant trees.

21:08:46 >> We don't have a copy of that.

21:08:48 >>> That's what this site plan was.

21:08:50 And it was submitted.

21:08:50 >> I don't know why council doesn't have it but we

21:08:52 don't have it.

21:08:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Didn't we ask you a few weeks ago to

21:09:02 lower the height of this thing?

21:09:07 I thought we talked about the height, that it was too

21:09:09 high for this neighborhood.

21:09:11 >>> Gardner: We did talk about the height of the

21:09:13 building and the concern over the height of the

21:09:14 building, and in fact in looking at neighboring areas

21:09:21 I would disagree that the height of the building is

21:09:23 inconsistent with the other projects on Bayshore.

21:09:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's not on Bayshore.

21:09:30 >>> Exactly.

21:09:30 And this project being off of Bayshore potentially is

21:09:34 even less of an issue given the height of the building

21:09:37 and the fact that the does back up to the Crosstown,

21:09:40 given the concern of creating this perception of a

21:09:43 canyon effect directly on Bayshore.




21:09:46 If you look at the projects that are on Bayshore, the

21:09:50 Stovall just south of the project almost he can which

21:09:54 distance as the Presbyterians Towers is 22 stories.

21:09:57 There are a number of buildings that are 22, 26, 23,

21:10:02 24, 23.

21:10:03 As you know, the recently approved project, Bayshore

21:10:06 and plat, is 26 stories being done by crescent.

21:10:11 All of these projects are on Bayshore, whereas the

21:10:13 project that we're proposing to do is actually off of

21:10:17 Bayshore, preserving the low density development that

21:10:22 fronts directly onto Bayshore.

21:10:25 >> No matter what you say, it's still too high.

21:10:27 It's not compatible with that neighborhood.

21:10:32 >>> And in talking with the neighborhoods, their

21:10:34 preference was a building of this height -- versus

21:10:37 something shorter and fatter.

21:10:39 And quite honestly, my position was to try and make a

21:10:43 deal and do something that the neighbors were in favor

21:10:46 of.

21:10:48 And that's where we ended up.

21:10:53 The project is, I believe, consistent with the other

21:10:55 projects that had been constructed, and that have been




21:10:58 approved.

21:10:59 It's 84 units.

21:11:03 It represents a change in use from a very high

21:11:05 density, high intensity use to very low intensity use.

21:11:09 This project represents almost nine months of

21:11:14 committed effort between myself and the neighborhood

21:11:16 association to come up with a plan that meets their

21:11:20 needs, because they are the one that is have to live

21:11:23 it with every day.

21:11:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's right.

21:11:27 >>> It represents a design that addresses their

21:11:29 traffic concerns which have gone unaddressed.

21:11:31 It represents something that will result in 1400 fewer

21:11:36 car trips per day than what is currently approved on

21:11:39 that site.

21:11:41 And as we have said all along, the property was

21:11:46 purchased to defend, not to hold.

21:11:50 Some one what you or another something needs to

21:11:52 happen.

21:11:52 I am not involved in the office development at all in

21:11:55 any manner whatsoever so I have no vested interest in

21:11:57 whether the office gets built or not.




21:12:00 You know, we saw this as an opportunity to do

21:12:02 something that would be much more compatible with the

21:12:06 neighborhood than 100,000 square foot office building.

21:12:09 And I think the neighborhood saw the same when they

21:12:11 were presented with this opportunity as represented by

21:12:15 their near unanimous vote in favor of this project as

21:12:19 designed at their annual meeting last year.

21:12:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could we see if there's neighbors

21:12:26 to speak on this?

21:12:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: Are you finished with your

21:12:30 presentation?

21:12:33 >>> I'm through.

21:12:35 >>KEVIN WHITE: Is there anyone in the public to speak

21:12:37 on this petition?

21:12:38 Please start lining up and come up to be heard,

21:12:40 please.

21:12:50 And please, for the record, please state that you have

21:12:51 been sworn in so Mr. Shelby won't have a heart attack.

21:13:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, we have a speaker

21:13:12 waiver form with two names.

21:13:13 Would you please signify by waiving that you're here?

21:13:19 Gianella.




21:13:21 And Linda Hamilton.

21:13:22 Two additional minute.

21:13:23 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

21:13:26 Go ahead.

21:13:28 >>> How nice to see you folks twice in one day.

21:13:32 Hopefully -- I'm Vicki Pollyea, South Moody Avenue.

21:13:38 I have been sworn in.

21:13:40 >> I was asking if you brought your jammies.

21:13:42 >>> I'm ready to.

21:13:44 Thank you, Mrs. Alvarez. The very first thing I want

21:13:47 to say, I would like to apologize to my neighborhood.

21:13:50 I was asked three weeks ago in an e-mail to submit the

21:13:53 list of all the specific traffic mitigation, and I

21:13:57 forgot to do that.

21:13:58 And I apologize to my neighbors for not getting that

21:14:01 done.

21:14:01 I have been busy and I forgot.

21:14:06 I appreciate you getting us -- thank you so much,

21:14:11 Truett -- the chance to talk to you again about this

21:14:11 because it's a difficult decision to make.

21:14:16 The plan when it was presented to us was already as it

21:14:22 was as tall as it was, and it's a very tall building




21:14:27 and I agree with all of you, it is a tall building, it

21:14:29 is only 84 units.

21:14:31 We know what we were told before was accurate, that we

21:14:34 were faced with an option, the old PD, 100,000 square

21:14:38 foot office building, 18, 19.

21:14:42 I heard all sorts of car trips that this could

21:14:45 generate was another thing to mitigate for the

21:14:48 neighborhood.

21:14:49 We get no improvements to nearby intersections, no

21:14:55 improvements to the sidewalks, the pedestrian

21:14:57 crosswalks no, traffic diversions.

21:15:00 We get nothing but 15 to 18 to 2,000 cars depending on

21:15:05 how you look at it.

21:15:06 And also, a massive building.

21:15:10 And I think this is a streetscape on the office

21:15:14 building that we were provided.

21:15:15 And it completely covers the block.

21:15:18 We decrease that box in the front down to no setbacks

21:15:22 along the side, facing Presbyterians towers and the

21:15:27 residence.

21:15:28 Given that choice, and after months of negotiating,

21:15:32 the Board of Directors, who were elected by the




21:15:34 neighborhood as representatives, to discuss these

21:15:39 things, together with the developer, tried to come up

21:15:42 with a list of things to mitigate the impact of the

21:15:47 proposed condo and to hopefully help deal with some of

21:15:49 the current problems we have.

21:15:55 I understand my neighbors on Palm Avenue are very

21:15:57 frustrated.

21:16:00 They have 1500 cars a day.

21:16:01 And they want help.

21:16:03 And they are not sure if this is going to help them.

21:16:06 I personally think it will.

21:16:07 But I'm not sure on that.

21:16:10 But we know that this 2.4-acre lot is going to be

21:16:14 developed by somebody.

21:16:16 It's going to be 100,000 square foot office building,

21:16:20 or something.

21:16:21 I think that 84 units is, for the land that's there,

21:16:27 is a pretty low density with negative impact.

21:16:37 The traffic concerns to our neighborhood are huge.

21:16:39 Next Tuesday, Mr. LaMotte is coming to our

21:16:43 neighborhood meeting to discuss our traffic concerns

21:16:45 generally.




21:16:46 And that is not the responsibility of this developer

21:16:50 to remedy, although he's trying to.

21:16:56 Given the two options, we did decide that we preferred

21:16:59 this condo.

21:17:00 We don't want to see high-rises everywhere.

21:17:02 But we would prefer to have 84 homes versus a

21:17:07 commercial development in our neighborhood.

21:17:10 And I think very seriously, City Council members, I

21:17:13 have to ask you, when do you choose a commercial

21:17:17 development in a neighborhood over residential

21:17:19 development?

21:17:20 And that's what we're facing.

21:17:23 Do when want a commercial development, or 84

21:17:25 residences?

21:17:27 And through a painful process we preferred the 84

21:17:32 residential units.

21:17:33 This has been a very generous offer they have made to

21:17:35 us, way ahead exceeding any impact fees that they will

21:17:40 be paying.

21:17:42 Hopefully it will help.

21:17:43 Maybe it won't.

21:17:44 Maybe it will.




21:17:44 But we'll have to see on that.

21:17:49 But given the two choices -- and the truth is, if we

21:17:52 don't get the condo and the office building doesn't

21:17:55 get built, we might be even looking at a higher fall.

21:17:58 I don't know.

21:17:58 But we have a developer who is offering us everything

21:18:03 we asked for except to make the building shorter.

21:18:07 And, to be honest with you, that's a pretty good deal.

21:18:09 We have never had a developer be this generous.

21:18:11 And we appreciate it.

21:18:13 And for us, it's a better choice.

21:18:17 A better fit.

21:18:20 Always Alvarez just a question for you, Vicki.

21:18:22 Do you suppose that this would set a precedent for

21:18:25 that neighborhood?

21:18:28 >>> A commercial development or a high-rise?

21:18:30 >> A condo, a high-rise.

21:18:32 >>> We have five high-rises in our neighborhood

21:18:35 already on Bayshore.

21:18:36 >> On Bayshore but not Isabella.

21:18:38 >>> And um very concerned about that, Mrs. Alvarez.

21:18:41 You know.




21:18:42 But I think that this sets a precedent, too.

21:18:44 It's pretty ugly, personally.

21:18:46 And we don't get any feedback.

21:18:49 And we don't get any input on this one.

21:18:51 And that's a great concern to me also.

21:18:55 >> I appreciate your candor.

21:18:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any questions by council members?

21:18:59 Next member of the public.

21:19:30 >>> My name is Steve Hearn, 2520 palm.

21:19:34 I have been sworn, twice, so I am going to be doubly

21:19:37 truthful with you this afternoon.

21:19:38 I am one of the neighbors.

21:19:40 I am one of the neighbors who is opposed to this

21:19:43 project.

21:19:45 The main reason being, as the presentation so

21:19:49 wonderfully pointed out, is potential impact on the

21:19:52 entire neighborhood.

21:19:54 I had not heard about these concessions until five

21:19:56 minutes ago.

21:19:57 I did see my neighborhood association president and

21:20:00 board sharing some type of points why this should be

21:20:04 approved.




21:20:04 I have not seen that.

21:20:05 We have a little problem here with a disconnect

21:20:07 between neighborhood association and the neighborhood.

21:20:09 That will be dealt with obviously through the democrat

21:20:14 I can process.

21:20:14 I want to point out to you, I guess you called this

21:20:16 Elmo?

21:20:18 I never heard that before.

21:20:24 This may be a finger-point presentation.

21:20:27 I live here on Palm Drive where this curve is.

21:20:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point to the subject property.

21:20:37 >>> Right there. The subject property is down here.

21:20:39 The interesting feature you will notice about this

21:20:41 little picture,

21:20:46 Right here, the only way to get from Howard to Bay to

21:20:49 Bay without going down Bayshore is right smack dab past

21:20:52 my house.

21:20:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do it regularly.

21:20:56 >>> I hope you are not one of the people who goes

21:20:57 around this curve in front of my house on two wheels

21:21:01 behind Hartline buses.

21:21:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, he is.




21:21:04 (Laughter).

21:21:06 >>> And I heard the talk that it's not an issue with

21:21:08 you this particular builder, but what he's doing

21:21:11 impacts more than just from Barcelona and RUBADO down.

21:21:20 He is going to impact the volume through here.

21:21:22 Frankly, the neighborhood has been asked to choose by

21:21:25 death by injection and death by a rusty knife and they

21:21:28 picked death by injection.

21:21:30 Some of them have.

21:21:31 The problem is that the overall impact is too great.

21:21:34 Frankly, I prefer to have a large office building

21:21:37 because if I can get 2,000 more cars on my street, it

21:21:40 will slow traffic down.

21:21:41 We'll have a Gasparilla gridlock.

21:21:44 It's not happening.

21:21:47 In front it's going to have condos, that's great but

21:21:51 not going to slow down traffic.

21:21:53 Crosswalks are great because the police department

21:21:56 will know how far the body flew when it got hit by a

21:21:59 car at high speed. This is a closer view here,

21:22:06 Isabella over here, is right in this corner in front

21:22:09 of my house, there's a manhole.




21:22:11 We haven't had rain in a week.

21:22:13 Today the road is soaked with water, probably the

21:22:16 entire width of the road and probably 15 to 20 feet

21:22:19 long at that corner.

21:22:21 I have seen cars spin out into the Bayshore -- onto

21:22:25 the diplomat parking lot.

21:22:27 I have seen motorcycles spin out and get hit. The

21:22:31 increased traffic in this area is going to be

21:22:33 horrendous.

21:22:34 We are against the project.

21:22:35 I know we are being told you can't do anything about

21:22:37 it.

21:22:38 We are being given the threat, we will build this

21:22:40 monolith that covers the entire block.

21:22:42 I'm not sure where they are going to park all those

21:22:44 people they are going to put in this office building.

21:22:46 But it won't be as tall.

21:22:48 And frankly if they want to clog up my streets I want

21:22:51 them to clog it all the way and not let it be the

21:22:53 raceway that it's been.

21:22:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any questions?

21:22:58 Thank you.




21:23:05 >>> David Armstrong, 81 Normandy chase.

21:23:09 I have been sworn in.

21:23:11 I have been a resident of Tampa for 20 years.

21:23:14 I have lived up and down Bayshore, predominantly on

21:23:19 Davis Island.

21:23:19 I love Bayshore.

21:23:20 I think it's a great place.

21:23:21 And I love our environment as well.

21:23:24 And I think these kinds of projects, the high-rises

21:23:27 are a good way of keeping the people in the city and

21:23:33 keeping them out of the environment.

21:23:39 I support this project.

21:23:41 And I support -- I think that our city should

21:23:44 encourage developers to put more high-rises up.

21:23:49 To say that this guy's 27 story building is too high

21:23:53 when there's at least two others that are 26 stories,

21:23:56 almost 25 stories, I don't think that the height issue

21:24:00 really is a valid point.

21:24:04 I support the condos.

21:24:08 There's fewer traffic.

21:24:09 My wife's family lives right there.

21:24:11 I drive through that area frequently.




21:24:14 There may be some more traffic but it's not going to

21:24:17 be the rush hour craze.

21:24:20 It would be worse with an office building.

21:24:24 If it were my choice to have nothing there or an

21:24:26 office building there or condo, I would still choose a

21:24:28 condo just from the standpoint it takes people and

21:24:31 puts them up in one small spot.

21:24:33 Thank you.

21:24:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Next.

21:24:38 >>> I have been sworn in.

21:24:39 Robert Spolman, I live at 2521 Palm Drive. This

21:24:43 gentleman lives on Harbor Island.

21:24:48 Harbor Island in our neighborhood are two different

21:24:50 scenarios.

21:24:57 Respectfully to the builder, this neighborhood is

21:24:58 behind this project. The neighborhood is behind this

21:25:00 project.

21:25:01 We have a serious situation.

21:25:04 We'll have to resolve it with our association, how

21:25:09 fractured this is.

21:25:10 We have a petition here signed by over 30 of our

21:25:12 neighbors and asking the city to remedy a traffic




21:25:17 problem that has existed on Palm Drive for many, many

21:25:22 years.

21:25:22 I don't know how far your records go back.

21:25:25 But it's sort of like deja vu to me.

21:25:28 As a young man, I had no white in my hair, nothing

21:25:32 like this and I came before City Council years ago,

21:25:34 and the problem that we face is a political issue to

21:25:38 get the transportation department to move in an

21:25:41 aggressive mandatory releave this problem.

21:25:45 You have Hartline.

21:25:45 If I'm not mistaken this council has no authority

21:25:47 over.

21:25:47 And the Hartline buses that travel through our

21:25:50 neighborhood are the big diesel buses, the RTSes that

21:25:56 handle five or six people when they are designed for

21:25:59 50, 06 people.

21:26:00 I talked to the Hartline, one of the supervisors.

21:26:02 They ran about 120 RTS bus types and 50-some smaller

21:26:06 one that is accommodate particular neighborhoods in

21:26:09 situations that the larger buses cannot negotiate.

21:26:13 I think I'm doing this right.

21:26:14 Tell me if I am or not.




21:26:18 You will notice that the subject property is right in

21:26:21 here.

21:26:25 And what you have, as my neighbor Steve said, is you

21:26:28 have a major thoroughfare, Bayshore Boulevard.

21:26:30 But you will also notice that there are streets coming

21:26:32 down and intersecting that perpendicularly and down

21:26:37 Bayshore Boulevard.

21:26:39 What we want to do is preserve our neighborhood from

21:26:41 any further decay.

21:26:44 As you notice this area is divided into two basic

21:26:47 quadrants.

21:26:48 A heavy high growth area where the proposed office

21:26:53 high density office building which at one time will be

21:26:55 torn down and made into more condominiums.

21:26:58 Let's face it.

21:26:59 You set precedent by allowing one next door to go up.

21:27:03 The second thing is, all these streets that have come

21:27:05 into perpendicular into Bayshore are not being

21:27:08 utilized.

21:27:09 Why they are not being utilized, people take the path

21:27:12 of least resistance from Howard Avenue or Bay to Bay

21:27:15 and travel down Isabella, Palm Drive and through.




21:27:19 Particularly Isabella and the curve on there is a

21:27:22 substantial curve.

21:27:23 When people come in, the centrifugal fours of the

21:27:28 automobile moves it in the -- force of the automobile

21:27:31 moves it into the curve.

21:27:34 That is a very dangerous point.

21:27:35 We are somewhat disappointed in the transportation

21:27:38 department.

21:27:39 When the transportation department came out into our

21:27:42 neighborhood in September and did a traffic study,

21:27:45 they found that there was 1500 cars going down that

21:27:48 one block of Palm Drive between Carolina and Isabella.

21:27:55 The traffic engineer according to our president of the

21:27:59 Bayshore association -- I'm not putting words in her

21:28:03 mouth-somebody indicated in the city that we have a

21:28:06 problem.

21:28:06 Now if we have a problem, that's way consider a

21:28:11 liability, and we are coming in front of our council

21:28:13 to ask for your help, please.

21:28:14 (Bell sounds).

21:28:15 And the tower going up, that's an usual you that's

21:28:19 going to affect us.




21:28:20 I can't see how a tower going to go up will reduce our

21:28:24 traffic by 1400 cars a day when we are already

21:28:27 slammed.

21:28:27 You can work in conformity with the builder and

21:28:30 everything else as a neighborhood, we are crying for

21:28:32 help.

21:28:32 And thank you for allowing to us come here.

21:28:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

21:28:38 Next.

21:28:41 >>> My name is Jayla King, 2518 Palm Drive, dead man's

21:28:49 curve like my other neighbors.

21:28:50 I moved in in September of 2005.

21:28:52 Since I have lived in this house I cannot let my three

21:28:54 small children out the front door for fear of them

21:28:57 being run over.

21:29:00 We have done a traffic study in September.

21:29:02 1500 cars a day does not surprise me.

21:29:04 I appreciate the concessions that the developer is

21:29:07 make being traffic.

21:29:08 But I do have questions of whether or not you really

21:29:11 have to choose between a high-rise and an office

21:29:13 building.




21:29:14 There has to be alternatives.

21:29:16 In addition to that, I'm curious to know the existing

21:29:19 office building that we supposedly from traffic from,

21:29:22 how many of those offices are really occupied, or how

21:29:26 many calls are from that because we are being told if

21:29:31 we get a high-rise we are going to see a 1400 a day

21:29:34 drop in cars.

21:29:35 I don't really think that all those cars are going to

21:29:39 the office building because it looks pretty empty.

21:29:42 POTTs place is about the only thing that has cars

21:29:48 anymore in the office building.

21:29:49 I would like to see if there are any alternatives and

21:29:51 if the traffic can be taken care of.

21:29:52 I hope the city has the foresight to take care of this

21:29:56 now as opposed to later when we have a tragedy on

21:29:58 Bayshore and Swann circle in the last two years.

21:30:08 >>> Karen Crawford, 1406 South Moody Avenue and I have

21:30:12 been sworn.

21:30:12 I would like to reiterate, when this project came

21:30:15 before us, we, like you, had basically to make a

21:30:19 decision on the PD.

21:30:20 The traffic issues are what the traffic issues are.




21:30:24 Over the last 20 years, there's no doubt traffic has

21:30:27 increased.

21:30:29 Vacant land all around us on the west side of Howard

21:30:32 has become very valuable.

21:30:35 We have been with you through the Birds development.

21:30:39 We know that's coming to our north, the Stratford

21:30:43 apartments started down on Howard and Swann.

21:30:47 That development is coming along.

21:30:49 What happens on this lot is going to increase traffic.

21:30:51 It's a 2.4-acre vacant lot in South Tampa.

21:30:55 We all know that it's going to be something down the

21:30:58 road.

21:30:59 So our board was faced with knowing that we had these

21:31:02 two alternatives, was this PD a better solution than

21:31:06 what was currently proposed?

21:31:08 We started meeting with them.

21:31:09 We told them what our problems are were and from the

21:31:11 very beginning start -- started working on ways to

21:31:15 make it pedestrian friendly, to include landscaping,

21:31:18 include crosswalks, the residents that ride the buses,

21:31:21 the that live as Presbyterians towers were very

21:31:23 concerned about crossing the street to get to the




21:31:25 park.

21:31:25 So we started working on all those issues because we

21:31:28 felt that was what we could do in working with the

21:31:31 developers to address the issues.

21:31:33 As time went on, we knew the only way to deal with

21:31:37 this because it was a very tough decision was to take

21:31:39 it before the full membership.

21:31:41 It wasn't an usual you that the board could decide on

21:31:44 their own.

21:31:45 So when we scheduled our membership meeting in October

21:31:48 25 we put in the our newsletter, sent out e-mails, it

21:31:51 was a heavily publicized meeting, and we involved both

21:31:56 the owner of the property Taggart and Shatish so

21:32:04 everyone in the neighborhood could see this is what we

21:32:06 were facing and then we put it to a vote of the

21:32:08 neighborhood and we let the neighborhood make the

21:32:10 decision.

21:32:11 And we are here just as your board to present what the

21:32:14 neighborhood decided at that meeting, after hearing

21:32:17 all the facts.

21:32:19 And the neighborhood predominantly voted for the 84

21:32:22 residential units.




21:32:23 You know, we are approving all around us projects that

21:32:28 have like 230 and 300 condos in them.

21:32:33 We felt like 84 units on this commercially zoned space

21:32:36 was the most reasonable project that probably was

21:32:40 going to be presented because even if he went away the

21:32:42 next person may come in and offer something even

21:32:45 larger than this.

21:32:46 So we felt like it was a very reasonable number of

21:32:49 units, if you really looked at what the traffic issues

21:32:54 could be.

21:32:54 But it wasn't somebody coming in asking for 100 or 200

21:32:57 units, which we are seeing all around us.

21:33:02 Swann and Howard just recently, I think that was 230.

21:33:06 This is comparatively speaking a low number of units,

21:33:11 and for us, for the traffic issues, we felt that would

21:33:13 be the least impact.

21:33:15 So I would just ask you to look very seriously at all

21:33:19 the things that offered to mid-mitigate.

21:33:22 This developer cannot fix the traffic.

21:33:25 They are there. They are continuing to get worse.

21:33:27 Not just as a result of this development.

21:33:29 And they have put in considerable mitigation to try to




21:33:32 help us.

21:33:32 And so I would encourage you to listen to how the

21:33:36 neighborhood did vote, and it was -- there were only

21:33:39 two votes against it.

21:33:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any questions by council members?

21:33:45 I have a question.

21:33:46 Did you all consider -- did you all met since the

21:33:51 hearing a few weeks ago, since council requested that

21:33:56 the petitioner go back and lower the proposal?

21:34:00 I notice they didn't come up with the specific

21:34:03 recommendation to do that.

21:34:04 But did you all --

21:34:11 >>> Several of us board members talked with them about

21:34:13 the tree issues.

21:34:14 There were several discussions going on because we had

21:34:16 city staff making recommendations and changing things,

21:34:18 too.

21:34:18 So, yes, we were discussing, and the height issue, no,

21:34:23 that did not get changed and that was a result from

21:34:26 the very beginning that that was the number of units

21:34:28 they had to have to do this.

21:34:30 Otherwise, Mr. Taggart would just build this




21:34:32 commercial building and that was their break-even

21:34:35 point for how many units.

21:34:36 And as you shorten the building and it got wider and

21:34:39 wider then we were just looking at filling up the

21:34:41 whole plot with building.

21:34:44 So that was never really an issue that was up for

21:34:47 negotiations.

21:34:47 So, therefore, we worked on the things that we could,

21:34:50 the traffic, the landscaping, the pedestrian friendly,

21:34:53 the crosswalks, all those things that we could have,

21:34:56 that we could have some impact on.

21:35:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anybody else from the public care

21:35:02 to speak on this?

21:35:02 Come on up.

21:35:03 Give us your name and address and if you have been

21:35:06 sworn.

21:35:07 >>> Good evening.

21:35:08 My name is Cathy Spoto, 2521 Palm Drive along dead

21:35:13 man's curve as well.

21:35:14 And I'm here because I want to preserve our

21:35:17 neighborhood, and specifically Palm Drive.

21:35:20 It is a very -- first of all it runs behind Bayshore




21:35:25 Boulevard.

21:35:25 It's a beautiful street.

21:35:26 But unfortunately it's a cut-through street.

21:35:29 And as you mentioned, I think we have all used it

21:35:32 before.

21:35:33 What we want to do is we want to stop the cut-through

21:35:36 traffic.

21:35:37 And we desperately need your help.

21:35:41 I have 30-some names of my neighbors, not only on Palm

21:35:44 Drive, but Maryland and a couple of streets along Palm

21:35:50 Drive, with their names, that we have submitted to you

21:35:51 this evening, as well as to the mayor's office, and

21:35:54 the traffic controller's office and we are asking you

21:35:57 for your help, because their concerns are the same

21:36:00 concerns of the neighbors that you have heard from

21:36:03 this evening.

21:36:03 So, please, help us with our traffic problems.

21:36:07 May I?

21:36:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: She has a question for you.

21:36:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So your concern is your traffic.

21:36:13 You're not concerned about the project that's going

21:36:15 up?




21:36:16 >>> Well, we know that there's projects going up.

21:36:18 There's projects going up all around us.

21:36:20 This project here is only one of the projects.

21:36:22 But also, if you drive down Howard, and you look at

21:36:25 all the projects happening there, what we're faced

21:36:29 with on Palm Drive is it is the cut-through street

21:36:32 right now in South Tampa.

21:36:34 And that's our number one concern.

21:36:37 >> Do you have a 25 mile-an-hour speed limit in there?

21:36:41 >>> We have no traffic signs whatsoever.

21:36:42 >> You have traffic signs?

21:36:45 >>> No.

21:36:45 Absolutely not.

21:36:47 >> Okay.

21:36:48 Thank you.

21:36:49 >>> Absolutely not.

21:36:49 Thank you.

21:36:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would anybody else from the public

21:36:52 care to speak?

21:36:56 Would the petitioner like to make a rebuttal?

21:37:02 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 south Franklin.

21:37:06 I am going to let Shatish close it but I thought there




21:37:11 were a couple comments.

21:37:12 One on the traffic, we worked as hard as possible with

21:37:15 the neighborhood.

21:37:15 We have met numerous times with Melanie Calloway, the

21:37:20 transportation department to work on these issues.

21:37:23 The best one, I know the cut through traffic is a

21:37:25 major concern, is Isabella and Barcelona, the four-way

21:37:30 stop, put in pedestrian crosswalks and to at least,

21:37:33 with cars going down to the crosswalk, it allows them

21:37:36 to note pedestrians are coming across, stop sign will

21:37:39 slow them down.

21:37:40 People choose the path of least resistance.

21:37:43 And at least this would set up some resistance there.

21:37:47 Next, it seemed like all the opposition seemed to be

21:37:51 geared towards the traffic.

21:37:52 Again, we have done everything we can in our power to

21:37:56 help the situation.

21:37:56 I didn't hear one bit of opposition come from the

21:37:59 height.

21:38:00 We have worked with the neighborhood time and time

21:38:02 again.

21:38:02 This was the solution that worked best for the




21:38:04 developer, for the neighborhood.

21:38:06 We all agreed to it.

21:38:07 And that's what we are here with tonight.

21:38:10 Shatish will address that further, I'm sure.

21:38:12 But I just wanted to bring up those points that I

21:38:14 thought were very valid.

21:38:20 >>> Shatish: I would like to close by focusing on one

21:38:23 issue, and that issue is precedent.

21:38:26 There's been a lot of talk about precedent, and

21:38:29 setting a precedent with the approval of this project,

21:38:31 and what does that mean for the neighborhood?

21:38:35 And as I look at it, I think this is a precedent that

21:38:38 needs to be set.

21:38:39 It's a precedent of taking a currently approved high

21:38:44 intensity use and down-zoning it to a much lower

21:38:47 intensity.

21:38:48 It's a precedent of asking developers to work with the

21:38:52 neighborhoods, to meet their needs, and to create

21:38:56 developments that leave the neighborhoods better than

21:38:59 when the developer came there in the first place.

21:39:02 It establishes a precedent of having a developer

21:39:06 working hand in hand with the neighborhoods on the




21:39:08 design of the building to create a development that

21:39:11 becomes an aesthetically pleasing addition to their

21:39:14 community.

21:39:16 When you look at this property, there are no adjacent

21:39:20 single-family zonings adjacent to this site.

21:39:24 This property is surrounded by -- by commercial uses

21:39:31 and high density, and multifamily.

21:39:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the older couple that

21:39:36 lives at the corner of Barcelona?

21:39:38 >>> That lot is zoned commercial.

21:39:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So that's your point.

21:39:43 It's zoned commercial but they live there in a

21:39:45 single-family residence.

21:39:46 >>> And they are in favor of the project.

21:39:48 We have met with them.

21:39:49 >> I wanted to clarify.

21:39:50 There is a single family --

21:39:52 >>> There is one single family residence that happens

21:39:54 to be zoned commercial.

21:39:55 So when you look at this site in terms of setting a

21:39:57 precedent, this is not a high-rise residential

21:40:00 building going into a neighborhood that is surrounded




21:40:03 by single-family homes.

21:40:06 This is a high-rise that is not on Bayshore.

21:40:08 This is a high-rise that's set back from Bayshore,

21:40:11 backing up to an expressway.

21:40:14 It's a project that preserves the low intensity,

21:40:18 low-rise nature of Bayshore, while still providing an

21:40:23 opportunity for people to move back into the city.

21:40:27 Most importantly the precedent that this sets is that

21:40:30 it's a project that has the near unanimous support of

21:40:34 the neighborhood as demonstrated by their vote at

21:40:38 their annual meeting.

21:40:39 And if we're looking to set a precedent, I think this

21:40:42 is exactly the kind of precedent that should be set,

21:40:46 and that is to approve a project that meets all of

21:40:50 these criteria.

21:40:52 Thanks for hearing me out.

21:40:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any questions by council members?

21:40:56 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.

21:40:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Throws a question to close.

21:41:02 Is there a second?

21:41:03 Okay.

21:41:04 All in favor say Aye.




21:41:05 Opposed, Nay.

21:41:06 Passed unanimously.

21:41:07 The public hearing is now closed.

21:41:08 Mr. Dingfelder.

21:41:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just have a few comments.

21:41:11 When I do watch -- when I did watch this hearing on

21:41:16 the tape that you guys had to go through the last

21:41:18 time -- and I apologize again for not being here -- I

21:41:21 never heard -- I kept hearing about the fact that

21:41:26 there was a 100,000 square feet of office already

21:41:28 approved.

21:41:29 Sounded horrendous.

21:41:31 I'm not sure Watt means but it sounded horrendous

21:41:34 because it was repeated so many times but I never

21:41:36 heard what the height aft proved project was.

21:41:38 The height aft proved project that they could build on

21:41:40 there right now is 115, one one five, 115 feet.

21:41:47 I never heard that before.

21:41:48 I think it's significant.

21:41:50 Because as you -- as you brought up, I think several

21:41:54 times, you kept saying, gosh, this is high, really

21:41:58 high, sets a bad precedent, that sort of thing.




21:42:02 I want to respectfully disagree with Ms. Pollyea and

21:42:07 Ms. Crawford, and they know I respect them greatly.

21:42:11 But I respectfully disagree with them on this

21:42:12 particular issue.

21:42:14 They are between a rock and a hard place because they

21:42:16 don't want 100,000 square feet of office.

21:42:19 I understand that.

21:42:21 Ms. Pollyea said, you know, she was extremely

21:42:23 concerned, the office will be built there.

21:42:25 Well, you know what?

21:42:27 When was this PD approved for this office?

21:42:29 I don't know.

21:42:33 >>> 68.

21:42:34 86.

21:42:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 86?

21:42:38 20 years ago.

21:42:39 It's not built and it's not going to be built because

21:42:41 this is not a viable place for 100,000 square feet of

21:42:45 office.

21:42:45 Everybody knows that.

21:42:47 They build office downtown.

21:42:48 Not too often.




21:42:49 They build office in Westshore.

21:42:50 They build office 75.

21:42:52 They are not building office off of Bayshore.

21:42:54 Okay?

21:42:54 So the rock and the hard place doesn't concern me as

21:42:58 much just for the factual reason that it's not going

21:43:02 to happen.

21:43:02 It's not practical.

21:43:03 It's not where people want to build 100,000 square

21:43:07 feet of office.

21:43:08 So if we put that aside, let's say, okay, as somebody

21:43:12 said very astutely somebody something is going to be

21:43:14 built on that big park lot.

21:43:16 It's too valuable to sit vacant.

21:43:18 It probably will be residential.

21:43:20 My whole point is, it doesn't need to be that tall.

21:43:25 It sets a bad, bad precedent.

21:43:27 There's -- using the Bayshore towers is the precedent.

21:43:31 It was very kind of them to shows Bayshore towers.

21:43:35 Shows the Presbyterians towers, that he very candidly

21:43:40 counted for us, I appreciate that, Truett, 16 stories.

21:43:43 That's the precedent of the off-Bayshore buildings.




21:43:45 16 stories, 160 feet, I can live with maybe even a

21:43:49 little bit taller, 180 feet, something like that.

21:43:52 Not 300 feet.

21:43:53 That's not the appropriate place for 300 feet.

21:43:55 If this developer is interested in the same building

21:43:59 that they are talking about with the same conditions

21:44:01 and everything else, with the 200-foot limit, I can

21:44:04 live with that.

21:44:05 Other than that, I can't support it.

21:44:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that a motion?

21:44:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, don't No. I'll listen.

21:44:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Of course, first of all, we go back to

21:44:15 the dilemma that Vicki and Karen have.

21:44:17 And they have represented their neighborhoods well.

21:44:22 I don't think anybody is discounting that.

21:44:24 It's a rough choice, Vicki, and I think you said that.

21:44:28 For one, anytime we come up with a petition and a

21:44:30 developer even insinuates that it's either this or

21:44:33 good luck, it's going to be something pretty intense

21:44:36 and something you are not going to like so take this

21:44:38 or else, that kind of always makes me back up from the

21:44:41 project.




21:44:41 That's exactly opposite to what has happened here.

21:44:44 I heard time and time from Vicki and time and time

21:44:47 again from Karen that the developer was trying to make

21:44:50 any kind and every kind of accommodation they could,

21:44:53 to make this something that was satisfactory to both

21:44:56 developer from the standpoint of the bottom line, and

21:44:59 the neighborhood.

21:45:00 And this is not Vicki and Karen's idea.

21:45:02 It is the neighborhood.

21:45:03 And I understand that some of the neighbors, or some

21:45:05 of the members in that neighborhood, don't think that

21:45:08 this is the better alternative.

21:45:10 I would agree with Mr. Dingfelder in terms of the

21:45:12 height.

21:45:13 I have been in some cases the only dissenting vote on

21:45:17 some of the high-rises that have come up.

21:45:20 But the fact is that this is right smack up against

21:45:24 the Crosstown.

21:45:25 And I think that buffers the height.

21:45:32 I think that if I had a choice of this versus a

21:45:32 building and an office building that could be there, I

21:45:33 two of choose this 84 units is not that dense.




21:45:39 I think some of the frustration, if not all of the

21:45:41 frustration that I heard from Mr. Hearne, I believe is

21:45:44 his name, Mr. Spoden, Mrs. Spoden, is there is a

21:45:49 traffic issue.

21:45:50 Anything more that comes into the neighborhood is

21:45:52 always especially for those of us who live in South

21:45:54 Tampa going to exacerbate our transportation problem,

21:45:57 period, end of story.

21:45:58 That's a reality.

21:45:59 However, I think that they should be directed to

21:46:05 direct, if you would, their frustration on the

21:46:07 transportation issue that has not been addressed, to

21:46:09 your legislators.

21:46:10 When you say in your petition that 1500 plus cars come

21:46:14 by there in a day, no matter what we do, no matter if

21:46:18 we do nothing in terms of that particular site, it's

21:46:20 going to continue to increase, because of the overall

21:46:23 growth in our area.

21:46:25 So I think once we finish this regardless of where it

21:46:27 goes, I will be happy to make some kind of strong

21:46:31 message towards transportation, that they need to

21:46:34 reevaluate this.




21:46:36 Went out there and took some readings.

21:46:38 I think that should be should have been the reason

21:46:41 they started helping you.

21:46:42 Mrs. Alvarez, I am certainly not going to take her

21:46:45 thunder away, asked a very pointed question about

21:46:48 speed limit signs.

21:46:50 I can't believe there are no speed limit signs.

21:46:52 All of these things are contributory to what your

21:46:55 concerns are in terms of neighborhood residents.

21:46:59 I appreciate it and I think we can address that.

21:47:01 However, in terms of this particular case, I think

21:47:04 there has been no intimidation.

21:47:06 From all I can see from neighborhood leadership, I

21:47:11 don't see that the developer has bullied them into

21:47:14 saying take this or else.

21:47:16 I understand as one of the gentlemen said, there might

21:47:18 be some disconnect.

21:47:19 There's always some disconnect in civic association

21:47:22 overall, with the new tower neighborhood.

21:47:25 Some of them are vocal.

21:47:26 Some are outspoken.

21:47:28 But their leadership can only go by the majority and




21:47:30 it seems to me at the membership meeting the majority

21:47:33 said this is something they can live with.

21:47:35 Obviously if we had a choice and we didn't want any

21:47:36 more density and we had the financial wear where all

21:47:41 to do it we could buy all the property around us in

21:47:43 South Tampa and wouldn't have any increases in density

21:47:47 but that's certainly not the reality.

21:47:49 Although it's been difficult, Vicki and Karen, I know

21:47:51 that you have done the best you can in terms of coming

21:47:53 to us and telling us what the majority wanted.

21:47:57 Given the choices and given what could and could not

21:47:59 occur, I think that this is a soft way to go and I

21:48:03 would make a motion to support it based on those

21:48:05 reasons.

21:48:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mrs. Saul-Sena.

21:48:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

21:48:11 I have to compliment the developer for coming out with

21:48:16 a pretty nice site plan. The street level amenities

21:48:19 are nice.

21:48:21 The ways of trying to calm traffic are thoughtful.

21:48:24 But in the list that we were given, reasons to support

21:48:27 the row zoning, I had serious issues with several of




21:48:31 them.

21:48:32 And the reason is, they are positing that they are

21:48:40 going from a high intends to a low intensity use.

21:48:44 I do not see a 26 story structure, not on Bayshore, in

21:48:48 a neighborhood, as a low-intensity use.

21:48:53 I think the impact of this on our urban landscape is a

21:48:55 great impact.

21:48:56 Not a small one.

21:48:57 A great one.

21:48:58 I would support this if it were lower.

21:49:01 I would support this if it were -- I think the number

21:49:05 that Mr. Dingfelder suggested was 200 feet.

21:49:09 We have recommends from both our planning staff and

21:49:12 our land development staff that speak to this not

21:49:15 being compatible in the surrounding neighborhood.

21:49:18 I feel that it's not compatible.

21:49:25 I think it's attractive.

21:49:26 I just think it's too high and is not compatible.

21:49:29 So I will make a motion to deny this.

21:49:32 But if the develop worry like to come back next week

21:49:34 and ask for a 20-story building the same

21:49:37 configuration, I could -- not 20.




21:49:39 I'm sorry.

21:49:39 I said that.

21:49:40 I misspoke.

21:49:41 200 feet rather than 300 feet.

21:49:44 I think there's a significant difference.

21:49:47 >> What's 200 feet?

21:49:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was just saying, our current --

21:49:56 the plan on this is 115 feet.

21:49:58 So this is much greater than that.

21:50:00 But it is also much less than what is -- than the

21:50:04 proposal that is before us so I make a motion based

21:50:06 upon the recommendations -- yes?

21:50:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, just for --

21:50:12 >> I gave the gavel away.

21:50:14 I passed the gavel before we started talking.

21:50:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The motion is to deny.

21:50:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The thing is you passed the gavel.

21:50:22 There was a motion made that was not seconded.

21:50:26 But there was no request for a second.

21:50:28 So that motion -- okay.

21:50:32 I want to be clear for the record.

21:50:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My specific notion is to deny based




21:50:36 on the recommendations of the land development

21:50:39 regulation, our staff, whatever, and the Planning

21:50:41 Commission staff, which specifically speaks to

21:50:44 compatibility.

21:50:47 And I believe that the petition before us is too high.

21:50:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

21:50:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: Motion and second.

21:50:58 Discussion on the motion.

21:50:59 Mrs. Alvarez.

21:50:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Traffic problems we can fix.

21:51:02 We can direct the transportation department to go in

21:51:04 there and do the best they can with what we have they

21:51:09 can fix these problems.

21:51:11 That part doesn't bother me.

21:51:13 That you made the offer to give $50,000.

21:51:18 It's very generous of you.

21:51:21 These problems are city problems.

21:51:25 25 mile-an-hour speed limits, don't understand how

21:51:28 come they are not in there.

21:51:29 This is a neighborhood.

21:51:30 All neighborhoods have 25 mile-an-hour speed limits.

21:51:32 I don't know why there isn't anything.




21:51:34 I would direct the transportation department to take

21:51:37 care of that.

21:51:40 The project is too high for this area.

21:51:43 It's not compatible.

21:51:44 We heard my colleagues talk about this.

21:51:48 It will set a precedent.

21:51:51 We are one block away from the Bayshore.

21:51:54 We are on Palm Avenue and Isabella.

21:51:58 What's going to happen there is that people are going

21:52:00 to start seeing a 26-story building in there, and the

21:52:03 people that are going to be right next to them are

21:52:06 going to say, hey, you know what?

21:52:08 I think I'll sell my property and put another 26 story

21:52:11 building and we'll have one all the way down.

21:52:13 Then instead of having it on Bayshore we are going to

21:52:16 have it in the second street there.

21:52:19 It's not compatible.

21:52:21 Come back with a plan that's 16 stories, and I will

21:52:26 support you all the way.

21:52:28 At this time, it's not a compatible project.

21:52:33 Regardless of what the neighborhood has said, we heard

21:52:37 from the other neighborhoods.




21:52:40 It just not a good project at this point.

21:52:45 We can fix the other problems.

21:52:46 And we will make some directions with transportation

21:52:51 when we get through with this.

21:52:52 So I second the motion to Mrs. Saul-Sena.

21:52:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: I already have a second on in a.

21:53:01 Any other comments?

21:53:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.

21:53:03 I sense where this is going to go.

21:53:07 It seemed, in any case, the neighborhood and the

21:53:09 developer are pretty close to working it out.

21:53:12 So I would suspect if it doesn't get passed, maybe if

21:53:17 the developer listens to the suggestion of some of my

21:53:19 colleagues, you certainly have the right to come back

21:53:21 next week for reconsideration.

21:53:23 Does he not?

21:53:26 >> Yes.

21:53:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: We have a motion and second.

21:53:28 All in favor of the motion for denial please indicate

21:53:30 by saying Aye.

21:53:32 All opposed, Nay.

21:53:34 Motion passes 4 to 1.




21:53:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I certainly don't -- Mrs. Alvarez,

21:53:43 if you want to make a separate motion about the

21:53:45 transportation problem separate and divorced from this

21:53:47 project why don't we do that now so transportation can

21:53:50 move?

21:53:51 >> I'll let do you that.

21:53:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: In that case, first of all, I would

21:53:54 like to automatically have people put in speed signs

21:53:58 so that people know it's 25 miles per hour.

21:54:00 And it seems like it's pretty frustrating and pretty

21:54:03 intense to be that neighborhood.

21:54:04 In addition to that, I would ask that Mr. LaMotte --

21:54:07 well, very easy, close to my house.

21:54:10 I would ask that Mr. LaMotte meet me at the site, and

21:54:13 I can come back to council and report what -- what

21:54:18 kind of action he suggests that we do.

21:54:20 And -- 25 miles per hour.

21:54:25 And residents that are here that want to talk to me

21:54:29 briefly, we can set up some sort of appointment so one

21:54:31 of you all can be there as a spokesperson and I would

21:54:34 ask Mr. LaMotte to meet with us.

21:54:37 And I looked at my schedule, Vicki, but -- I'm talking




21:54:40 about walking the area.

21:54:44 So -- if you think that's fine, then at that time

21:54:47 over.

21:54:47 If you want me to support whatever you do, fine.

21:54:49 If you want me to try to meet him before that meeting

21:54:52 but I won't be at the meeting.

21:54:53 What do you want to do?

21:54:56 Why don't I try to make some sort of contact with him?

21:55:00 Vicki, you and Mr. Spoden can meet me.

21:55:07 Let me see what I can arrange.

21:55:14 That's not really a motion.

21:55:15 I'll tell you all what we come up with.

21:55:17 And Vicki, I know how to get in touch with you.

21:55:21 Mr. Spoden, if you will give me your number too then

21:55:24 I'll get in touch with you between now.

21:55:28 Okay.

21:55:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are going to take a five-minute

21:55:30 break.

21:55:31 Thank you.

21:55:32 (City Council recess taken at 9:55)

22:04:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Roll call.

22:04:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.




22:04:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

22:04:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

22:04:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

22:04:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to announce that Mr. White

22:04:40 has left the meeting.

22:04:41 Which means that there are four council members.

22:04:44 In order for council to take action, it requires four

22:04:49 votes.

22:04:49 I just want to share that with you.

22:04:51 Okay?

22:04:54 So, staff.

22:04:58 >>> Rebecca Kurt, legal department.

22:05:01 Council is going to hear both the rezoning request and

22:05:03 a request for amendment to the Garrison Seaport DRI.

22:05:08 The specifics of the proposal will be presented to

22:05:10 council during the rezoning.

22:05:12 However, what they are requesting will require an

22:05:15 amendment to the Garrison Seaport DRI.

22:05:17 At this time I would like to hand out the latest

22:05:19 ordinance.

22:05:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We need to open numbers 12 and 14.

22:05:26 14 is already open because it's continued.




22:05:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.

22:05:29 >> Second.

22:05:29 (Motion carried)

22:05:34 Right now could you take that board down?

22:05:38 Or move it over closer to the door, please.

22:05:43 >>> At this time I am going to pass out the latest

22:05:46 ordinance for the amendment to the DRI so everyone is

22:05:48 working from the same copy.

22:05:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I don't know that we have the

22:05:55 other one in our file.

22:06:07 >>> I apologize if the organization ordinance did not

22:06:09 get into the docket agenda.

22:06:11 It was my understanding it had been through there but

22:06:13 there are were a few changes.

22:06:14 What we are working with now with the proposed change

22:06:16 is currently to extend the buildout ten years to 2015

22:06:20 and allow up to 250 residential units pursuant to a

22:06:24 trade-off mechanism.

22:06:25 I would also like to briefly walk through the proposed

22:06:27 mitigation for the residential uses.

22:06:31 There will be approximately 275 --

22:06:37 >> Wait a minute.




22:06:37 Excuse me.

22:06:38 Would you mind, for the clarity of council and the

22:06:41 people in the audience, could you mind instead of

22:06:43 saying it's going to be this, tell us what it

22:06:46 currently is, and then what the proposed change is.

22:06:49 >> Currently, there is a matrix which sets out all the

22:06:53 allowed uses.

22:06:54 >> Do we have a copy of that?

22:06:55 >> I don't know if that was provided as part of the

22:06:58 backup or not.

22:07:13 You know, when you are looking at a law you like to

22:07:16 look through the strike version and see what's there

22:07:18 and what's proposed.

22:07:19 That's what we need is like a comparison what's there

22:07:22 and what's being proposed.

22:07:24 This is the DRI that she's explaining right now.

22:07:26 And I'm asking, instead of going ahead with changes,

22:07:30 talk about --

22:07:33 >> If you look at the site plan that was passed out,

22:07:36 Mr. White got them passed out before he left.

22:07:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They stopped there.

22:07:42 >>MARTY BOYLE: I believe on the first page it shows




22:07:45 all the different parcels.

22:07:46 And it does give parcel A, parcel B, C, E, it gives

22:07:53 the --

22:07:55 >>: We are going to catch up.

22:07:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, there they are.

22:08:00 >>MARTY BOYLE: Parcel B is what is being change.

22:08:26 I notice it has what was approved.

22:08:30 And then there is a table 1 on minimum-maximum land

22:08:33 use amounts.

22:08:35 On the table.

22:08:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the entire complex.

22:08:47 We are just addressing parcel B.

22:08:50 >>> Just addressing parcel B.

22:08:52 >> A pretty simple question.

22:08:53 Okay.

22:09:05 >> I'll leave to the your discretion but perhaps if

22:09:08 would you like to have the rezoning presented for us

22:09:10 it's not inappropriate to do that.

22:09:12 It seems like would you like a lot of specifics to

22:09:15 answer that.

22:09:16 I would advise council when you take your vote, the

22:09:18 DRI will need to be voted on first because you can't




22:09:21 have rezoning unless you go through the DRI.

22:09:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

22:09:28 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

22:09:29 I have been sworn.

22:09:32 Z 05-179, it is a PDA, office retail restaurant cruise

22:09:38 ship going to a PDA adding residential on parcel B.

22:09:47 There are no waivers as part of this.

22:09:49 If you look at the Elmo, just to get your point of

22:09:52 reference, I think you all probably know where it is.

22:09:55 Garrison Seaport.

22:09:58 It is to the west is the shops at Channelside.

22:10:01 And you have got Beneficial Drive.

22:10:02 Channelside Drive.

22:10:05 And you have got the residential on parcel B.

22:10:08 >> Where is the Beneficial Bridge on Harbor Island

22:10:10 related to the parcel?

22:10:12 >> Excuse me here.

22:10:16 >>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.

22:10:28 That's the bridge.

22:10:32 >> The bridge continues where the blue is.

22:10:35 That's the water, I guess.

22:10:38 >>MARTY BOYLE: The address Channelside Drive and 408




22:10:47 south 12th street.

22:10:49 613, 651, 712 and 810 Channelside Drive.

22:10:54 To the Tampa cruise ship terminal DRI.

22:10:56 Petitioner is proposing a mixed use project that

22:10:59 includes a residential tower 250 units.

22:11:02 It's 350 feet in height and it's proposing 460 parking

22:11:07 spaces.

22:11:08 A separate building with 58,000 square feet of retail

22:11:12 space and it's got 30,000 square feet in office space

22:11:16 with 331 parking spaces provided.

22:11:19 The parking garage is internal, and integrated into

22:11:23 the tower. The site is located in the Channel

22:11:25 District, as you know.

22:11:26 And it is adjacent to the central business district.

22:11:31 There's a 20-foot strip of city-owned land on the

22:11:35 site.

22:11:36 In order for the petitioner to include that piece in

22:11:38 the rezoning, the mayor of the City of Tampa executing

22:11:42 an affidavit getting authorization.

22:11:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On your overhead where is it?

22:11:49 >> Where is the 20-foot strip?

22:11:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have a staff report?




22:11:56 >>MARTY BOYLE: We are getting staff to -- staff to

22:12:14 show where that is.

22:12:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nobody knows where the 20 feet is?

22:12:33 Can we just point out where it is out there right now?

22:12:45 That's it?

22:12:49 Is that a vestige of the street?

22:12:53 >>> Julie Brown, legal department.

22:12:55 The City of Tampa owns that.

22:12:57 We originally thought that water facilities are water

22:13:00 drainage system was in there.

22:13:02 However, we have determined that there is no water.

22:13:08 >> Just some leftover parcel that we own.

22:13:12 And is that a right-of-way?

22:13:14 >>> No, we own in the fee.

22:13:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Unusual.

22:13:17 Okay.

22:13:22 Going back to the other picture, where is the 20 feet

22:13:30 from that?

22:13:36 >>MARTY BOYLE: 20-foot, right in this area.

22:13:40 And I just would like to clarify to council that we

22:13:43 are in the process of negotiating with the port

22:13:47 authority, the amount purchase price for that piece of




22:13:50 parcel, and that's why the mayor authorized the

22:13:52 affidavit to move forward.

22:13:54 And you should have a copy of that affidavit.

22:13:58 It does not endorse to move forward or not, just to

22:14:05 indicate we do have an ownership interest in the

22:14:07 parcel and we consent to it at least being presented

22:14:10 before you.

22:14:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Would you tell us which parcel again?

22:14:15 >>JULIE BROWN: If you don't mind, I'll point it out.

22:14:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that whole thing parcel B?

22:14:27 Where is parcel B?

22:14:30 >>> Unfortunately my map only indicates what the

22:14:32 city's fee ownership is.

22:14:34 And we can probably use two different sites here.

22:14:39 But we can verify this with Marty's site.

22:14:44 But the white line if you can see is the parcel B.

22:14:50 >>MARTY BOYLE: That's correct.

22:14:51 >>JULIE BROWN: The parcel where my pen is going to the

22:14:56 street.

22:14:57 I we have we have -- right here is what the city owns

22:15:05 in fee.

22:15:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And that's what they are planning to




22:15:11 buy or -- sell or buy?

22:15:15 >>> City of Tampa is in negotiation was the port

22:15:19 authority to buy that.

22:15:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: To buy that.

22:15:21 Thanks.

22:15:25 >>MARTY BOYLE: To continue, the petitioner, at their

22:15:27 expense will construct a riverwalk adjacent to parcel

22:15:30 B in accordance with the riverwalk master plan.

22:15:33 And approved by City of Tampa for a cost not to exceed

22:15:36 $1 million.

22:15:37 The exact wording to that would be seen on 17 on the

22:15:41 second page of the site plan.

22:15:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where would that go?

22:15:46 >>MARTY BOYLE: Where would the riverwalk?

22:15:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that shown on somebody's

22:15:50 drawing?

22:15:50 >>> The petitioner will probably show a much better

22:15:53 job of it.

22:15:55 On the Elmo, it is in this area.

22:15:57 The staff report indicates objections from

22:16:04 transportation.

22:16:15 This portion shows where it will go.




22:16:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

22:16:22 >>> Staff report shows objections from transportation.

22:16:24 They wanted some clarification of Beneficial Drive if

22:16:29 it was a raised median.

22:16:30 They wanted a note on the site plan about heavy

22:16:33 congestion and vehicular movement occurring at the

22:16:36 intersection between parcel A and parcel B and

22:16:39 Channelside Drive, and the developer owner or port

22:16:42 authority will provide off-duty police officer to

22:16:45 control traffic at the intersection, the developer's

22:16:48 owner sole expense.

22:16:52 That's been identified with number 23.

22:16:54 They also note on the personal site plan the port

22:16:57 authority will allow the parcel B on the west side of

22:16:59 Garrison street, a street between to have a serviceway

22:17:06 for private trucks, an maneuvering on Garrison street

22:17:09 for solid waste truck.

22:17:10 The Tampa port authority will allow parcel B to have

22:17:13 ingress and egress an Channelside Drive by using

22:17:17 Garrison street between parcel A and parcel B.

22:17:20 By note number 24.

22:17:24 Fire department had an objection at first about the




22:17:26 circular drive.

22:17:27 They indicated to us today via e-mail they have in

22:17:31 fact no more issues with that.

22:17:33 They were resolved after they spoke to the petitioner.

22:17:36 Under findings of fact we found that -- asked City

22:17:41 Council to consider the land use objectives and

22:17:43 policies on the central business district peripheral.

22:17:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, is this in the Channel

22:17:52 district or in the central business district?

22:17:55 >>> It's in the Channel District.

22:18:02 >> So wouldn't it be subject to the Channel District?

22:18:04 >>> It is subject to the channel but also it's in the

22:18:05 peripheral of the central business district, and we

22:18:09 are just indicating why we are not having objections

22:18:13 to the height, because of its proximity to the CBD

22:18:18 district.

22:18:19 In the peripheral.

22:18:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have like a dotted line of

22:18:28 everything that it's so close to downtown, it's like a

22:18:29 flex line or something?

22:18:31 No.

22:18:31 But we look at things in the peripheral.




22:18:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I swear I've never heard that

22:18:36 phrase before.

22:18:36 >>MARTY BOYLE: Well, I have to come up with my

22:18:39 definition.

22:18:40 >> No, no, I'm asking if it's a legal construct that

22:18:46 says if you're in the Channel District or in Tampa

22:18:49 Heights, then you have this additional -- I've never

22:18:55 heard that, honestly.

22:18:56 >>MARTY BOYLE: It not part of the code.

22:18:58 It's staff's looking at our recommendation.

22:19:02 If we are looking at if we had our comments whether we

22:19:08 are objecting or we are considering it consistent

22:19:12 with.

22:19:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need to ask legal about this.

22:19:16 Excuse me.

22:19:18 I have never -- I have been around since -- forever,

22:19:21 and I have never heard a zoning that's adjacent to --

22:19:27 like near Tampa Heights so we have to pay attention to

22:19:29 the Tampa Heights.

22:19:30 >>> Maybe I can also defer to Tony Garcia from

22:19:33 Planning Commission, because what we were speaking to

22:19:35 were the objectives from the Tampa comprehensive plan.




22:19:39 >> But we have distinguished between the rules for

22:19:43 downtown, and the rules for the Channel District.

22:19:46 And I didn't realize that they had this morphing

22:19:51 ability.

22:19:51 >>> What Kate just pointed out to me, and we were

22:19:54 coming up with the objectives to show that it was

22:19:56 consistent.

22:19:57 We felt it was consistent.

22:19:59 One thing that Kate pointed out to me just now is that

22:20:02 under the approved PDA, that was already approved, the

22:20:06 height was 350 feet.

22:20:08 They are proposing 350 feet.

22:20:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That came from 1982 which was many

22:20:14 years before there was any Channel District plan.

22:20:17 I think rather than making up something about being

22:20:20 peripheral to the CBD it would be morons to say it's

22:20:25 an anomaly based on the fact there was no Channel

22:20:28 District plan at the time.

22:20:30 I don't want to you start saying -- making up this

22:20:33 peripheral thing that has never existed before.

22:20:36 I'm sorry.

22:20:39 >>MARTY BOYLE: Okay.




22:20:40 Continue?

22:20:41 It was our note that we were going through the Tampa

22:20:44 comprehensive plan, and under objective 8-A, .1,

22:20:50 talking about the permit consideration of density,

22:20:53 intensity, bonuses, even though they don't -- there is

22:20:57 in this, they don't -- the F.A.R. is already existing

22:21:03 of 3.5 and they are asking for any bonuses.

22:21:05 But we made a note that the proposed site plan overall

22:21:10 density does not exceed the 3.5 fall.

22:21:14 And in addition to that the petitioner is providing

22:21:16 the following amenity to address that.

22:21:19 The petitioner at their sole expense will construct

22:21:21 the riverwalk in accordance with the riverwalk's

22:21:24 master plan and you can see the language on note

22:21:27 number 17.

22:21:29 We also noted the proposed structure is located just

22:21:31 east of the downtown and the central business

22:21:33 district.

22:21:35 The height is 150 feet was approved as part of the

22:21:38 original PDA.

22:21:39 So with the notes in the site plan it removed

22:21:44 transportation objections, our objections and land




22:21:49 development does not have any objections.

22:21:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we have some questions.

22:21:58 Ms. Alvarez.

22:21:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Under policy 8.4-1 you said the

22:22:07 riverwalk is going to be approved, not to exceed what,

22:22:11 is it a million or 100,000?

22:22:14 >>MARTY BOYLE: A million.

22:22:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's missing a zero.

22:22:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sorry

22:22:22 >>MARTY BOYLE: I'm sorry.

22:22:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The question to transportation.

22:22:27 >>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.

22:22:34 I have been sworn.

22:22:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Thornton.

22:22:38 Talk to me about circulation.

22:22:41 We need a better site plan up on the Elmo.

22:22:44 Let's talk about circulation.

22:22:45 >>CALVIN THORNTON: I can't, and I really prefer that

22:22:54 their engineer kind of talk to council.

22:22:56 I know they have a presentation they want to present

22:22:57 to you guys to show you the things that they done, and

22:23:00 I don't mind talking to you about it.




22:23:01 But I might not describe it as well as they do.

22:23:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll wait.

22:23:11 >>> If they can't answer your question I will be more

22:23:14 than happy to answer.

22:23:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You will definitely be back up but

22:23:18 I'll wait until they make their presentation.

22:23:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Did you want to make a clarification

22:23:24 before you make your presentation?

22:23:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Please do.

22:23:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Before that I have a question of

22:23:32 staff, legal.

22:23:36 Let's hear from Planning Commission.

22:23:38 >>TONY GARCIA: Save the best for last, I guess,

22:23:44 tonight.

22:23:46 Planning Commission staff.

22:23:47 I have been sworn.

22:23:51 I guess there's a little bit of confusion because we

22:23:53 are talking about the DRI plus talking about the

22:23:56 rezoning but talking about the rezoning first so let's

22:23:58 look at the whole thing in context.

22:24:00 Here's the Channel District in purple here on the

22:24:02 future land use map.




22:24:03 This is central business district, your dividing line

22:24:06 is Meridian.

22:24:07 The subject parcel that you had asked about is right

22:24:09 here.

22:24:10 This is parcel B, which is the subject of the

22:24:12 rezoning.

22:24:13 To change the subject par sell B, of all the other

22:24:18 parcels, the entire 1986 seaport DRI had to be brought

22:24:22 in, which is why you are looking at the DRI tonight.

22:24:27 So what you are looking at is a change in the

22:24:29 entitlement, because what they did, they neglected to

22:24:32 do is this particular site does not have a residential

22:24:35 entitlement to it now.

22:24:36 So rezoning for residential entitlement allowing 250

22:24:40 residential units for this particular site, which

22:24:43 would consist two of towers, approximately 350 feet in

22:24:46 height, which was, I believe, originally approved by

22:24:48 this council awhile back for another rezoning.

22:24:52 This was one of the first rezonings, I think, that was

22:24:56 approved in the Channel District when it was doing its

22:24:59 reorganization, or it's redevelopment.

22:25:02 Here is the aerial that shows again the existing uses




22:25:08 on-site.

22:25:10 This is the parking lot adjacent to Channelside, or

22:25:13 development of channel service.

22:25:15 Some people -- Channelside, which is incorrect.

22:25:19 They kind of juxtapose the phrase.

22:25:21 This is the Channel District. This is the mixed use

22:25:23 development of the channelside.

22:25:26 Adjacent to it of course is the St. Pete Times Forum.

22:25:28 To the left for context here is the bridge, Mr.

22:25:32 Dingfelder, you asked for originally.

22:25:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just wanted to make sure it's still

22:25:35 there.

22:25:37 >>> Still there. This will be the site of the future

22:25:39 Tampa Bay museum over here.

22:25:41 And just for you, Mr. Dingfelder, here is Newts.

22:25:46 Here is Andreychuk's.

22:25:50 Of course we do have several establishments within

22:25:54 Channelside, which I won't go into.

22:25:57 Regarding the DRI, most of the issues that had been

22:26:02 raised, Ms. Ogilvie on our city team has collaborated

22:26:08 with Mrs. Johnson, your DRI coordinator for the city

22:26:11 and the issues regarding the hurricane issues, parks,




22:26:13 schools, public access, sidewalks and transit have

22:26:16 been addressed within the proposed rezoning plan.

22:26:20 Again, the specific rezoning is for just a change to

22:26:24 allow the residential component in parcel B of all the

22:26:27 parcels that are within the DRI to allow 250

22:26:30 residential units.

22:26:31 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the

22:26:34 proposed request.

22:26:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any questions from council members?

22:26:37 Before we get to the petitioner I have a quick

22:26:39 question from legal.

22:26:40 And that is, PDA is something we are not using much

22:26:47 these days because of the diagram thing.

22:26:49 So my question is, how come the petitioner is allowed

22:26:53 to request that they are going to a PDA rather than a

22:26:56 PD, which is much more specific?

22:27:00 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.

22:27:01 I have been sworn in.

22:27:02 Currently, I believe they are going from PDA to PDA

22:27:07 and the new PDA would allow them to add a residential

22:27:10 component.

22:27:10 And I think it's because of buildout time, I believe,




22:27:13 is why they are requesting the PDA rather than the PD.

22:27:17 >> But the PDA isn't something that one can ask for

22:27:20 these days.

22:27:20 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: It in the code.

22:27:22 >> It's still in the code?

22:27:24 >>> Yes, it is: Okay.

22:27:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This PD looks like it has a fair

22:27:31 amount of detail so I don't have a huge problem with

22:27:33 it.

22:27:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Petitioner.

22:27:42 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 south Boulevard, here on behalf

22:27:46 of the Tampa port authority.

22:27:49 I have with me this evening Mr. Brooksberg who is with

22:27:53 Channelside, downtown Channelside LLP, who is the

22:27:57 proposed developer of parcel B.

22:28:00 What I would like to do, and some of this has gotten

22:28:02 clarified, but just to give you a little more context

22:28:05 here --

22:28:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Mechanik, you have been sworn?

22:28:10 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I have been sworn.

22:28:11 This is the approved DRI.

22:28:14 Actually this is the zoning site plan for the site.




22:28:16 And I just wanted to show you, this is the larger

22:28:20 tract which is -- let me check my notes on the 21-acre

22:28:27 site, and it extends, as you have been advised, from

22:28:31 beneficial on the west all the way over to where the

22:28:36 aquarium is on the east, and toward the northeast, as

22:28:41 Channelside circles over there

22:28:46 So it's a landmark site.

22:28:47 Parcel B is 3.5 acres within that site.

22:28:53 And just to clarify for Mrs. Saul-Sena, we did at the

22:28:55 request of staff, knowing that council is looking for

22:28:58 detailed plans, we did supply a detailed plan for

22:29:02 parcel B, because they are far enough along in their

22:29:06 design and plans that they are in a position to do so.

22:29:10 I'd like to just go back.

22:29:12 The site was approved as a DRI, and rezoned back in

22:29:17 1986 as a PDA.

22:29:20 The approval was for 1 million square feet of office,

22:29:25 600 hotel rooms and 30,000 square feet of retail and

22:29:29 restaurant.

22:29:31 What we're asking this evening in connection with

22:29:33 parcel B is to modify the existing equivalency matrix

22:29:38 in the DRI to allow for 250 hotel rooms -- I'm sorry,




22:29:44 250 residential units, 5,000 square feet of retail and

22:29:51 30 thousand square feet of office.

22:29:51 When I refer to the matrix, what that is understood

22:29:54 the DRI there's an equivalency where the impacts, we

22:29:59 reduced one type of use N.this case we would reduce

22:30:01 either office or hotel uses in exchange for the

22:30:04 residential units, so there will be no additional

22:30:07 impacts created from the development.

22:30:09 So we are not asking for additional approvals in terms

22:30:12 of impacts on the development.

22:30:14 We are simply asking for the right to exchange those

22:30:17 approved uses for another use.

22:30:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You or somebody else pass that up.

22:30:23 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Pass up the board?

22:30:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

22:30:26 Doesn't do us much good from this distance.

22:30:29 This is the approved.

22:30:49 >>> The site was originally approved for 350 feet.

22:30:51 We are not asking for an increase in height as part of

22:30:54 this proposal this evening.

22:30:58 It was approved as a PDA.

22:31:01 As you know, there are no specific height limits.




22:31:03 And that was deemed appropriate.

22:31:05 And we believe that it is also very much appropriate

22:31:10 in today's context as well.

22:31:12 The site is approved with the totals that I provided

22:31:16 you.

22:31:17 The site is approved for a 2.0 F.A.R. which is well

22:31:23 below the permissible intensity under the land use

22:31:26 classification.

22:31:28 And with this particular proposal this evening, the

22:31:31 site will wind up actually being built out at about

22:31:34 1.5 F.A.R.

22:31:36 So it is considerably below what is permissible under

22:31:39 the land use classification of regional mixed use 100.

22:31:48 At this time, what I'd like to do is introduce Mr.

22:31:51 Brooksberg who will give you an overview of the design

22:31:54 of the project.

22:31:55 Thank you.

22:32:02 >>> Good evening.

22:32:03 Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present

22:32:05 to you tonight.

22:32:08 I would like to just quickly go through just some of

22:32:13 the design components of our project.




22:32:16 As you heard over and over what we are proposing is

22:32:20 two 30 story condominium towers, 250 residential

22:32:24 units, average size of our units will be approximately

22:32:27 2,000 square feet.

22:32:28 We are going to have the unit size range from about

22:32:31 1500 square feet to 2600 square feet for a dip typical

22:32:36 unit and then an additional sizes of penthouses which

22:32:40 could range up to 5,000 square feet.

22:32:45 Smith barns, I have Al barns and T. green.

22:32:53 They constructed the architectural model for to us try

22:32:56 to help illustrate what we are proposing doing.

22:32:59 Again, under the residential towers themselves would

22:33:03 be five floors of parking.

22:33:05 We have a total of 460 parking spaces associated with

22:33:09 the residential tower.

22:33:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You might want to put it up on the

22:33:16 thing there.

22:33:17 Wait, we have a picture of it.

22:33:19 Hold on.

22:33:25 >>> Can everybody see it okay?

22:33:26 Okay.

22:33:28 Again, five levels of parking under the residential




22:33:33 towers themselves.

22:33:34 If I turn the building here for one second, the

22:33:43 southern face of the bidding, we would be facing the

22:33:45 Garrison Channel.

22:33:47 And over the last nine months I have had an

22:33:49 opportunity to work with Lee Hofan of City of Tampa,

22:33:56 the port authority, FDLE and Florida Coast Guard

22:33:59 trying to come up with a way to bring the Tampa

22:34:01 riverwalk behind this project.

22:34:03 And I think we have reached an agreement that will

22:34:05 work for all parties involved.

22:34:08 And that riverwalk would run along the outer edge of

22:34:12 our property.

22:34:13 Please understand that the actual piers that were

22:34:18 shown here for illustration purposes, but the

22:34:21 riverwalk would be designed to the riverwalk

22:34:23 guidelines, by the City of Tampa.

22:34:26 In addition, along that waterfront area, we are

22:34:28 allowing for some retail kiosk opportunities.

22:34:32 In fact we are in discussion was the starship cruise

22:34:36 line and Troy mathy to locate his ticket offices in

22:34:43 one of these kiosks, and actually interested for




22:34:46 possible other retail opportunities.

22:34:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the riverwalk would stop at the

22:34:51 end of your building and then where would people go?

22:34:54 Would they continue behind Channelside or go up that

22:34:57 side street, Garrison?

22:35:00 >>> They would actually go up Garrison.

22:35:02 That's a good point.

22:35:04 There's the existing warf that we show here.

22:35:09 It's not finalized but what we have asked for the port

22:35:11 authority to do is allow pedestrian access along the

22:35:15 portion of that warf.

22:35:17 And we would improve that warf.

22:35:20 Then what we did as part of our design components is

22:35:23 we actually have a two-story atrium in this area, if

22:35:27 you can see it better to this corner.

22:35:29 In the verbiage there, this two-story atrium would be

22:35:33 a sidewalk along Garrison street, and would connect up

22:35:36 into the Garrison entertainment component.

22:35:40 Now, as we are going along this face here, this is the

22:35:45 area that we talked about, the star ship cruise lines,

22:35:49 possible ticketing office, retail component there,

22:35:53 where the star ship cruise line has recently re-signed




22:35:56 their lease with the Tampa port authority, and they

22:35:58 are proposing docking their boat right along in this

22:36:00 area.

22:36:03 The warf would continue on to Beneficial Bridge.

22:36:08 Exact way, getting under or over that bridge has not

22:36:12 been determined but I think it seems that leaning

22:36:15 towards going under the bridge at this point if it's

22:36:16 possible to do.

22:36:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does your contribution include

22:36:20 going under the bridge?

22:36:21 >>> Our contribution includes the area behind our

22:36:23 property, not under the bridge.

22:36:25 At this point.

22:36:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What if for argument sake, let's

22:36:29 say you use $500,000 behind your building.

22:36:33 Couldn't you make a contribution to the city to help

22:36:35 the city get under -- get under the bridge?

22:36:39 It's a start.

22:36:41 >>> Well, I would say that I think our contribution is

22:36:44 probably the largest contribution to date by a private

22:36:46 developer in offering up to a million dollars on -- if

22:36:51 we were able to build our portion for under that




22:36:53 million dollar component, would we be willing to take

22:36:55 the balance and apply towards the part under the

22:36:58 bridge?

22:36:59 I have no objection to that.

22:36:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Fair enough.

22:37:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Sounds good.

22:37:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Keep going.

22:37:11 >>> What I imagine we are going to be spending a

22:37:12 little time talk about tonight is the access point.

22:37:16 For the residential component we would access off

22:37:18 Beneficial Drive.

22:37:19 One of the components and one of the most that you

22:37:21 will see from traffic on our site plan is our

22:37:24 agreement to add an additional lane of traffic going.

22:37:28 I don't want to get too far in into it because I want

22:37:31 to let Randy speak to it directly but we have agreed

22:37:34 to add in an additional lane of traffic onto

22:37:38 Beneficial Drive.

22:37:39 Essentially making a designated stacking left turn

22:37:42 lane, which would access for the residents of my

22:37:48 property.

22:37:48 >> You haven't shown in the model but you are showing




22:37:50 it on your site plan is retail office space in the

22:37:54 front.

22:37:56 Which I have heard for years is supposedly a grocery

22:37:58 store.

22:37:59 >>> Well, that is our intent.

22:38:01 >> I was just wondering why that's not in the model.

22:38:04 >> One of the primary reasons we are not illustrating

22:38:06 that tonight is because that uses -- it is in zone

22:38:09 conditions that a S allowable in the property as it

22:38:12 sits today.

22:38:15 What we did for site plan purposes is we have we have

22:38:18 a site plan showing you on the component of the

22:38:19 Garrison Seaport DRI which we are intending to modify.

22:38:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But the traffic issues in many ways

22:38:29 are related as much to the retail as they are to

22:38:31 residential.

22:38:33 >>> Yes.

22:38:34 And we are talking about traffic, and traffic flow.

22:38:37 We do illustrate the traffic patterns into the retail

22:38:41 component on our site plan, and if you don't mind I'll

22:38:46 defer Randy comb to speak to you in detail about that

22:38:51 for you.




22:38:51 And just to wrap up on the residential component here,

22:38:56 on the sixth floor would be our proposed deck in which

22:39:00 we would have a pool area, common area elements, and

22:39:03 amenities to the project.

22:39:06 All the units would be single loaded units.

22:39:10 Way mean by single loaded units, three units with

22:39:14 views out towards Harbor Island as well as views back

22:39:18 towards the City of Tampa there. Would not be units

22:39:20 stacked back to back against each other, the

22:39:22 single-loaded design.

22:39:24 And here, if you have a chance, you might want to take

22:39:27 a loot a renderings with architectural models,

22:39:31 massive -- this might give you a better idea when we

22:39:33 actually have railings on the porches.

22:39:40 With that I will turn it back over to David Mechanik.

22:39:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn, for the record?

22:39:46 >>> Yes.

22:39:47 Twice.

22:39:47 >>JULIE BROWN: If you see on note 17, specifically

22:39:59 what it says with regard to the million dollars that

22:40:01 you inquired about, and how it's applied towards the

22:40:04 parcel B, it said that the developer shall be




22:40:07 responsible for design, permitting, constructing a

22:40:11 riverwalk adjacent to parcel B.

22:40:13 That's not under the Garrison bridge.

22:40:15 In accordance with the riverwalk's master plan subject

22:40:17 to review and approval by the City of Tampa for a cost

22:40:20 not to exceed a million dollar.

22:40:22 I just wanted to clarify that's actually not in

22:40:26 reference to that portion that's under if Garrison

22:40:28 bridge so any representation that has been made was

22:40:30 not contemplated with regard to the site plan.

22:40:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It was just contemplated by me,

22:40:36 though.

22:40:36 And so -- do you understand my point?

22:40:40 >>JULIE BROWN: I do understand your point but that's

22:40:41 not what we have agreed to in the current site plan.

22:40:45 >> Who is we?

22:40:45 >>> The City of Tampa and the port authority.

22:40:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

22:40:50 But neither group is sitting at this podium.

22:40:54 This podium, that decides these conditions is City

22:40:58 Council.

22:40:58 >>> Right.




22:40:58 I was just making a clarification of what the city had

22:41:01 previously agreed to.

22:41:04 >> So the city would be upset?

22:41:04 The city administration would be upset?

22:41:06 >>> No, no.

22:41:07 But this is a new development -- I mean this is

22:41:09 something new, the million dollar was to be applied

22:41:11 towards the riverwalk development, towards that

22:41:13 parcel, adjacent to B.

22:41:18 >> So this is better.

22:41:21 >>> I mean, if it costs what you said are less than a

22:41:27 million dollar obviously the city would be very

22:41:29 willing to take that money and apply it towards any

22:41:31 other portion of the riverwalk.

22:41:32 I just wanted to make a clarification to council that

22:41:35 this was to be applied towards that portion of the

22:41:37 riverwalk adjacent to the parcel.

22:41:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

22:41:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think there was a little bit of a

22:41:45 disconnect between her and Mr. Dingfelder.

22:41:47 I think that I understand Wan she was trying to do was

22:41:51 simply tell us what was on this.




22:41:53 Negotiations as the night progresses may add to or

22:41:58 agree to what was on there but I appreciate the

22:42:01 clarification.

22:42:01 >>JULIE BROWN: Thank you.

22:42:03 Petitioner?

22:42:06 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Just on the riverwalk issue, just

22:42:09 speaking with Ms. O'Dowd, the language, in order to

22:42:13 accommodate Mr. Dingfelder's request, and what I

22:42:17 believe Mr. Byrd had agreed to, we would have to

22:42:21 modify one of the notes, and Kate's suggestion was we

22:42:26 would bring that back in a week if council were to

22:42:28 approve this request this evening.

22:42:30 >> Along with any other changes that might happen

22:42:32 tonight.

22:42:35 >>DAVID MECHANIK: What I would like to do is introduce

22:42:37 Mr. Randy Coen of Cohen and company.

22:42:39 He prepared the traffic analyses that were required

22:42:42 for the DRI at the rezoning application, and he will

22:42:47 also be able to speak to the traffic circulation

22:42:51 issues.

22:42:52 Thank you.

22:42:57 >>> Randy Coen.




22:42:59 I have been sworn.

22:43:00 No need for a red hat.

22:43:02 Put this up on the Elmo.

22:43:08 The first thing I would like to indicate is we

22:43:10 actually have two actions in front of you tonight.

22:43:13 One is a notice of proposed change from the traffic

22:43:15 speaker perspective was to evaluate the exchange of

22:43:18 the buildout date of the project.

22:43:20 We completed a thorough transportation analysis as

22:43:23 required by the Regional Planning Council, Florida

22:43:25 Department of Transportation, City of Tampa,

22:43:27 et cetera, et cetera.

22:43:28 That analysis has been fully reviewed and deemed

22:43:31 sufficient.

22:43:32 We also, because of the rezoning action and the fact

22:43:34 that parcel B, especially the residential portion of

22:43:39 parcel B, was a new use, we did a detailed analysis

22:43:42 for the rezoning regarding access related to this

22:43:45 particular project.

22:43:47 There are also two other studies that have been

22:43:49 provided by the port authority to the City of Tampa.

22:43:51 Those were actually studies that were done solely for




22:43:54 the use of the port for operations in the operation of

22:43:58 Garrison suite itself so you are probably going to

22:44:01 hear some comments about that.

22:44:02 Just wanted to put it in perspective.

22:44:04 One by links and associates.

22:44:07 They were really directed to port provisions with the

22:44:11 ships and how things could be coordinated on Garrison

22:44:13 so we actually have four traffic studies. The first

22:44:16 two, the DRI study and the rezoning study are relative

22:44:18 to what we are talking about tonight. The other two

22:44:21 studies have been provided for additional information.

22:44:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a base question to ask you.

22:44:25 When this was permitted in '86, the population on

22:44:29 Harbor Island was much less.

22:44:32 So was the population in the Channel District.

22:44:33 Fast forward 20 years, here we are.

22:44:38 Do the surrounding conditions -- do these reports take

22:44:41 into account any of the surrounding conditions?

22:44:45 >>> Yes, as a matter of fact, the DRI transportation

22:44:47 analysis took into effect all of the planned

22:44:49 developments within the downtown area through 2015,

22:44:53 substantial growth rates.




22:44:54 As a matter of fact, when we did the rezoning

22:44:56 transportation analysis, folks along Beneficial Drive,

22:45:00 the access from beneficial into the project, the

22:45:02 intersection of beneficial and Channelside.

22:45:05 We incorporated every known project within the Channel

22:45:07 District, including such projects as the pinnacle

22:45:11 project, redevelopment, et cetera.

22:45:14 We, in addition to that, controlled for occupancy on

22:45:17 Harbor Island because a number of the residential

22:45:19 units constructed on Harbor Island are not actually

22:45:22 occupied at this time.

22:45:23 So in addition to every known project, we actually do

22:45:26 traffic plan to 2015 so we accommodate known

22:45:31 development, additional development, and we also dealt

22:45:33 with full occupancy of Harbor Island for everything

22:45:38 planned on it and I have done a substantial amount of

22:45:41 work on transportation on Harbor Island a number of

22:45:45 years, was on this project as well.

22:45:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Cohen, the blue thing that

22:45:52 crosses Beneficial Drive, can you point to the with a

22:45:55 pen?

22:45:55 >>> Right here.




22:45:57 >> What is that?

22:45:58 >>> Subject to a great deal of talk.

22:46:00 Let's go through this because --

22:46:02 >>: Just tell me what it is.

22:46:03 >>> That will be a left turn lane, southbound left

22:46:06 turn lane, at this point, the crosswalk at Channelside

22:46:11 Drive.

22:46:11 You will see 240 feet to a proposed driveway there

22:46:15 that's actually approved in the DRI and the existing

22:46:17 zoning

22:46:20 This location is not signalized, no, sir.

22:46:24 >> Is it -- and the reason I asked to see the board

22:46:26 before, I don't know where it went, we don't want to

22:46:29 lose it.

22:46:32 The approved PDA right now, when I looked at the

22:46:38 board, did not appear to have that left turn in off of

22:46:45 beneficial.

22:46:46 Is that true or not?

22:46:48 >>> What it does show and what the existing PDA and

22:46:50 the existing DRI showed is a driveway location which

22:46:54 is unspecified as to right in, right out, left turn,

22:46:59 out --




22:47:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't see anything to indicate a

22:47:03 left turn coming across beneficial.

22:47:06 >>> Specifically, no, sir, there's no indication at

22:47:08 all.

22:47:08 Simply an access point of driveway.

22:47:10 That's what's currently approved on the property.

22:47:14 All of the other driveways that were identified on

22:47:16 Channelside itself in the original approval were

22:47:19 identified as being right in, right out driveways.

22:47:22 This driveway simply had no designation, simply a

22:47:25 driveway connection to beneficial.

22:47:26 >> I just want to make sure there's no vested right to

22:47:29 allow the break in that median and the left-turn in.

22:47:34 >>> I would say that's debatable but I am certainly

22:47:36 not going to stand here and tell you it's vested.

22:47:38 That's a legal question.

22:47:39 There's simply a driveway location, never been defined

22:47:42 as to was. The currently the driveway location that

22:47:44 is there services the surface parking lot and it has

22:47:48 operated as right in and right out.

22:47:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Carry on.

22:47:53 >>> Talking about circulation, let's first talk about




22:47:55 what the changes would be on beneficial.

22:47:57 And before I even get to that, we went through a

22:48:00 number of different potential access and areas with

22:48:02 City of Tampa transportation staff before we ever came

22:48:05 to a conclusion of access arrangement that in fact

22:48:10 City of Tampa staff is comfortable with us to move

22:48:12 forward with, with detailed model.

22:48:14 This is what we are actually required to give detailed

22:48:18 model on, this particular access.

22:48:21 We looked at providing a left turn lane, southbound on

22:48:24 Channelside Drive, into the project.

22:48:27 And simply converting the inside lane, beneficial

22:48:30 currently is four lanes, divided two lanes in each

22:48:32 direction.

22:48:33 The analysis we did actually showed converting the

22:48:35 inside lanes simply to a left turn lane and having one

22:48:40 through southbound lane on beneficial.

22:48:41 That's what we analyzed.

22:48:43 That's what weed and in traffic modeling.

22:48:46 We demonstrated that it did work appropriately.

22:48:48 However, city staff came back and said, everyone

22:48:51 though it does, we want to see two southbound lanes on




22:48:54 beneficial, we want that to remain. This green line

22:48:58 that you see here actually, there's the construction

22:49:01 of an additional through lane on beneficial

22:49:05 southbound, so that the current inside through-lane

22:49:09 can be converted to a left turn lane but we continue

22:49:11 to have two southbound lanes on beneficial as we have

22:49:13 two northbound lanes on beneficial.

22:49:15 So it remains a four-lane divided roadway.

22:49:18 We simply create a left turn lane in the middle of

22:49:20 Beneficial Drive.

22:49:21 >> And does that left turn traffic go to the

22:49:26 residential building as well as the grocery store?

22:49:28 >>> Yes.

22:49:29 As a matter of fact, let's move onto the site and I'll

22:49:31 show you access. What the city transportation staff

22:49:33 and we discussed went through and decided to model was

22:49:36 to have the traffic enter parcel B from beneficial,

22:49:41 coming in this way.

22:49:42 This is an inbound lane.

22:49:44 It would allow -- allow for residential traffic to

22:49:46 come in, circulate within the parking structure

22:49:49 itself.




22:49:49 Also the retail and office would come in this way,

22:49:52 actually go up a ramp, into a parking structure that

22:49:55 sits above the retail that would be on the first

22:49:58 floor.

22:49:58 So we have two separate parking garages.

22:50:00 One for the retail and office.

22:50:02 One for the residential.

22:50:04 The residential traffic would also be required to exit

22:50:07 onto beneficial, only allowed to make a right turn.

22:50:10 The retail office traffic on beneficial would only be

22:50:14 allowed to exit to Garrison street.

22:50:17 So all office and retail traffic will execute to

22:50:20 Garrison street and come to Channelside, via Garrison

22:50:23 street itself.

22:50:24 Service and delivery vehicles for the office and

22:50:27 retail will come to this point.

22:50:31 Actually, this is, if you will, a closed driveway in

22:50:34 that it is controlled by doors on either end.

22:50:37 We will have service trucks come in for the retail and

22:50:39 office from Garrison street.

22:50:45 Close doors when it's not being accessed by a vehicle.

22:50:48 Leave on beneficial with a right turn only.




22:50:51 Service trucks and solid waste for the residential

22:50:54 would come in on Garrison, would service the retail

22:51:01 complex here and would also depart on Garrison.

22:51:01 The doors that are here for the service delivery to

22:51:04 the office and retail remain closed all times except

22:51:08 when there is a delivery truck or service truck for

22:51:10 those particular uses, the office and the retail.

22:51:13 No possibility of cut-through traffic whatsoever.

22:51:17 The port authority will maintain the current practice

22:51:22 of the crews ships on the Garrison. This is a very

22:51:25 active area.

22:51:26 It will have to be closely managed.

22:51:28 That's one the port authority actually commissioned

22:51:30 two separate studies beyond what we did in the zoning,

22:51:32 beyond what we did in the DRI, to deal exclusive with

22:51:35 what happens on Garrison.

22:51:36 So just in summary, what we have is the traffic for

22:51:40 parcel B entering offer of make, left the left in, or

22:51:45 make a right in, be able to come to the residential.

22:51:48 The residential will leave at beneficial, retail will

22:51:53 levy a Garrison.

22:51:54 What we have attempted to do is actually split the




22:51:57 traffic so that we have as much as we could a 50-50

22:52:01 proposition.

22:52:02 I will mention to you that one of the concepts we

22:52:06 looked at with the city was to reverse this operation

22:52:08 and to have all the traffic come in on Garrison, leave

22:52:11 on beneficial.

22:52:13 That had a number of operational issues involved with

22:52:16 it.

22:52:17 And frankly one of them was if all the traffic were

22:52:20 leaving on beneficial it would certainly stack on

22:52:23 beneficial and no significant -- they would literally

22:52:28 have all the traffic B ahead of them.

22:52:31 Other issue with that is when we do have maneuvering

22:52:34 on this area we would have to close Garrison at this

22:52:36 point thereby creating congestion at Channelside.

22:52:39 City staff is not in favor of that by any means.

22:52:42 When we do have trucks that are provisioning chucks

22:52:48 particularly early in the Henning sometimes at midday

22:52:50 this operation is such that the retail and the office

22:52:52 building, the folks that are in this garage simply

22:52:54 will wait until the trucks have done maneuvering,

22:52:57 gotten out of the way, effectively closed down




22:52:59 Garrison, not allowing them to access Garrison for the

22:53:01 period of time, backing up to trucks in this area.

22:53:06 The residential is not affected because they will all

22:53:08 be leaving on beneficial.

22:53:10 So what we created as -- was a situation where parcel

22:53:15 B will actually be on Garrison, therefore they are

22:53:18 only affecting the folks, the shoppers there at the

22:53:21 grocery store, and retail, and the office building,

22:53:24 not providing on Channelside.

22:53:28 Coming to the southbound left it operates like any

22:53:30 left turn does at any divided roadways in the City of

22:53:33 Tampa.

22:53:33 The left turn is simply turn left when in fact they

22:53:36 have an opportunity, a gap in traffic to do so.

22:53:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Cohen, I'm looking at a note on

22:53:42 here that looks like the exit for the -- entrance-exit

22:53:51 for the solid waste truck and exit only for row tail

22:53:54 use.

22:53:54 >>> Yes, sir.

22:53:55 >> And exists to Garrison.

22:53:56 >>> Yes, sir.

22:54:00 >> All the retail and office will exit to Garrison.




22:54:02 Solid waste for the residential and delivery to the

22:54:05 residential in Garrison and leave on Garrison.

22:54:09 Service trucks for the --

22:54:11 >>: And I -- you're one of the best transportation

22:54:16 profession a will that comes in front of us,

22:54:19 knowledgeable as can be on all these issues.

22:54:21 Isn't a right-right and right the safest way to get

22:54:24 into this building?

22:54:26 >>> There are a number of ways --

22:54:27 >>: I mean coming from Channelside.

22:54:29 Okay?

22:54:29 Or coming from Meridian.

22:54:32 If I'm coming from either of those, the safest way to

22:54:35 get into this retail complex, or the residential

22:54:39 complex, as far as I can see, it would appear to me to

22:54:42 be -- to go down and make a right on Garrison street

22:54:46 and a right into the complex.

22:54:49 >>> That would work fine.

22:54:52 >> I'm asking you what's the safest way to do that?

22:54:55 Is it safer to do that the way or is it safer to

22:54:58 cross -- to cross traffic with that left turn in?

22:55:02 >>> In this particular case the left turn is safer.




22:55:04 >> Why?

22:55:05 >>> The reason is dealing with Garrison street, it

22:55:09 provides services for the shops at Channelside.

22:55:11 It provides servicing for the cruise ships.

22:55:17 Anytime we have trucks maneuvering, turning around

22:55:20 backing up on Garrison street we would have to close

22:55:23 Garrison at Channelside.

22:55:24 We have inbound traffic coming in.

22:55:26 That creates unsafe conditions.

22:55:29 That creates queues.

22:55:30 Also potentially would come back into Channelside.

22:55:34 Garrison street is approximately 40 feet but how wide

22:55:36 is it when we have two semi trucks there and we have

22:55:39 two small SUV vehicles?

22:55:41 >>> Starting with an empty lot.

22:55:43 Can't you make it as wide as you want to make it?

22:55:47 >>> I'm talking about Garrison --

22:55:49 >>: Garrison is a private street.

22:55:51 It doesn't exist except on the developer --

22:55:56 >>> Channelside is also a private street from Meridian

22:55:57 to Cumberland with a transportation to the City of

22:56:00 Tampa.




22:56:01 It's owned by the port of Tampa authority.

22:56:02 >> I don't know why that's relevant.

22:56:04 But I'm talking about Garrison street.

22:56:06 If Garrison street today is 40 feet and you say it's

22:56:08 not necessarily safe --

22:56:12 >>> Then we have heavy --

22:56:14 >>: Add extra lanes.

22:56:15 >>> When we have heavy vehicles turning around, which

22:56:20 in this area and coming back and will occur in this

22:56:23 area and turning around, backing up and turning heavy

22:56:25 vehicles, providing for visions to cruise ship

22:56:30 terminals simply means Garrison should not be open to

22:56:34 folks at that point in time when we have folks leaving

22:56:36 from a retail and office and week gait that you are

22:56:39 particular ramp so they cannot leave while we are

22:56:43 backing up.

22:56:44 If we have inbound traffic on Garrison the only way to

22:56:46 control Garrison is to block it at Channelside.

22:56:49 >> Is that what you're proposing?

22:56:50 >>> No, we are not.

22:56:52 Because the operation is everyone comes in this way.

22:56:55 All the retail and office leave this way.




22:56:57 Therefore we have the gate right here that will be

22:57:00 down anytime we have trucks maneuvering in this area

22:57:03 servicing.

22:57:04 For Channelside or the ships.

22:57:05 >> It's showing an arrow that allows to you get in.

22:57:11 No, no, the other side, on the Garrison side.

22:57:13 >>> Right here. This is only -- this is a service

22:57:16 drive.

22:57:16 >> The next one down.

22:57:19 My site plan shows an arrow that allows to you get in.

22:57:22 >>> No, sir.

22:57:23 There's an arrow -- this is a down ramp with an arrow

22:57:26 to leave.

22:57:27 All you have here are coming into the residential and

22:57:29 leaving that way.

22:57:30 There is no connection to the residential to exit this

22:57:33 way.

22:57:34 There is no connection to the residential to enter

22:57:36 this way, or the retail to enter this way.

22:57:39 >> Well, you have a spare arrow on here, so.

22:57:46 >>> Oh, that.

22:57:47 Excuse me, there is an arrow there. This area right




22:57:49 here.

22:57:51 It's for solid waste, and solid waste with a heavy

22:57:54 vehicle is allowed to enter on Garrison, to collect

22:57:57 solid waste, and to leave on Garrison.

22:58:00 So there is room here.

22:58:02 And this is the solid waste to come in this way and

22:58:06 leave this way.

22:58:07 The reason being there are heavy trucks.

22:58:09 It is basically once every two or three-day

22:58:11 collection.

22:58:12 >> True or false?

22:58:13 Port authority is denying you the use of Garrison

22:58:17 street for this purpose.

22:58:20 >>> Port authority is protecting the interest of

22:58:23 operations to the warf area.

22:58:24 >> I didn't ask why.

22:58:25 I didn't ask why.

22:58:26 It's a true or false question, Randy.

22:58:28 True or false?

22:58:30 The port authority is denying you use of Garrison

22:58:33 street for that purpose?

22:58:35 >>> I believe what the best answer would be is the




22:58:37 port authority is protecting their interest of

22:58:39 operating terminals.

22:58:41 >> That's the next question, which is why.

22:58:43 The first question is true or false?

22:58:46 >>> You're putting me in an awkward situation.

22:58:51 >> Because you are privy to these conversations except

22:58:54 I talked to staff and staff has clearly indicated to

22:58:57 me when I asked them that question that the port

22:58:59 authority has denied your client the use of Garrison

22:59:03 street for coming in and out of this project.

22:59:08 >>> Yes.

22:59:10 >> Thank you.

22:59:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

22:59:13 You said that when a truck is going to a ship, that

22:59:21 the retail can't leave?

22:59:25 >>> That would be correct.

22:59:25 >> Is that frequently?

22:59:27 >>> 90% of the time the stevedorian, the retail is not

22:59:38 open or the office for leaving the office at 7:00 in

22:59:41 the morning so therefore most of the time there isn't

22:59:43 a conflict.

22:59:44 However there are points in time when schedules are




22:59:46 such that ships arrive late, title conditions are such

22:59:48 that ships arrive later.

22:59:50 There are on occasion the points in time when

22:59:54 stevedorian operations are going on 9, 10, 11:00

22:59:58 o'clock in the middle of the day.

23:00:00 There are contracts, the port authority has with

23:00:03 cruise ships operate in terminal 2 in this area.

23:00:06 They bring the ships right in this area from here up.

23:00:12 >> So why that's happening, the people can't get out?

23:00:16 >>> We are talking about the time it takes for a truck

23:00:18 to come down Garrison, pull into here, maneuver and

23:00:21 turn around.

23:00:22 The minute it is turned around and south of this

23:00:24 point, then they can open the gate up.

23:00:26 There will be delays.

23:00:27 They could be five minutes.

23:00:29 They could be ten minutes.

23:00:29 We are not talking delays of two or three hours.

23:00:32 We are talking of a delay of point of time for a truck

23:00:35 to come in, turn around, back up and clear this point

23:00:38 so they can get out of harm's way.

23:00:41 Very large trucks backing into this area.




23:00:43 It's a temporary situation.

23:00:44 But in fact we gated not only this but also gated

23:00:48 this, and frankly we coordinator nature with any

23:00:54 deliveries that come to the retail.

23:00:54 We are backing up heavy trucks on the street.

23:00:55 It goes on all the time.

23:00:56 It goes on today, as a matter of fact.

23:00:58 Most of the time it's not an issue because it's very

23:01:00 early in the morning.

23:01:03 Sometimes it's not.

23:01:04 We have to protect for that.

23:01:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mrs. Ferlita, did you have a

23:01:11 question?

23:01:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.

23:01:14 >>> That pretty much sums it at the moment.

23:01:16 If you have any questions I would be glad to answer.

23:01:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Mechanik, who owns parcel D.

23:01:24 >>DAVID MECHANIK: The Tampa port authority.

23:01:27 >> So your client is proposing a lease?

23:01:29 >>> No, it's a proposed sale of the property.

23:01:32 >> But as of this date there's no closing, port

23:01:34 authority owns it?




23:01:36 >>> Right.

23:01:39 I would just like to conclude our presentation, and,

23:01:41 Mr. Dingfelder, at the risk of getting into this

23:01:43 debate further, I would just like to respectfully

23:01:46 suggest that the port authority and downtown

23:01:49 Channelside jointly develop this plan.

23:01:53 It wasn't a question of you can't do this versus you

23:01:55 can't do that.

23:01:56 The port authority has a tremendous public investment

23:01:59 in the cruise ship terminals there at that location.

23:02:03 So they have to maintain certain number of

23:02:06 restrictions on the use of Garrison street in order to

23:02:10 protect that investment.

23:02:11 And I believe that through working with your staff,

23:02:15 which we have done extensively, we have come up with a

23:02:18 reasonable transportation solution that will not

23:02:21 create any significant impacts to the residents in the

23:02:27 surrounding area, including Harbor Island, and I think

23:02:31 your staff will so indicate.

23:02:32 And we have received approvals from your staff, as

23:02:35 well as from the Florida Department of Transportation

23:02:38 and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council through an




23:02:41 extensive number of studies, and responses to

23:02:44 questions and so forth.

23:02:45 So with that, we will conclude.

23:02:47 And reserve the opportunity to come back with any

23:02:53 rebuttal comment.

23:02:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mrs. Alvarez?

23:02:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Mechanik, have you been -- have

23:03:00 you all been involved with these strategic action plan

23:03:04 for the Channel District?

23:03:05 Have you heard?

23:03:07 >>> I'm generally familiar with it.

23:03:09 I'm not, you know, totally versed in all the details.

23:03:14 >> What are the things they brought up at a special

23:03:17 discussion meeting this past Monday was affordable

23:03:19 housing or workforce housing.

23:03:21 Have you all made any arrangements for any of this in

23:03:23 your --

23:03:26 >>> I don't believe they have done so, no, ma'am.

23:03:28 But I would mention to you that we are not anywhere

23:03:32 near seeking the bonuses that would trigger those

23:03:37 kinds of considerations under your proposed Channel

23:03:42 District review regulation.




23:03:45 As I indicated before, site development is probably

23:03:49 going to wind up at about a one and a half F.A.R., and

23:03:53 those bonus considerations wouldn't even trigger until

23:03:57 3.5 F.A.R.

23:03:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions by council

23:04:01 members?

23:04:02 We will now hear the public.

23:04:05 Give us your name and address and tell us if you have

23:04:07 been sworn.

23:04:15 >>> Good evening.

23:04:15 My name is Joyce shower, address 723 said on coffee

23:0