Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 26, 2006
5:01 p.m.

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

17:10:02 [Sounding gavel]
17:10:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
17:10:04 The chair will yield to Mrs. Rose Ferlita.
17:10:07 >> Thank you, Madam Chairman.
17:10:10 We have our 15-minute break and are ready for the
17:10:12 evening session.
17:10:13 Good evening.

17:10:13 It is my pleasure tonight to introduce you my guest
17:10:17 brother Yabia, Franciscan Fryar serving a one-year
17:10:23 internship at sacred heart Catholic church just a few
17:10:27 blocks away from City Hall and is over 100 years old.
17:10:30 He was born in the Philippines and attending
17:10:33 Washington theological union in Washington, D.C.
17:10:36 Following his year in Tampa, he will return for his
17:10:39 final year at the Washington theological center.
17:10:43 I would ask that everybody stand and then brother
17:10:47 Julian in prayer.
17:10:49 Thank you for joining us.
17:10:52 >>> Let us pray.
17:10:55 Almighty and ever living God, bless the city officials
17:11:01 and all of us gathered here this evening.
17:11:04 Come to us.
17:11:06 Remain with us.
17:11:08 Enlighten our hearts and our minds as we gather in
17:11:11 your name and in the name of your people here in the
17:11:15 City of Tampa.
17:11:19 Be a light and our strength.
17:11:22 Enable us to make it our own and go with us in our
17:11:28 lives.

17:11:28 Guide us by your wisdom and support us by your power
17:11:33 so that everything that we do, discuss and decide is
17:11:39 accomplished in the name of justice, peace, truth, and
17:11:43 quality.
17:11:49 Let us up hold the rights of our brothers and sisters
17:11:51 and let not ignorance or fear hinder us from rendering
17:11:58 you service.
17:12:02 For you are our God forever and ever.
17:12:05 Amen.
17:12:08 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
17:12:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
17:12:27 [Roll Call]
17:12:33 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to announce that the
17:12:35 Central Park Village process will not be held until
17:12:38 6 p.m. so if you are going to -- if you are here for
17:12:41 that we are going to start that at 6 p.m
17:12:43 And we are going to go back to this morning's agenda.
17:12:45 We have item number, what was it, 8?
17:12:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I thought if we could listen to ray
17:12:58 Charles music on Central Avenue, put us all in a
17:13:04 better mood.
17:13:05 I thought we were going to have this hour gap between

17:13:07 showing up for Central Park Village and not being able
17:13:10 to hear us and I thought, wouldn't that be great if we
17:13:12 just had the music playing, before I realized that we
17:13:16 continued our preservation conversation.
17:13:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You're apologizing?
17:13:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Believe me, I wish we could listen
17:13:28 to ray Charles.
17:13:29 If we have any time between now and 6:00 maybe we can.
17:13:33 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
17:13:34 We are back her on item number 3.
17:13:36 I wanted to briefly set the context.
17:13:39 Since most of you heard it before and heard a lot of
17:13:42 additional information in between.
17:13:43 As you recall, there was a direction by the council to
17:13:46 look at an opt-out approach to historic preservation,
17:13:51 and at the time it came up, I wanted to make sure you
17:13:55 were aware of whatever implications that might have
17:13:57 for other aspects of the historic preservation
17:14:00 process, including certified local government.
17:14:03 We came back.
17:14:04 You had some presentations on that.
17:14:06 You know these not going to be effective.

17:14:08 The three choices that you have today are not altered
17:14:12 or affected by that at all.
17:14:14 As well as any of the other aspects of the process.
17:14:18 So what you really are looking at today is the
17:14:23 ordinance itself.
17:14:24 You remember that the cigar factories themselves were
17:14:27 remanded.
17:14:28 They have been sent back to HPC for determination that
17:14:34 would be appropriate at that level.
17:14:37 As I understand it there are 15 factories, about five
17:14:40 of whom were either inclined to go through the
17:14:42 process, certainly not disinclined to go through the
17:14:45 process, five of whom clearly opposed and articulated
17:14:49 their opposition, and five whom we did not hear from
17:14:52 in either way.
17:14:53 Our recommendation to you was that it would be
17:14:56 appropriate to handle the properties one at a time
17:15:01 based on the facts and circumstances applicable to
17:15:04 each property and not as a group.
17:15:07 That was the action you took.
17:15:08 It is now back in front of HPC.
17:15:12 I understand there may be some questions as to what

17:15:14 that means and certainly Dennis Fernandez is here to
17:15:16 help you understand what that may mean but I wanted to
17:15:18 make sure the context was clear because there's been a
17:15:20 lot of discussion about cigar factories tonight.
17:15:23 And although they could be affected down the road that
17:15:26 is not the issue before you.
17:15:28 That has been sent back, that will be handled probably
17:15:30 under the very ordinance that comes out of this
17:15:32 process.
17:15:34 And that way it is implicated but it is not directly
17:15:37 before you.
17:15:38 So the real question is, which of the three options do
17:15:42 you want to direct us to use to inform the ordinance
17:15:45 that we prepare?
17:15:47 As I indicated before, we believe the opt-out approach
17:15:51 is not a good approach in that it would be subject to
17:15:56 challenge that could be vulnerable.
17:15:58 Obviously, lawyers will always defend anything that
17:16:01 their clients ask them to within reason.
17:16:03 And we would attempt to defend that approach.
17:16:05 But we think you would be putting us at a disadvantage
17:16:08 if you were to go that route, particularly since you

17:16:10 are going to accomplish your objectives in one of the
17:16:12 two other ways.
17:16:13 The two other ways were the second option, which was
17:16:16 owner initiated, which would mean essentially the
17:16:19 owner would have to initiate the designation processor
17:16:23 the own worry not be subject to that process.
17:16:25 That clearly optimizes the owner's control of that
17:16:28 process.
17:16:30 The disadvantage is, as you heard from many people
17:16:32 today, you heard before, are that may risk some
17:16:37 historic and cultural resources because some owners
17:16:40 may or may not be as concerned about preserving those
17:16:43 resources as others might.
17:16:46 The third approach was the consent as a factor.
17:16:50 It's important to recall, this was raised because the
17:16:53 ordinance currently really does not allow you to use
17:16:56 consent as any kind of a significant factor.
17:16:59 It was mentioned today by someone that that's exactly
17:17:03 what we have now.
17:17:04 It is not what we have now.
17:17:05 And it is a reason why you continue the cigar --
17:17:09 continued the cigar factories the first time.

17:17:11 Did you not want to force designation down the throat,
17:17:13 so to speak, of these owners.
17:17:15 But because the ordinance -- (phone rings) that's not
17:17:20 me.
17:17:21 Because the ordinance was written in a way, this board
17:17:23 literally had no ability to weigh those kinds of
17:17:26 considerations.
17:17:27 So the third approach, option number 3, is an effort
17:17:31 to provide this board that opportunity.
17:17:34 We are proposing you look at three different ways to
17:17:37 look at owners' consent.
17:17:39 First is consent in the abstract.
17:17:41 Now why would I say that?
17:17:42 It may very well be that an owner who has owned a
17:17:46 property for a long period of time, and has a good
17:17:48 history of stewardship, should be provided greater
17:17:52 deference than an owner that bought it last week, and
17:17:56 knocks down buildings and puts up other edifices in
17:18:00 place.
17:18:04 Another fact is economic hardship.
17:18:08 Clearly if I own a property, one of the factors may be
17:18:10 to T key factor in my consideration as determination

17:18:14 of what you do with it is the economic impacts of that
17:18:17 decision.
17:18:17 So we think economic hardship, not at a very recondite
17:18:23 level but at a basic level, a human level that you
17:18:25 guys deal with on a day-to-day basis when you are down
17:18:28 here can be established so that gives the owner
17:18:31 another opportunity to explain, this is going to have
17:18:33 a significant adverse impact on my building, and you
17:18:36 can get that different ways, again depending on the
17:18:40 owner and the circumstances.
17:18:42 The third way in which owner consent would be a factor
17:18:45 under approach number 3 is what has been done to
17:18:48 mitigate the impacts to this property?
17:18:53 Do we have TDRs?
17:18:56 The answer is we do not have those right now.
17:18:58 One of the arguments today was that would be a reason
17:19:00 for you not to approve this ordinance.
17:19:02 But we are going to be coming back to this board with
17:19:05 TDRs for a variety of reasons.
17:19:07 One reason would be to provide mitigation in
17:19:11 circumstances such as these.
17:19:12 As you recall from Penn Central.

17:19:14 One of the factors the supreme court of the United
17:19:17 States found important in their analysis was the fact
17:19:20 that that property had transferable development rights
17:19:23 and can transfer essentially about 20 stories of
17:19:26 development to nearby properties.
17:19:27 So their thinking was mitigated by the fact that they
17:19:31 could use that elsewhere, and therefore their consent
17:19:34 was not considered to be a prerequisite through their
17:19:37 designation.
17:19:40 We have other things currently done as you know, and
17:19:43 other things this board and others may want to
17:19:45 consider to mitigate those impacts.
17:19:47 So the suggestion is to put it down as a factor now,
17:19:53 and additional considerations and additional types of
17:19:55 mitigation can be added over time to attempt to
17:19:58 mitigate that impact.
17:19:59 Now, the key may be when you look at these three
17:20:02 factors together, you may say, okay, the owner didn't
17:20:05 want to consent, the other economic hardship.
17:20:07 He met with the city and the city advised him or her
17:20:10 of the kinds of things we could do to mitigate the
17:20:12 property, and they still were not seeing a -- that

17:20:16 would allow to you say under that set of circumstances
17:20:18 I personally do not feel you should be designated.
17:20:22 Of course under the ordinance if you go that route,
17:20:24 could you also come to a different outcome.
17:20:26 You could say it should be designated.
17:20:28 So granted, it is a compromise.
17:20:31 It is a compromise that does not lead some of those
17:20:34 who you heard today that are very favorably inclined
17:20:37 to property rights, a very important right in our
17:20:40 society.
17:20:40 They think it puts them in a position that will be
17:20:43 difficult.
17:20:43 But it seems to me this board would be in a position
17:20:45 to help them determine, we need to provide you
17:20:50 sufficient mitigation, and we need to alleviate your
17:20:53 concerns, for we as a board or you can decide, we
17:20:58 think that's a sufficient reason to not designate you,
17:21:01 at this time.
17:21:02 Let me tell you, now legally, I told you last time we
17:21:05 can also defend item number 2, the owner initiated.
17:21:09 I do not want to leave you with the impression we
17:21:11 think that's legally indefensible.

17:21:16 We are very confidentable defending 2 or 3.
17:21:19 We think 3 is the easiest to defend.
17:21:21 One is very difficult to defend.
17:21:23 Two is in between.
17:21:24 So those are the legal aspects of it.
17:21:26 I would be remiss not to mention to you a comment that
17:21:30 was made to me by Dennis Fernandez, and I guess Dennis
17:21:33 can speak for himself if you like.
17:21:34 But one of the concerns he mentioned is if we use
17:21:36 number 2, which is owner initiated as opposed to
17:21:39 number 3, which is owner consent as a factor, actually
17:21:44 three factors. If we went to owner initiation, he is
17:21:49 doubtful about the ability to require demolition
17:21:51 permits to be issued.
17:21:52 Why would you require an owner to see a demolition
17:21:56 permit for a 50-year-old or more structure if the
17:22:00 consent was dispositive?
17:22:02 If by submitting the permit indicated they don't want
17:22:05 their property designated so we would have no basis
17:22:08 for denying that permit.
17:22:10 That could be disadvantageous because it may be you
17:22:12 want to provide this program an opportunity to talk

17:22:15 with those property owners and see through a series of
17:22:18 incentives and other mechanisms whether you can
17:22:21 alleviate their concerns and allow the property to be
17:22:24 designated and allow the property owner to also be
17:22:27 happier opposing that designation. So I want to make
17:22:30 sure you understand that as a possible issue.
17:22:32 And I know there's probably other questions.
17:22:36 I know Ms. Ferlita in particular, although she's
17:22:39 viewed the tape, she had a series of questions, and I
17:22:42 don't know if we have answered all of those.
17:22:44 And also you may have different questions as well.
17:22:46 I hope that is a summary as to where we are.
17:22:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
17:22:51 Mr. Smith, I just wanted to briefly say that I think
17:22:53 there's a fourth choice which you didn't illuminate
17:22:58 now which is the department of transportation called
17:23:00 no build, which is to leave the ordinance as it is.
17:23:03 So I think in looking at the variety of things, the
17:23:06 reason that 3 is a compromise, that some of the
17:23:10 preservationists would have wished the ordinance
17:23:12 stayed the same.
17:23:13 But what you are offering up number 3 is really a

17:23:15 compromise position, not an end position.
17:23:18 >>DAVID SMITH: I understand.
17:23:21 >> An array of choices here.
17:23:22 Thank you.
17:23:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, thank you, by the way, for
17:23:27 the time you have taken with me in the last couple of
17:23:29 days.
17:23:30 I think some of your presentation answered some of my
17:23:32 questions.
17:23:32 I can eliminate those.
17:23:34 That back to the memo that you got from Dennis
17:23:37 Fernandez and about the fact that if we go with option
17:23:39 2, let's say hypothetically, that that will remove the
17:23:43 opportunity to protect the building in terms of the
17:23:46 demolition process.
17:23:48 Do you agree with that position?
17:23:50 >> What I should probably do is make sure Dennis
17:23:53 elaborates that for you first, and then I would be
17:23:55 happy to respond to that.
17:23:56 I think he should give you the background of his
17:23:58 thinking on that.
17:23:59 I do have some concerns.

17:24:01 But let him explain it to you a little bit.
17:24:03 It won't take long.
17:24:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.
17:24:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We're here for the duration.
17:24:10 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager.
17:24:14 In contemplating much of the discussion this evening,
17:24:17 I reflected on the possibility of either owner
17:24:20 consent, or owner initiation, as actually being
17:24:23 incorporated into the historic preservation code.
17:24:26 In doing that, I evaluated the code as it stands today
17:24:30 and identified the areas where I would see that
17:24:34 decision would impact on how we operate on a daily
17:24:37 basis.
17:24:37 I have identified essentially four issues which I
17:24:44 forwarded to Mr. Smith for legal clarification.
17:24:49 My thinking is that the HPC would seek review of
17:24:53 demolition request of 50 years or older.
17:24:56 I know that has been used as sort of a fail-safe to
17:25:01 allowing an owner consent in that we had that check in
17:25:05 place.
17:25:05 That check is totally based on the concept of the
17:25:09 owner's consent is not required.

17:25:11 The logic would entail from there that if the owner
17:25:14 did not obviously by following a demolition request
17:25:17 does not consent to historic designation to be placed
17:25:22 in their objection onto the property.
17:25:24 That next leads to the recognition that the agency
17:25:31 would no longer have the ability to initiate an
17:25:33 emergency designation in that using that same logic,
17:25:37 the protecting of a building against the owner's
17:25:40 consent would no longer be a factor that could be
17:25:43 pursued.
17:25:44 Thirdly, the HPC would no longer produce a work plan
17:25:48 as it corresponded to landmark structures.
17:25:51 Instead we would be basically a service provider who
17:25:53 could conduct research, and anticipation of an owner
17:25:57 actually requesting a designation.
17:26:01 The fourth issue would be that there would no longer
17:26:04 be a Ned for economic feasibility formation in
17:26:06 landmark designation, because the determination of
17:26:09 designating would be in the hands of the property
17:26:11 owner only, and they could either simply choose not to
17:26:16 initiate, or once determining that they did want to
17:26:18 initiate and change their mind, just basically request

17:26:21 the process to come to an end.
17:26:24 That is my assessment of option number 2.
17:26:30 And its potential.
17:26:33 I will be happy to answer any questions on that.
17:26:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: If I can continue with the things.
17:26:43 David, you can tell me your opinion or I can ask
17:26:46 questions when you come back.
17:26:47 >>DAVID SMITH: Either way.rose
17:26:51 >>DAVID SMITH: Obviously Dennis sent this last night.
17:26:55 I think I pointed it out.
17:26:59 Took it to dinner and read it and did think about it.
17:27:02 I haven't had a chance to do additional research.
17:27:06 You know we have been busy with other things and I am
17:27:09 on a crash course with time.
17:27:12 I think there's a lot of merit to what Dennis says.
17:27:15 If consent is dispositive then what is the basis for
17:27:20 an emergency designation?
17:27:23 And what is the basis for denying a demolition permit?
17:27:26 If I own the property I'm asking to demolish it, I
17:27:29 clearly don't want to designate it.
17:27:32 I want it demolished.
17:27:33 Think there's a lot of merit to that.

17:27:37 If we go with number 2 and we still require people to
17:27:40 seek a demolition permit and we have a way to tie them
17:27:45 up.
17:27:45 I hate to complicate things for you but we also want
17:27:48 to try to be creative here.
17:27:49 Maybe we could come up with a solution that kind of
17:27:52 creates sort of an incubator period, meaning you apply
17:27:57 for a demolition permit, we won't give to the you if
17:27:59 you are over 50 years old, we are going to at least
17:28:02 force you to sit down and talk to us, "us" being
17:28:04 Dennis' staff, and give them an opportunity to
17:28:07 convince you of the merits of designation, and then
17:28:10 failing that you can go forward with your demolition.
17:28:14 >> But I think that creates problems that will just
17:28:17 kind of depend on where we go.
17:28:20 >> It would.
17:28:20 And obviously if you go with number 2 we are going to
17:28:22 look at some ways to also mitigate any impact, you
17:28:26 know, that might have, but I don't think you intend.
17:28:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then let me ask Dennis some questions.
17:28:37 And Mr. Smith, if you have any input, please just to
17:28:39 clarify for me, you know, join us.

17:28:44 Dennis, definitely listened to that tape.
17:28:48 In some places I backed up and listened again because
17:28:50 there was a lot of input between you and my
17:28:53 colleagues, and I think it's a good idea.
17:28:55 I don't think a lot of people realize the designation
17:28:58 does not apply, too, and that was one of those
17:29:02 side-bar type informations.
17:29:04 But someone left council meeting where we were talking
17:29:06 about this and I was in attendance, gave you maybe
17:29:09 perhaps a hypothetical question about shutters
17:29:13 hanging, hinges broken.
17:29:16 You have got three hinges that were made in 1901, and
17:29:20 you are not going to find one exactly like that.
17:29:23 And basically without saying it, you kind of said,
17:29:26 well, that was a ridiculous imposition to make
17:29:29 somebody think they have to go get the same hinge, and
17:29:35 even the secretary of interior guidelines or standards
17:29:37 probably wouldn't require that.
17:29:39 In terms of modern day, I always found you to be
17:29:44 pretty reasonable and what your position is.
17:29:47 And I think what you said just kind of gives you a
17:29:50 commonsense type approach.

17:29:51 And I agree with what you said.
17:29:54 As we go forward, one of my questions was, to what
17:29:57 extent was the judgment about hinges, for example, be
17:30:00 subjective versus strict guidelines?
17:30:02 Where do we get some assurance of consistency in terms
17:30:05 of the discretionary opinion of staff?
17:30:10 I just think, you know, our decision depends on the
17:30:15 information and some level of comfort.
17:30:17 Tell me where that stops, where that starts.
17:30:20 >> Well, within the A.R.C. code -- and I won't unless
17:30:23 you want me to read that verbatim.
17:30:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, no, just give me so I understand.
17:30:30 >> The maintenance from any type of designated
17:30:33 structure.
17:30:34 So when you're just essentially securing, replacing
17:30:38 with like materials, stabilizing, doing your basic
17:30:42 maintenance, there's not a certificate of
17:30:44 appropriateness required.
17:30:47 That's stated directly within chapter 27.
17:30:53 On the other hand, when we do designate local
17:30:55 landmarks, the criteria that we apply are the
17:30:59 secretary of interior structures.

17:31:00 And in referring to the secretary of interior
17:31:05 standards, it says for the design of missing historic
17:31:10 features, which obviously would be a damage feature
17:31:12 that couldn't be repaired.
17:31:16 It says that the replacement may be based on historic
17:31:20 pictorial physical documentation or can be a new
17:31:23 design that is compatible with historic character of
17:31:25 the building and site.
17:31:27 What that has been interpreted to mean is that
17:31:29 essentially, you know, something the component of a
17:31:32 hinge is not determined to be a character defining
17:31:35 feature.
17:31:36 So you just simply replace the functionality of that
17:31:40 component.
17:31:41 If you need to change a hinge, you change the hinge.
17:31:44 You make that component work.
17:31:47 Now when we are discussing more significant character
17:31:49 defining features, perhaps a canopy, something just
17:31:53 more substantial, then there becomes further
17:31:56 guidelines that are set by the secretary of interior
17:32:00 of standards that requires those elements to be
17:32:03 retained, repaired, and when modification does have to

17:32:06 be met that they are done in the sense of -- did I
17:32:11 answer that?
17:32:13 >> That's fine.
17:32:13 That's a good answer.
17:32:14 Another thing, Dennis, I note that in my absence
17:32:17 number 66 was remanded back.
17:32:19 And I know we are dealing with that separately than
17:32:21 this.
17:32:22 But they are related in a way.
17:32:26 I know they are going to have to look at each of those
17:32:28 factors individually as opposed to lumping them into
17:32:31 another 15.
17:32:33 What happens to them?
17:32:34 Are they held for whatever we come up with, if there's
17:32:37 a revision?
17:32:40 And if so what happens to them?
17:32:43 Are they held to those revisions so they can benefit
17:32:46 from whatever the provisions are?
17:32:48 Mr. Smith said probably out of this ordinance, it's
17:32:50 important tonight those changes would go into place.
17:32:53 So what could the expectation be of one of those
17:32:58 factory owners?

17:32:59 >> Well, first of all, I just want to say that
17:33:02 speaking for the Historic Preservation Commission,
17:33:05 that we have done a poor job in conveying a message
17:33:13 that would be received well by the owners for historic
17:33:15 preservation.
17:33:18 If we go strictly to the code, and we look at the
17:33:21 code, do the buildings meet the criteria?
17:33:26 I don't think we can any more argue the cigar
17:33:31 factories aren't historically significant in the city.
17:33:34 But be that a local landmark or a district that we do
17:33:39 have to have the owner's support of that designation
17:33:42 to make it successful.
17:33:44 We have seen buildings that are designated today in
17:33:46 the City of Tampa.
17:33:47 They are sitting vacant and deteriorating.
17:33:50 We have also seen buildings in the City of Tampa that
17:33:52 were designated a long time ago, the Floridan hotel,
17:33:56 for instance, that probably wouldn't be there today if
17:33:57 it wasn't designated.
17:33:59 An finally has found an owner that is investing in
17:34:02 that property and taking advantage of some of the
17:34:04 incentives that we have available.

17:34:07 That being said, I support it and have supported the
17:34:14 sending the cigar factories back to the HPC for
17:34:18 further consideration, further work, with the owners,
17:34:21 with the property owners, and further development.
17:34:26 I'm confident that along the way, we can work towards
17:34:30 the designation with hopefully all the properties,
17:34:34 eventually.
17:34:35 In the meantime, what concerns me more than that is
17:34:38 the possibility that if we don't have the tools to be
17:34:40 able to save these buildings long-term, until we do
17:34:44 get an owner that's interested in designating the
17:34:46 structure, and in preserving the structure accordingly
17:34:50 along with the program, that they may not be there for
17:34:52 that day when we can move towards hopefully
17:34:56 rehabilitating them, incorporating them in the
17:34:58 neighborhood.
17:35:02 What my recommendation to the HPC will be essentially
17:35:05 is to work with the buildings on a one-by-one basis
17:35:09 where they are not being looked as a multiple
17:35:11 properties designation, which is a valid designation
17:35:17 done all over the country locally and at the national
17:35:20 level and work towards having designations come to you

17:35:23 one at a time, and we are already beginning work on a
17:35:25 couple of those, and unfortunately they take quite a
17:35:30 long time to develop -- will probably not come back to
17:35:34 you for a number of months, perhaps even a year do I
17:35:38 know the rode road for the ones we are working on
17:35:41 currently, and bring you back something that not only
17:35:46 allows the City of Tampa to preserve the historic
17:35:50 jewels, but also allows the property owners to take
17:35:53 advantage of the existing incentives that wave now,
17:35:57 and hopefully new incentives that we are working on,
17:36:00 and we have had new incentives initiated since three
17:36:05 years ago, that designation began.
17:36:07 And we have the interstate historic preservation
17:36:10 association trust fund that applies to, you know, more
17:36:13 than 60% of these structures, to offer low-interest
17:36:16 loans, their potential sources of grant that can
17:36:20 happen.
17:36:20 Another issue that we are considering is intensifying
17:36:25 our participation in the national register designation
17:36:29 process to make these grants process more available to
17:36:34 some of the buildings that are designated.
17:36:37 Currently under our current code we just assist in

17:36:39 that process.
17:36:40 I would recommend that we take a more assertive role
17:36:42 and actually develop it.
17:36:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: And you don't really need to go into
17:36:47 any more detail.
17:36:48 Way was concerned about in getting to whatever I am
17:36:50 going to decide on, to agree with my colleagues, that
17:36:53 is one of the concerns.
17:36:54 Because, okay, we are going to have these factories go
17:36:57 back.
17:36:57 And I think what you're saying -- and I know it's your
17:37:00 personal opinion, and who knows what happens?
17:37:02 But by the time they get through the system again,
17:37:08 you're optimistic that some of those things that my
17:37:10 colleagues talked with about in my absence about the
17:37:13 ad valorem credit, as the property is improved, the
17:37:17 transfer density rights to allow that to some of the
17:37:20 areas that allows more density growth, maybe even
17:37:23 legal reimbursements, those types of things.
17:37:27 You're thinking, you're hopeful that when we finally
17:37:30 get to that -- now, there's five that don't want to be
17:37:36 designated.

17:37:37 You're saying because of the lag time depending on
17:37:40 where we go tonight those owners might be able to
17:37:42 benefit from that.
17:37:44 >>> Absolutely.
17:37:46 And I think there's one thing I've learned throughout
17:37:50 the discussion, that we need to do a more creative job
17:37:55 in coming up with incentives and working towards that.
17:37:59 >> Maybe at the end of this, when it's my turn to talk
17:38:02 again, we'll talk about what kind of a designation
17:38:08 process this has been and thank you, Madam Chairman.
17:38:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez?
17:38:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The more we talk about this, the more
17:38:19 confusion that's being generated.
17:38:22 I mean, now they have come up with different criteria,
17:38:26 different arguments, than when we first started.
17:38:30 The reason this started back then was because the
17:38:36 multiple cigar factories came about for the local
17:38:39 designation.
17:38:40 And that's why we are where we are now.
17:38:46 Now you are telling me that because we sent that other
17:38:52 ordinance back to HPC that we have these provisions,
17:39:08 or -- I don't know what I want to say because I am so

17:39:15 confused on this issue, I just don't know where to go
17:39:18 with this.
17:39:18 >> I think I know what your question is.
17:39:20 >> No, you don't, David.
17:39:23 Because every time we come up with something we are
17:39:25 supposed to do, somebody comes up with something else.
17:39:27 You know?
17:39:28 It's just -- it's just mind boggling.
17:39:31 I mean, a simple person like me to try to put
17:39:34 everything in order.
17:39:35 I mean, all we have to do today was to vote yes or no
17:39:38 on this thing that came up.
17:39:40 And all of a sudden we changed everything.
17:39:42 I don't know whether I want to do number 2 or number 3
17:39:45 now.
17:39:46 >>DAVID SMITH: These are the same options that were
17:39:48 before you last time you voted.
17:39:50 >> Except that we said we sent that number 66 back,
17:39:55 amended it back.
17:39:56 >>> That was a separate item.
17:39:57 >> I understand that.
17:39:58 But the rules have changed.

17:40:01 >>> No.
17:40:01 Let me try to clarify that.
17:40:03 What happened with 66 was that was being considered
17:40:07 under your current ordinance.
17:40:08 Your current ordinance literally asked you to do one
17:40:12 thing.
17:40:13 Did it meet the criteria?
17:40:14 Was it old enough?
17:40:15 Was it significant, et cetera?
17:40:17 If it met the criteria, end of story.
17:40:19 It didn't matter what the property owner thought.
17:40:22 You didn't like that approach for obvious reasons.
17:40:25 So we wanted an approach that did not tie your hands
17:40:28 in that fashion.
17:40:29 We talked about opt out.
17:40:31 We talked about owner consent.
17:40:32 And we talked about adding consent as a factor.
17:40:35 The consent as a factor means it comes back to you.
17:40:39 You guys will ultimately make that determination.
17:40:41 HPC will have that opportunity as well.
17:40:44 But if they don't decide it in a way that you like,
17:40:47 you have the ability when it comes before you to

17:40:50 change that vote.
17:40:51 Now you don't.
17:40:52 So that was the point.
17:40:54 We were trying to give you tools.
17:40:55 The question is, which tools do you most prefer?
17:41:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Let's go from the beginning.
17:41:01 The HPC comes to the council and says, we want to
17:41:05 designate City Hall.
17:41:11 Say?
17:41:11 Let's say City Hall.
17:41:12 They want to initiate it but City Hall doesn't --
17:41:15 well, let's not take City Hall.
17:41:17 Let's take a cigar factory, okay?
17:41:20 We'll do that.
17:41:21 HPC says, the HPC wants to designate a cigar factory.
17:41:27 Just take one.
17:41:28 Comes to City Council and the owner says, no, I don't
17:41:30 want to do that.
17:41:31 I don't want to be part of that.
17:41:35 Then they have to go to the economic hardship to get
17:41:38 out of there.
17:41:39 >>> No, they can make three different arguments.

17:41:41 One, they can simply say, I don't want it.
17:41:44 That can be a sufficient basis for this council to
17:41:49 deny designation.
17:41:51 I'm giving you three different bases to give you owner
17:41:54 concerns into account.
17:41:55 One is consent purely.
17:41:57 Did they consent or not?
17:41:58 That's a factor you can look at.
17:42:00 The second thing is they can also tell you I'm not con
17:42:03 ESPN senting because I just don't think you should
17:42:05 tell me what to do with my property but secondly let
17:42:08 me tell you what it's going to cost me.
17:42:10 As you heard before, I have got 50 windows at $2,000 a
17:42:13 window.
17:42:14 I don't have $100,000.
17:42:15 I am running a sewing factory here.
17:42:20 I don't have 100,000 extra to put in the windows.
17:42:22 That's an economic hardship.
17:42:24 Then you find out, Dennis comes forward and says we
17:42:26 have a $100,000 grant we would be happy to give to
17:42:29 so-and-so.
17:42:30 Then you can look at that and go, okay, now you can

17:42:33 balance that.
17:42:33 You can decide whether the consent in the abstract is
17:42:37 still a sufficient reason not to designate.
17:42:39 Or you can say, we solved your economic problem, and
17:42:42 it really will preserve the factory, and you will get
17:42:45 the money to meet your consideration.
17:42:47 We think you should be designated.
17:42:50 The point is you get to make that determination.
17:42:52 You get to weigh those criteria.
17:42:55 And you get to vote on it.
17:42:57 >> With the owner's consent.
17:42:58 >>DAVID SMITH: If in fact -- it is one of the three
17:43:03 factors that we are adding.
17:43:05 It's consent in the abstract.
17:43:07 For you, that would be dispositive.
17:43:09 You say, I don't care how much money we are going this
17:43:12 gentleman and I don't care how much of -- how little
17:43:15 the economic hardship is.
17:43:16 If he doesn't consent I'm not going to vote for
17:43:18 designation.
17:43:19 So it does open up the possibility that this board
17:43:22 could be comprised of a majority that don't agree with

17:43:25 you, and nonetheless vote to designate that.
17:43:28 So the question is whether or not you want to allow
17:43:30 this board to weigh those kinds of factors, or whether
17:43:34 you want to leave them in the property owner's hands.
17:43:38 Those that voted for 2 are those that say, I don't
17:43:41 want someone to have to come down here, I don't want
17:43:44 him to have to make his economic hardship case, I
17:43:46 don't want to deal it with.
17:43:48 He owns it, end of story, that's all I need to New
17:43:50 York City I am not going to subject him to the
17:43:52 process.
17:43:53 Then you vote for number two.
17:43:54 If you think you want to have a process that allows
17:43:56 him opportunity for Dennis and others to work with the
17:43:59 owner and see if they can take care of those concerns
17:44:01 and convince the property owner to consent, and if he
17:44:05 still doesn't consent you can still say no, I'm not
17:44:08 going to designate it.
17:44:10 So it depends on whether you want to nip it in the
17:44:12 bud, number two, don't even bring me those cases that
17:44:15 the owner doesn't consent to.
17:44:17 Or whether you want to say, bring it down here in

17:44:19 front of me and I want to evaluate all the factors.
17:44:21 That's really the decision.
17:44:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
17:44:25 >>> And I think we know where you come in on that.
17:44:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
17:44:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Council, we need to vote.
17:44:32 Now we are going to have -- council, if you want to
17:44:35 speak one time on the subject.
17:44:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: I want to explain why I am going to
17:44:44 go --
17:44:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody that wants to speak for one
17:44:47 minute.
17:44:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.
17:44:49 Just bear with me because I'm trying to catch up with
17:44:51 the from the last time, okay?
17:44:53 I think that Mr. Fernandez said something that was
17:44:55 very key to why we have gotten to this thing and it
17:44:58 was such a long time.
17:44:59 It has really been a disaster.
17:45:01 This side doesn't want it.
17:45:02 That side wants it.
17:45:03 This council member is having a heated discussion with

17:45:06 Mr. Dingfelder today.
17:45:07 We are at some point or another just confused about
17:45:10 what we want to do.
17:45:12 Property rights versus preservation.
17:45:13 And it's been a healthy exchange of dialogue.
17:45:19 I think from the very beginning, I think that the
17:45:22 problem was the system.
17:45:24 We have talked about that.
17:45:25 The system is onerous.
17:45:27 And even if people were in other cases attracted to
17:45:30 want to go through the designation, they don't want to
17:45:32 go through the designation.
17:45:35 Like I said, it's too onerous and too rigid and too
17:45:40 preservationist, if you would.
17:45:42 With little or no attention to property rights.
17:45:45 So that's what caught some of us at the beginning.
17:45:48 I think Mr. Grandoff talked about what we initially
17:45:50 discussed or wanted, the 5-2 vote.
17:45:55 But as we discuss things more I think more and more
17:45:57 things change.
17:45:58 So that was kind whereof we started.
17:46:00 And a few weeks ago, a couple weeks ago, the

17:46:02 preservationist type supporters or the
17:46:05 nonpreservationist supporters, I think both went away
17:46:08 with the feeling that we were going to change the
17:46:10 process, through Mrs. Miller and the rest of her
17:46:13 staff, and that was maybe going to be a better
17:46:16 mechanism and better mix so everybody could have
17:46:18 somewhat answers solved.
17:46:21 And that's probably where it's going to be but it's
17:46:23 not enough today because I spoke with Ms. Miller
17:46:26 earlier and they are still not ready to get to that
17:46:28 point.
17:46:29 So then we as a council are back to looking at the
17:46:33 objective.
17:46:34 The objectives for each of the options and trying to
17:46:36 make some decisions.
17:46:37 I have tried to do my homework in my absence last
17:46:40 week.
17:46:40 Again I don't need to reiterate, it was for good
17:46:44 reason.
17:46:44 That would made this process not to know it go where
17:46:48 it is.
17:46:49 I talked to Mr. Smith.

17:46:50 I talked to Mr. Grandoff.
17:46:51 I talked to many people that were in favor of
17:46:54 preserving and some people that were in favor of
17:46:57 property rights.
17:46:59 So I've gone down the process, and --
17:47:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Can you wrap up now?
17:47:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, all right.
17:47:09 I think, number one, in terms of the opt-out
17:47:11 provision, it's the extreme opposite of where we are
17:47:14 now.
17:47:14 Too much preservationist and, number one, is too much
17:47:18 property rights.
17:47:19 So number two, we get in a bit further and talk about
17:47:23 the owner initiated choice.
17:47:24 And that's -- I'm trying to.
17:47:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Can you wrap it up?
17:47:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm trying to give a reason as to why
17:47:34 I support.
17:47:37 So number two is the owner initiated and still much
17:47:39 the same.
17:47:39 If the owner initiates it, a done deal, it's dead.
17:47:42 Property rights are considered, but not the

17:47:45 preservation protected -- protection.
17:47:47 I think what Mr. Smith bass trying to accomplish in
17:47:50 number 3 was trying to have the best of both world as
17:47:53 best we can.
17:47:54 Nobody will be absolutely happy with number 3.
17:47:59 But a little closer.
17:48:00 Maybe as Dennis said if we do a better job of trying
17:48:03 to encourage people and invite them into the process,
17:48:06 then maybe people wouldn't have such a problem with
17:48:08 the designation and it being forced down their throat.
17:48:12 So looking at number 3, there's some differences
17:48:16 there, and I think even five minutes ago when Mary was
17:48:22 confused about it.
17:48:23 And number 3 versus what we have now.
17:48:25 Even a lack of consent from the property owner can be
17:48:28 a basis for no designation.
17:48:31 Right, Mr. Smith?
17:48:32 That's what we don't have right now.
17:48:33 Right now, this council acts completely administerial.
17:48:41 We approve the transmittal.
17:48:42 That changes if we pick some other option.
17:48:46 So I think the three categories where we can look at

17:48:49 staff and determine it council by council member, from
17:48:51 the consent standpoint, from the economic hardship
17:48:54 standpoint, from the incentive to mitigate, and so
17:48:57 that gives us a little bit broader parameters.
17:49:00 I, just like everybody else here, have had problems
17:49:03 with this.
17:49:04 I'm a third generation Tampa person.
17:49:06 My father was Garcia Yega.
17:49:13 Yet at the same time I have been strong in terms of
17:49:15 property rights.
17:49:15 Number three gets me to as close as I can be to
17:49:19 satisfy both sides and hope that as you said, Dennis,
17:49:23 as we go through the process, council will be before
17:49:25 that person requiring no designation or wanting to get
17:49:28 out.
17:49:28 We'll have the opportunity to weigh it different than
17:49:30 we do now, and say, yes, I agree with you, or no we
17:49:34 don't.
17:49:34 The process is longer but I think it's fair.
17:49:36 So forgive me for being so long winded.
17:49:39 But I will support option number 3.
17:49:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move it.

17:49:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing,
17:49:50 don't we?
17:49:53 >> Motion to approve option number 3 just to clarify.
17:49:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Then we close the public hearing.
17:50:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, everyone can count.
17:50:02 David, if you would come back up, please.
17:50:07 Since this is where we are going, how do we
17:50:13 immediately put in to place these mitigation factors
17:50:17 that we have talked about?
17:50:20 Because right now, the pending motion just says
17:50:24 consent is a factor to consider along with a laundry
17:50:28 list of factors.
17:50:30 There doesn't appear to be priority given to consent.
17:50:34 And I think that consent should be the number one
17:50:38 priority that we look at.
17:50:40 And if you do not have owner's consent, then you look
17:50:45 at these other mitigating factors.
17:50:48 And they have to be pretty darn good.
17:50:50 Because what we are now doing is everyone that didn't
17:50:53 want to be a part of this now has to continue to be a
17:50:56 part of it.
17:50:57 And that means paying architects, paying the lawyers,

17:51:01 whatever -- we are not lifting the economic burden on
17:51:06 them that we have created here.
17:51:09 So how do we begin this process this because right now
17:51:13 we don't have the TDRs.
17:51:15 Right now we can't say we are going to lift your
17:51:17 parking requirements.
17:51:18 Right now we can't say we are going to give you an
17:51:20 ad valorem tax break for the next ten years to make up
17:51:23 for this burden that we don't even know what it's
17:51:26 going to cost you but guess what, it's going to cost
17:51:29 you.
17:51:30 How do we get to the point where we can make it, you
17:51:34 know, palatable for them to want to be a part of the
17:51:37 process?
17:51:38 Because right now, it's clearly not palatable.
17:51:44 >>> Two things.
17:51:44 And this was a question that was asked me in private,
17:51:46 she didn't repeat it but it's a critical point. The
17:51:49 first thing to remember is we do not have mitigative
17:51:53 measures that is an awfully good reason to vote
17:51:55 against designation.
17:51:57 So the failure of the administration or the

17:52:01 organization that runs this program, to come up with
17:52:04 adequate mitigative measures, is going to put
17:52:07 designation in jeopardy.
17:52:08 That's the first thing.
17:52:10 It adds to your reason to not designate an area.
17:52:13 Secondly, I don't want to mislead anybody, in some
17:52:20 cases TDRs are irrelevant F.I develop the property
17:52:25 to its maximum anyway TDR doesn't help me at all so we
17:52:28 have to come up with real monetary incentives.
17:52:31 As Dennis mentioned you have the trust fund.
17:52:34 We need to build on that.
17:52:35 We need to add to that.
17:52:37 We are going to have additional programs that occur in
17:52:39 the city.
17:52:40 And the federal government and the state government is
17:52:42 required, when they go through an historic district,
17:52:44 to mitigate their impact.
17:52:46 We are doing the same thing with Central Park Village.
17:52:49 We are going to have some additional funds available
17:52:51 by virtue of the impact that the interstate is going
17:52:54 to have there.
17:52:56 So the point is, in the interim, you have a very good

17:52:59 reason to say no.
17:53:01 You haven't mitigated any of this.
17:53:03 I'm not voting for designation.
17:53:05 And the second thing is, you're right, staff needs to
17:53:08 move as quickly as possible to get as creative as
17:53:10 possible.
17:53:11 And to come up with real measures that convince the
17:53:14 property owner that these are sufficient to incent
17:53:17 them to go through the program.
17:53:19 Otherwise you are going to come down here and tell
17:53:21 you, I don't want to do it, I've got too much of an
17:53:23 impact, the mitigative measures are inadequate, you
17:53:26 have three reasons right there to say I am not going
17:53:28 to designate it.
17:53:30 So it's not a complete answer, but I didn't want to
17:53:33 mislead anybody either.
17:53:34 TDRs are not a panacea.
17:53:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm afraid that what we have done is
17:53:43 completely disincentivized a large section of this
17:53:47 universe here tonight.
17:53:49 They are just going to say, I'm so turned off by the
17:53:51 whole process.

17:53:52 There's nothing you can say, nothing you can do,
17:53:54 nothing you can ever offer me where I'm going to agree
17:53:57 to be a part of this.
17:53:59 And had we had the owner consent provision, I think
17:54:06 both parties are forced to come to the negotiating
17:54:08 table with a little bit more fervor than where they
17:54:12 are now.
17:54:13 So.
17:54:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to call for the vote.
17:54:20 Mr. White?
17:54:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: Just say for the record real quick I
17:54:27 will not be in option number 3.
17:54:28 I will be in favor of option number 2.
17:54:30 I think I have made it perfectly clear on the record
17:54:32 my stance on this.
17:54:33 And I believe that individual rights of property
17:54:36 owners become first, first and foremost, and that
17:54:39 should be a portion of the equation.
17:54:41 It should be in the entire equation.
17:54:43 And by our own admission on the city staff that we
17:54:47 have done a poor job in the past of presenting the
17:54:51 incentives to the property owners.

17:54:54 I think that if we need to do a better job of that and
17:54:58 the city intends on doing a better job with that, then
17:55:01 they ought to do that, do their homework, take that
17:55:04 and present it to the property owner, and at that
17:55:06 time, you present it in a manner that's palatable to
17:55:10 them and they want to do it and it's economic
17:55:12 incentive or just a preservation incentive, you
17:55:16 present that package, if they see the feasibility in
17:55:19 it, I think they'll jump all over it and then it will
17:55:22 be owner requested and initiated.
17:55:26 And I would be in favor of 2 but I will not support
17:55:30 option 3.
17:55:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, would you do your
17:55:32 motion again, please?
17:55:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, this is rule 4-C. The
17:55:36 motion is on the floor.
17:55:37 I would ask the clerk, if you don't mind.
17:55:39 Please do.
17:55:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I can speak to the motion real
17:55:42 quick.
17:55:43 If you want to tell us -- repeat what the motion is.
17:55:46 >>THE CLERK: The motion made on October 12th by

17:55:48 council member Dingfelder, seconded by Saul-Sena, the
17:55:51 T motion was that the legal department be requested to
17:55:53 draft an ordinance amending historic preservation
17:55:56 ordinance to incorporate option 3 as submitted by city
17:56:00 attorney David Smith, legal department, motion was not
17:56:03 adopted with Harrison and Alvarez and white voting no,
17:56:06 Ferlita being absent.
17:56:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, you may speak.
17:56:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Very briefly.
17:56:12 I think Rose said it very well.
17:56:15 There are two very far extremes in the audience and
17:56:21 there's not a smile on one of them.
17:56:23 There's not a smile on one of them.
17:56:25 Therefore, I believe we have reached a fair
17:56:27 compromise.
17:56:30 Because there is a middle ground between these two
17:56:33 extremes.
17:56:34 And I think sometimes that's what we are here to do.
17:56:37 Sometimes we vote things way up, sometimes we vote
17:56:41 things way down.
17:56:42 I think and I hope -- Mrs. Miller supported it last
17:56:45 time.

17:56:45 I don't know where she's going this time.
17:56:48 But I hope --
17:56:50 >> Why are you asking me?
17:56:53 >> I know where she's going.
17:56:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anyway, I'm tired, Madam Chairman.
17:57:00 But we have struck a great compromise today.
17:57:03 And I think that we can move forward with this
17:57:06 position, working with Mr. Smith, who put this option
17:57:10 up in front of us to start with, and we'll get through
17:57:13 this.
17:57:14 It's been very emotional, very difficult for
17:57:16 everybody, including council.
17:57:17 I said there is not an issue that's been in front of
17:57:20 us in the last four years that's been this emotional
17:57:22 for council.
17:57:22 And we'll get through this.
17:57:24 And we'll make it right.
17:57:26 Anyway, I'm proud to continue to support the motion.
17:57:29 >>GWEN MILLER: I am going to call for the vote.
17:57:31 All in favor of option 3 -- is that what it was -- say
17:57:37 Aye.
17:57:37 Opposed, Nay.

17:57:42 >>THE CLERK: White and Alvarez, Nay.
17:57:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Let me say, HPC, pleas don't do this
17:57:50 again.
17:57:50 I think we have all learned a very valuable lesson
17:57:53 about this.
17:57:53 And I don't know where we came up with the policy Dr.
17:57:57 Directive to go out and do 15 all at once historic
17:58:02 landmarks, when I think it had never been our policy
17:58:05 in the past to do things that way.
17:58:07 And clearly we have learned a lesson from this.
17:58:10 And I truly hope that the compromise solution that Mr.
17:58:14 Smith is going to bring us back will really and truly
17:58:18 incent vice some of these folks that want to be part
17:58:21 of the process.
17:58:22 There's not one of us up here that hopes we are going
17:58:24 to be back here with people that don't want to be part
17:58:26 of the process.
17:58:27 So I think that we have all learned a lesson here and
17:58:30 let's not do it again.
17:58:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there a timetable?
17:58:37 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to item number 2,
17:58:39 the brownfields.

17:58:40 Anyone here for that?
17:58:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby, is there a timetable on
17:58:45 any of this or do we just leave it dangling?
17:58:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: As of now there's no council
17:58:50 direction with regard to a timetable.
17:58:54 >>DAVID SMITH: It will have to be transmitted to the
17:58:55 Planning Commission anyway.
17:58:57 It is one of those that will go.
17:58:59 So we are going to be dealing with a new board.
17:59:02 But we will get.
17:59:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: After March?
17:59:09 >>DAVID SMITH: No, no.
17:59:10 After November 16th.
17:59:11 Because wave to have two hearings.
17:59:13 But we'll get through it as soon as we can.
17:59:15 I think we know -- we know what you voted to do.
17:59:21 We also know some of the considerations that we will
17:59:23 look at as we are drafting it.
17:59:27 As soon as we can.
17:59:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to item 2.
17:59:29 Is there anyone here to present the brownfield?
17:59:32 >> John McKirchy, assistant city attorney.

17:59:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the hearing first.
18:00:00 (Motion carried).
18:00:02 >> Can I do my housekeeping quickly?
18:00:04 I'm sorry.
18:00:16 .
18:00:19 McKirchy.
18:00:38 >>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak on item
18:00:39 number 2, please stand and raise your right hand.
18:00:43 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:00:50 >>> This is the second hearing for the proposed
18:00:52 brownfield designation area located in Tampa Heights.
18:00:55 Details of the application of proposed development
18:00:58 have been outlined in the document entitled staff
18:01:00 report on the Tampa armature works site.
18:01:03 Application for brownfield area designation, which is
18:01:06 available for public review at the city clerk's
18:01:09 office.
18:01:10 I have with me Mr. Michael hatchet, the urban
18:01:12 development manager for the heights in Central Park,
18:01:15 also with me attorney Andrea Zelman representing
18:01:18 applicant.
18:01:21 Following this public hearing council had the

18:01:23 opportunity to pass a resolution designating the Tampa
18:01:26 armature work site a brownfield area which makes
18:01:29 available financial incentives for the remediation and
18:01:32 redevelopment of the property.
18:01:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
18:01:40 Do you want to speak?
18:01:43 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I don't have anything to add unless
18:01:45 you have any questions.
18:01:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
18:01:49 on item number 2?
18:01:50 >> Move to close.
18:01:51 >> Second.
18:01:51 (Motion carried)
18:01:57 We have a motion and second to move the resolution.
18:01:59 (Motion Carried)
18:02:10 >> Want to do electric fence?
18:03:14 We have a vote from this morning.
18:03:15 Clerk, would you read it?
18:03:17 From this morning.
18:03:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Revised site plan.
18:03:34 >>THE CLERK: Public hearing was closed.
18:03:35 The ordinance was presented for first reading, I

18:03:37 believe.
18:03:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ferlita and Saul-Sena voted
18:03:45 no.clerk
18:03:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you ready to vote?
18:03:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm ready to vote.
18:04:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion to approve.
18:04:05 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:04:08 Opposed, Nay.
18:04:09 >>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena, Ferlita voting no.
18:04:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion passed.
18:04:17 Okay.
18:04:29 These are the ones you are going to withdraw.
18:04:32 >>> Abbye Feeley.
18:04:35 I would like to go through and clear the agenda for
18:04:38 this evening.
18:04:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Completely?
18:04:41 [ Laughter ]
18:04:44 >>> Item number 4, Z 06-81.
18:04:47 I received a letter fax this afternoon from the
18:04:49 petitioner to withdraw that case.
18:04:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to withdraw.
18:04:57 >> Second.

18:04:57 (Motion carried).
18:05:01 >>> Item number 5 needs to be rescheduled for hearing
18:05:04 for February 22nd, '07, at 5:30 p.m.
18:05:08 And March 8th, '07, at 10 a.m.
18:05:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why so far in the future?
18:05:23 They didn't screw up, did they?
18:05:32 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land Development. Council can set it
18:05:32 earlier on a day agenda. If you would like it to be
18:05:37 scheduled earlier, we do need to do the 30 notice by
18:05:40 code.
18:05:40 So probably the December hearing.
18:05:46 >> Why?
18:05:46 >>> Why? Because the neighborhood came to us about
18:05:48 this three and a half years ago.
18:05:50 >> Three and a half years ago.
18:05:51 >> Yeah, I remember.
18:05:53 And we were the ones, we the city were the ones that
18:05:56 misnoticed.
18:05:57 Therefore, they shouldn't be penalized.
18:06:00 We should be as accommodate ago possible.
18:06:03 And they are feeling the effects of people asking for
18:06:06 increased zoning and I think we should do it as a

18:06:09 courtesy to them.
18:06:10 >>> It can go on December 14th.
18:06:14 >> Schedule at 5:00?
18:06:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Can we do this April 3rd or
18:06:21 something like that?
18:06:22 [ Laughter ]
18:06:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Wait a minute.
18:06:26 Please don't speak out.
18:06:26 Please don't speak out.
18:06:28 Clerk.
18:06:29 >>THE CLERK: I believe with this particular area of
18:06:33 rezoning would have to be done via resolution because
18:06:35 it is an area of rezoning.
18:06:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: January whatever.
18:06:43 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the first date in January?
18:06:46 >>> January 11th.
18:06:48 >> Move to continue to January 11th.
18:06:51 >>GWEN MILLER: 6 p.m.
18:06:53 >> Second.
18:06:54 (Motion Carried).
18:06:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, I'm sorry.
18:07:01 Just real quick for anybody that's listening it's

18:07:03 important to know what we are talking about.
18:07:05 This is the policy area wide rezoning.
18:07:07 So it's going to be rescheduled to January 11th at
18:07:10 6 p.m. here in these chambers.
18:07:15 THE CLERK: We would need to direct legal to prepare a
18:07:18 resolution for a dual public hearing.
18:07:21 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a second.
18:07:26 >>> Abbye Feeley: That would be January 25th.
18:07:31 10 a.m.
18:07:31 (Motion carried).
18:07:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The first motion was a motion to set
18:07:37 a continuance.
18:07:40 >>THE CLERK: I believe it's direct legal to prepare
18:07:42 the resolution.
18:07:43 >> That means prepare a resolution.
18:07:45 >> Direct legal to prepare a resolution.
18:07:47 >> You have a motion and second.
18:07:48 (Motion carried).
18:07:51 >> Item number 6.
18:07:53 Z 06-97.
18:07:55 I received a letter from the petitioner, seeking a
18:08:04 continuance.

18:08:05 >> Move to open.
18:08:06 >> Second.
18:08:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public, anyone
18:08:09 to speak on number 6?
18:08:10 You can speak on the continuance.
18:08:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: To 6 p.m. February 8th.
18:08:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, for people listening --
18:08:22 >>GWEN MILLER: February 8th.
18:08:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, the only concern I have,
18:08:32 it's several months away.
18:08:33 That's a long continuance.
18:08:34 I'm just raising the issue if council is comfortable
18:08:38 with that, I don't take a position.
18:08:39 I don't feel very strongly one way or the other.
18:08:42 It's normally when something is set several months
18:08:44 out --
18:08:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion.
18:08:49 >>> That is the first available date for a
18:08:50 continuance.
18:08:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ask petitioner how they feel about
18:08:58 renotice.
18:09:00 >>> No problem.

18:09:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion to renotice.
18:09:03 >> So moved.
18:09:04 >> Second.
18:09:04 (Motion carried).
18:09:08 >>> Item number 7.
18:09:10 V 06-41 there was a misnotice.
18:09:12 It needs to be continued till December 14th.
18:09:25 >> Reset.
18:09:27 >> So moved.
18:09:28 (Motion Carried).
18:09:30 >>> 6 p.m. on December 14th.
18:09:34 >>> Item 9.
18:09:35 V 06-109.
18:09:37 That also needs to be reset for January 25th.
18:09:43 2007 at 6 p.m.
18:09:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do we need a motion to open?
18:09:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That can't be heard.
18:09:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion.
18:09:56 >> So moved.
18:09:57 >> Second.
18:09:57 (Motion carried).
18:09:59 >>> Item number 12.

18:10:00 V 06-115.
18:10:03 Z 06-115.
18:10:05 Asking for a continuance to December 14th, 2006.
18:10:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How many more do we have on that?
18:10:15 >> So moved.
18:10:15 >> Second.
18:10:16 (Motion carried).
18:10:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
18:10:18 to speak on item number 12?
18:10:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How many do we have on December 14?
18:10:32 >> This is being included in your regular slot.
18:10:34 This is not exceeding your number of cases.
18:10:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
18:10:38 (Motion carried).
18:10:41 >>> The last one is item number 13.
18:10:43 Z 06-116.
18:10:48 Bryan Radcliff would like to be scheduled to December
18:10:51 14, 2006, 6 p.m.
18:10:54 >> Motion and second.
18:10:54 (Motion carried).
18:10:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's it?
18:11:06 You don't have three or four more?

18:11:09 >>> That gets us down to 10.
18:11:15 >> 16 through 19?
18:11:16 >> They are all there.
18:11:19 >>> Yes, sir.
18:11:21 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to do before we -- we are
18:11:24 going to do item number 3, which is a continued public
18:11:27 hearing.
18:11:28 This shouldn't take long.
18:11:37 Staff?
18:12:00 >> The electric fence?
18:12:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Where is staff?
18:12:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody speaking on this?
18:13:11 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
18:13:12 There were some minor changes and the ordinance
18:13:18 reflects those.
18:13:19 It is to allow for electrical fencing in the City of
18:13:24 Tampa other than an district which is how it's worded
18:13:31 now.
18:13:31 The petition is initiated by private party and they
18:13:36 will explain further what their reasoning as to the
18:13:38 need for this.
18:13:45 Generally it allows for maximum in the city, did not

18:13:49 identify limitation as to zoning district.
18:13:52 Maximum height.
18:13:55 The electric fence shall be completely surrounded by
18:13:58 nonelectrical fence, wall, or at a height not to
18:14:03 exceed six feet and it also indicates that surrounding
18:14:10 fence or wall shall be separated 6 inches at the
18:14:15 closest point to the electrical fence and the
18:14:17 nonelectrical surrounding fence or wall.
18:14:19 The fourth condition is that the electrical fencing is
18:14:22 identified at least 60 feet and they have added to the
18:14:27 ordinance a condition of the request of the fire
18:14:31 department and police department, and it states that
18:14:33 any property protected by an electrically charged
18:14:36 fence shall provide outside the perimeter of the fence
18:14:41 and emergency shutoff switch requiring police
18:14:43 department access.
18:14:45 Fair department access shall be of the type location
18:14:49 approved by the fire marshal, police department,
18:14:53 access shall be at the location and markings specified
18:14:58 and approved by the police chief.
18:15:00 The ordinance with that amendment is not objected to
18:15:06 by the fire or police department.

18:15:07 However, Land Development Coordination is objecting to
18:15:09 the petition.
18:15:12 The proposed change will allow this type of fencing in
18:15:15 our zoning district.
18:15:16 There is no exception.
18:15:17 So residential, commercial, industrial, office, they
18:15:21 now would allow for electric fencing.
18:15:23 Our code currently prohibits or limits the use to
18:15:27 industrial properties.
18:15:28 There is the ability to go to a variance board
18:15:31 hearing, if you can show that there is a serious
18:15:34 problem on your property.
18:15:35 And you can petition really any district but sometimes
18:15:40 you will see that in a CI designation.
18:15:50 There are very noticeable -- I have got some pictures
18:15:53 of these types of fencing.
18:15:58 For property on -- I don't know if you can see it.
18:16:01 You can see it's wrapped around the building.
18:16:22 This one is on Nebraska Avenue.
18:16:29 You can look at them individually.
18:16:32 >> Is that an illegal use right now?
18:16:36 >>> A number of these have been cited for code

18:16:38 violations.
18:16:40 When I met with the applicant, I suggested that, you
18:16:43 know, that really it was not an appropriate use in the
18:16:45 city, especially in the commercial district, when our
18:16:50 corridors -- basically are commercial but you have
18:16:54 residential right next door.
18:16:56 I think that this is going to be a visual impact to
18:16:59 those neighborhoods but it's not going to be an
18:17:01 attractive one.
18:17:04 The other concern that he had indicated was that many
18:17:09 of his clients are commercial districts.
18:17:14 So to limit the use of this to the industrial district
18:17:18 was not going to help them.
18:17:22 So especially with the no limitation in any district,
18:17:26 staff cannot support this.
18:17:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Moreda answered my question,
18:17:33 which was that we the city didn't initiate it but a
18:17:38 private citizen requested the initiation.
18:17:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:17:42 wants to speak?
18:17:43 You may speak.
18:17:47 >>> Jay Collings, Planning Commission staff.

18:17:50 On May 8, 2006, at their regular meeting, the Planning
18:17:53 Commission found the proposed amendment to chapter 27
18:17:57 inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies
18:18:00 of the Tampa comprehensive plan.
18:18:01 Thank you.
18:18:16 >> I haven't been sworn in.
18:18:17 >> You don't have to be sworn in.
18:18:19 >> Council, my name is Randy baron, 217 west Comanche
18:18:24 Avenue, president of Seminole Heights association,
18:18:26 also speaking on behalf of Sherri Simons, president of
18:18:29 southeast Seminole Heights civic association.
18:18:32 She's attending a county commission town hall meeting
18:18:36 scheduled for tonight.
18:18:37 Both Seminole Heights and southeast Seminole Heights
18:18:39 are adamantly opposed to this proposed ordinance.
18:18:42 I don't think I can put it any better than Gloria did
18:18:46 but I wrote this out so I might as well say it.
18:18:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I have a point of order?
18:18:52 I didn't mean to interrupt.
18:18:54 Is there a sequence of petitioner first, and then --
18:19:00 >>> Chairman asked for public --
18:19:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know but --

18:19:05 >>> Since this is a privately initiated code amendment
18:19:07 I think it would be appropriate to have the petitioner
18:19:09 for the code amendment speak first and then allow
18:19:11 members of the public to go ahead.
18:19:14 We don't see a lot of these.
18:19:16 >> I'm sorry, Randy, you will get your time.
18:19:19 >> I'm sorry, I do get my three minutes?
18:19:26 >> My name is bill mill we are the electric guard dog.
18:19:29 We do have security fencing.
18:19:32 But you guys saw some pictures.
18:19:34 And I think if you will look, mine is pretty
18:19:38 unnoticeable.
18:19:39 The electric part is just several strands of wire.
18:19:42 I don't know how to pull those pictures back up but if
18:19:45 you look at it, it's pretty unnoticeable except where
18:19:48 it goes across the roof.
18:19:50 But we have a lot of people here tonight to speak in
18:19:52 support of it.
18:19:53 And I think you will hear some horror stories.
18:19:55 These people are getting broke into on a regular
18:19:58 basis.
18:19:58 They can't conduct their business.

18:20:00 Aren't able to conduct their business.
18:20:05 We have got instances where tow truck drivers have
18:20:10 come back onto their property.
18:20:13 I did one for yellow freight.
18:20:17 I looked for them.
18:20:19 They had just got a driver shot inside with three
18:20:26 security guards on duty 24-7.
18:20:29 I went to look at that and it was a -- I looked at the
18:20:34 yard and met with the manager and the manager was
18:20:36 telling me, in fact he told me after the fact, with
18:20:41 the guards there, he said we have not gone a whole
18:20:44 week in a weekend with three guards here.
18:20:47 We put our system in.
18:20:48 This is probably three years ago.
18:20:49 I talked to him a few months ago.
18:20:52 He says, hey, I put this system in.
18:20:54 He says, what broke the camel's back was the driver
18:20:59 getting shot inside the yard.
18:21:00 He didn't get killed but shot three or four times.
18:21:03 It's something you just as soon not happen to you.
18:21:07 I was talking to the manager there, and Al would say,
18:21:11 I was here eight and a half years before we put the

18:21:14 system in.
18:21:15 And eight and a half years with three security guards
18:21:17 on 24-7 we never went a whole week without a break-in.
18:21:21 He said I put this system in two years ago.
18:21:27 Since then eliminated two guards.
18:21:29 And since N that time we have not had a single
18:21:31 break-in.
18:21:32 I think there are a lot of our customers here that
18:21:37 will speak in support of it and they can tell you lots
18:21:39 of horror stories about what happened to them before
18:21:41 this system went in.
18:21:42 Now we have had these systems in, did not know there
18:21:45 was an ordinance in Tampa.
18:21:46 We had some of these systems in almost 15 years.
18:21:50 We have never had an injury.
18:21:51 We have never had a claim.
18:21:54 It's inside of a locked fence.
18:21:56 Only turned on at night.
18:21:57 It's a 12-volt system.
18:21:59 It's a shock like walking on your carpet and touching
18:22:02 a door handle.
18:22:02 You are going to get an instant shock and that's going

18:22:05 to be it.
18:22:05 And it's going to trigger an alarm.
18:22:08 It's a psychological deterrent, you know.
18:22:10 You see the fence, and we kind of perpetuate, you see
18:22:15 the fence, and you think in terms of getting fried.
18:22:22 If you are not scared of it, then you are going to go
18:22:26 ahead and try to violate it.
18:22:27 And first it's a psychological deterrent.
18:22:30 Then if you do try to violate it, you are going to get
18:22:33 a shock, not a dangerous shock, but a shock.
18:22:36 And then it's going to send an alarm to our central
18:22:42 station and we call the police, or, now, whoever the
18:22:46 customer asks us to call.
18:22:48 But we have approximately 2,000 of these.
18:22:50 We have them in every major city in the country.
18:22:52 We have never had an issue with you anybody getting
18:22:54 hurt.
18:22:57 We have never had a lawsuit.
18:22:58 And I think you talk to anybody we deal with.
18:23:02 I think you guys got a copy of our safety information
18:23:05 a few months back.
18:23:07 In that safety information, there are letters from

18:23:10 corporate heads of security, from several nationally
18:23:14 known companies that got nothing but high praise for
18:23:20 us.
18:23:20 I think if you talk to anybody that we deal with or
18:23:23 anyplace we have ever been, I don't think you will
18:23:25 ever find anybody that says anything bad about us.
18:23:29 And if you need more people, we got lots of people
18:23:32 here.
18:23:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question, sir.
18:23:36 You said you have been selling these in Tampa, the
18:23:38 City of Tampa?
18:23:40 >>> For 15 years.
18:23:41 Never knew there was an ordinance.
18:23:43 >> Because I know some of these addresses look like
18:23:45 they might be in the county.
18:23:47 But you have been selling them in the city?
18:23:50 >>> Yes, sir.
18:23:50 Yes, sir.
18:23:52 >> And when did you become aware that we have an
18:23:54 ordinance that prohibited it?
18:23:59 >>> Approximately six months ago.
18:24:01 >> One of your clients got cited or something?

18:24:03 >>> Yes, sir, exactly.
18:24:05 >> And have you installed any since?
18:24:07 >>> No, sir.
18:24:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:24:17 >>> Randy baron, Old Seminole Heights neighborhood
18:24:20 association.
18:24:20 Again, I think Gloria really set forth the objections
18:24:23 to this.
18:24:26 As this ordinance is drafted, this proposed ordinance,
18:24:28 you better hope that your neighbor likes you, because
18:24:32 if you get into a feud, you open your window and you
18:24:35 notice that you have a ten foot electrified fence next
18:24:39 door to you six inches from your property line.
18:24:41 There are no requirements for permits here.
18:24:44 There are -- except for the electricity, I suppose.
18:24:49 There's no -- it can happen in any zoning
18:24:54 classification, residential, CG, CI.
18:24:59 Gloria mentioned the barbed wire.
18:25:01 We have had instances where the barbed wire fences
18:25:03 were petitioned for along Nebraska Avenue.
18:25:07 We have pointed out that -- we have been support by
18:25:12 this council and by the VRB.

18:25:16 There is just no justification to have this inside of
18:25:20 a residential, commercial general or commercial
18:25:24 intensive corridor, especially when those corridors
18:25:26 have residential abutting to them.
18:25:28 We have all driven down Nebraska and Florida Avenue
18:25:30 and we have a lot of commercial uses there.
18:25:32 There's a lot of car lots.
18:25:34 And what we are trying to avoid is the appearance of
18:25:38 this compound that Gloria had mentioned.
18:25:41 These are double fences.
18:25:42 So you are going to have two fences, one of which is
18:25:44 ten feet high.
18:25:45 Maybe I misunderstand how this fence is supposed to
18:25:48 be.
18:25:48 But six feet to the outer fence and ten feet is the
18:25:51 second fence.
18:25:52 So by definition it's going to be higher.
18:25:54 If all it does is give a little jolt I'm sure the
18:25:57 criminal community will find out about that and they
18:25:59 are going to be breaking through these things once
18:26:01 they realize they are not going to get fried.
18:26:03 So I would ask that the council please use common

18:26:08 sense here.
18:26:09 The Planning Commission is against it.
18:26:11 City staff is against it.
18:26:12 The neighborhood associations are against it.
18:26:14 And I hope that you also will be against it.
18:26:17 I ask you to oppose this petition.
18:26:19 Thank you.
18:26:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:26:20 Next.
18:26:23 >>> Susan long, 921 east broad which is one block from
18:26:27 Nebraska.
18:26:29 I am mortified to think that they are going to be
18:26:31 putting electric fences up and down Nebraska, and any
18:26:35 other place they want to.
18:26:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Excuse me, please.
18:26:38 If you have cell phones, would you all please turn
18:26:40 them off?
18:26:40 Cell phones, please turn them off.
18:26:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Must be Mr. Smith's.
18:26:47 [ Laughter ]
18:27:03 >>> I live one block off Nebraska in Old Seminole
18:27:05 Heights.

18:27:06 We have spent the last one and a half to two years
18:27:11 trying to get the barbed wire off Nebraska, and had
18:27:14 the beginnings of cleaning it up and making it look
18:27:17 better.
18:27:17 We currently have a code enforcement task force.
18:27:20 The last thing in the world we need are electric
18:27:22 fences running up and down it.
18:27:24 And the same is true for Florida Avenue.
18:27:26 As you are aware, there are probably some of the
18:27:29 primary people interested in it would be some of the
18:27:32 used car lots that are on Nebraska and Florida Avenue,
18:27:36 and I can tell you very honestly that many of them are
18:27:39 complaining, that code is -- so you can see around the
18:27:45 corner and now they are going to put two fences, one
18:27:47 beginning right next to the sidewalk and the other one
18:27:50 six inches back and they wouldn't allow them back six
18:27:53 inches for people to see around the corner and people
18:27:56 not be killed.
18:27:56 It sounds like we are opening up a concentration camp
18:27:59 in this city.
18:28:00 Thank you.
18:28:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

18:28:01 Next.
18:28:04 >>> Janie Johnston, 1002 east broad.
18:28:07 And I agree with the previous speakers.
18:28:11 And I would just like to say that Nebraska and Florida
18:28:17 look poorly enough without having electrified fences
18:28:21 on them.
18:28:22 And I think that it sends out a message, not only to
18:28:26 our community, but to tourists and to other people who
18:28:30 want to visit here, that there's something wrong,
18:28:34 something very dangerous about that particular area.
18:28:37 So I would just ask that you consider this and vote
18:28:44 against it.
18:28:45 Thank you very much.
18:28:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:28:47 Next.
18:28:50 >>> Jim Highcheck, I live at 306 West Hayeh, represent
18:28:56 South Seminole Heights civic association.
18:28:57 Our neighborhood butts up against Florida Avenue,
18:28:59 between Hillsborough and MLK.
18:29:03 Many of the fences -- many of them have cars parked in
18:29:10 the right-of-way.
18:29:10 There is really in a place to walk, walking close to a

18:29:14 fence, inside that.
18:29:16 But just the walking area right now is fairly
18:29:18 dangerous.
18:29:21 If you get cars off the roadway, make it safer for
18:29:25 pedestrians.
18:29:30 Thank you.
18:29:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
18:29:33 Any questions by council members?
18:29:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Somebody is coming up.
18:29:37 >>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak, please come
18:29:39 up.
18:29:39 We have a long agenda.
18:29:41 If you are going to speak, please speak.
18:29:43 We have a heavy agenda.
18:29:45 >>> Seems to me --
18:29:46 >> Put your name on the record.
18:29:47 >>> I'm sorry, Jose Rodriguez.
18:29:51 It seems if you have nothing to protect you don't need
18:29:54 an electric fence.
18:29:55 Everybody is talking about visual problems.
18:29:57 Our problems are Florida Avenue is the police are so
18:30:01 busy when you call for a simple theft, it's taking

18:30:03 them an hour, two hours to come for a simple break-in,
18:30:06 stealing a radio. It doesn't look pretty but I think
18:30:09 it's something that's going to have to happen.
18:30:12 If you have something to protect, maybe you need to
18:30:16 wake up and put a fence.
18:30:18 And I am not going to be the one that's in the wrong.
18:30:20 But I do want to say I am for it.
18:30:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:30:26 Next.
18:30:27 >>> My name is Pete Rockefeller.
18:30:29 I have the fence.
18:30:30 I was asked to turn the fence off.
18:30:32 And since I turned the fence off I suffered about
18:30:34 $20,000 worth of damage on my cars that are in my
18:30:38 impound facility.
18:30:40 Questions?
18:30:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Rockefeller, the company is
18:30:46 called the electric guard dog.
18:30:48 And I can't help but wonder why not just have a guard
18:30:51 dog?
18:30:54 >>> I got a nice letter from my attorney, a 20,000 hit
18:30:57 on a dog bite.

18:31:00 So that's what you're afraid of is the liability?
18:31:03 >>> Yes.
18:31:03 I have a suit going.
18:31:04 >> And so you're not going concerned about liability
18:31:09 if somebody climbs a fence and gets zapped and impales
18:31:13 themselves on the fence?
18:31:15 >>> They are not going to get zapped on the fence.
18:31:17 All the fence does is when somebody gets through the
18:31:20 fence and gets onto my property, it's a continuity
18:31:24 system.
18:31:24 It's like an alarm in this room.
18:31:26 As soon as somebody penetrates the fence, they call me
18:31:28 and let me know someone is in my yard.
18:31:31 I call the police.
18:31:32 I can go out there and catch the person in the act
18:31:34 myself.
18:31:36 And that's all the fence does.
18:31:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:31:38 Next.
18:31:45 >>> My name is James Maten with Wilson Trucking.
18:31:49 We have the electric guard dog around our property.
18:31:52 Have for about two years.

18:31:56 Provider to that we had people walk up on the dock,
18:31:58 had no business being there, people in the yard going
18:32:01 through their trucks.
18:32:02 We have had three cars broken in, outside of the fence
18:32:06 because that's where most park.
18:32:09 Without the electric guard dog you are looking at
18:32:11 paying a lot more money to have somebody there 24
18:32:13 hours a day.
18:32:15 Like the guy said before, you know, it's not the shop
18:32:17 that's going to get the guy it's the cop that's going
18:32:22 to catch him, at this time alarm that goes off.
18:32:26 I have been noticed.
18:32:27 You know, without this kind of protection, there are
18:32:31 people that are working at midnight.
18:32:33 You know, they don't feel comfortable.
18:32:35 They don't want to park their cars inside the gate if
18:32:37 they know the fence is not going to keep them.
18:32:39 We have had cars broken in in broad daylight, right on
18:32:42 the road.
18:32:43 You can see through the fence.
18:32:44 The fence does not hinder you to see through as far as
18:32:47 traffic goes.

18:32:48 And you saw the pictures of them.
18:32:50 Nights different than having any kind of regular fence
18:32:52 around your property.
18:32:53 And why can't you protect your property?
18:32:55 I mean, it's an inexpensive way to protect your
18:32:58 property and it gives your employees peace of mind
18:33:01 knowing they are working in a safe environment.
18:33:03 Thank you.
18:33:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:33:04 Next.
18:33:08 >>> My name is Susan Degan. I own a company called
18:33:10 Engine Lab of Tampa.
18:33:13 When we moved from the city, we could not have been
18:33:15 happier because we were continually broken into.
18:33:19 All these times we had dogs.
18:33:21 They would injure our dogs.
18:33:23 We had fences.
18:33:24 We had everything you can possibly imagine.
18:33:27 They still got in.
18:33:28 They would still steal you blind.
18:33:31 When we moved one block from the county we put this
18:33:33 in, after we had Wen there the first two weeks.

18:33:36 The first week bead three break ins.
18:33:38 The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department came to
18:33:40 us and said, you need to put in this fence.
18:33:43 I said I never heard of it.
18:33:44 They said you can't put it in the city.
18:33:46 They said, it's a shame.
18:33:47 You need to put this fence in.
18:33:49 They gave us the information.
18:33:50 We have had no break innings.
18:33:52 And that's been over six years.
18:33:54 But if we as business owners that generate revenue for
18:33:57 this city, that employ people in this city, need to
18:34:00 have the right to protect our property so that we can
18:34:03 continue to have an environment that will make this
18:34:06 city prosper.
18:34:10 We can't do it if we are constantly being broken into.
18:34:13 The fences are not offensive to look at.
18:34:16 You don't even know they are there.
18:34:18 They are well marked.
18:34:19 They are safe.
18:34:19 And they are absolutely one of the best things we
18:34:22 could do to protect people who can't protect

18:34:24 themselves.
18:34:25 And we have to protect ourselves from people who have
18:34:28 no better sense than to steal for a living.
18:34:30 We all work for a living.
18:34:32 We don't need to have our hands tied because of
18:34:35 residential concerns.
18:34:38 I live in a deed restricted neighborhood.
18:34:40 And I am very cognizant of what these neighbors say.
18:34:43 But I think as far as businesses are concerned, you
18:34:47 need to look long and hard at how you allow businesses
18:34:50 to protect themselves to continue to prosper in the
18:34:53 City of Tampa.
18:34:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:34:55 Next.
18:35:02 >>> Tom Mosley, I'm on the corner of 40th and
18:35:06 Columbus drive.
18:35:09 I have 80 employees.
18:35:10 16 of those are there all night.
18:35:13 I have no doors on my facility.
18:35:15 The fence keeps my employees safe.
18:35:18 We have had no problems since the fence has went in.
18:35:21 Thank you.

18:35:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:35:23 Next.
18:35:31 >>> Good evening, council.
18:35:33 Christie Hess.
18:35:36 I am on the board for the Seminole Heights civic
18:35:38 association.
18:35:38 You heard a lot of talk about people breaking into
18:35:41 these buildings over the past ten, even six years we
18:35:47 heard.
18:35:47 You may remember in the last one to two years the
18:35:50 crime rate in the City of Tampa has dropped 28%.
18:35:56 I think it goes to show you that the crime rate is not
18:35:59 as high as some of these business owners would like
18:36:02 you to believe it is.
18:36:03 The police have worked with the residents very hard to
18:36:07 decrease the crime in our neighborhood.
18:36:09 The other point that should be taken is not only are
18:36:13 these electric fences electrified but it sounds to me
18:36:17 like they trigger an alarm.
18:36:19 And it's the triggering of the alarm that is probably
18:36:22 the deterrent for the criminals, not the electrified
18:36:25 fence.

18:36:26 You can set up your fences to trigger alarms in a wide
18:36:30 variety of manners.
18:36:32 You don't need an electric fence to do that for you.
18:36:34 Thank you.
18:36:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:36:36 Would anyone else like to speak?
18:36:37 Okay, petitioner?
18:36:40 If you would please come up, if you are going to
18:36:42 speak, would you please get up and line up, please?
18:36:47 >>> I don't live in that area.
18:36:49 I work with -- I'm perfectly fine that 12 volts will
18:36:57 not hurt anybody.
18:36:58 That area has been commercial for years.
18:37:01 People don't come to Tampa to visit on Nebraska and
18:37:05 Florida Avenue.
18:37:07 But Busch Gardens isn't there.
18:37:10 Lowry Park isn't there.
18:37:11 Hyde Park isn't there.
18:37:12 None of our tourist attractions are in that area.
18:37:16 These people have a right to protect their property.
18:37:18 And if it's a visual thing they should probably work
18:37:22 with these people and get the visual back a little if

18:37:27 they need to.
18:37:28 But they should have a right to protect their
18:37:31 properties.
18:37:33 And the question that wasn't asked, is it an audible
18:37:36 alarm that it sets off or is it a silent alarm?
18:37:40 >>GWEN MILLER: We don't know.
18:37:41 Petitioner can come back and answer that.
18:37:43 Petitioner, will you come back up?
18:37:47 >>> It can be either or both.
18:37:49 >> If it's audible, it might --
18:37:52 >>> If it's audible it's set to go off for two minutes
18:37:54 only.
18:37:55 It can be whatever the customer wants.
18:38:01 >> Well then I don't think it should be a problem.
18:38:07 >> I want to throw in something about the guard dog.
18:38:10 At one time we was the biggest guard dog service in
18:38:14 the world.
18:38:14 I do not have a dog one now.
18:38:16 I can promise you, this safer, when a guard dog, the
18:38:22 dog gets out and goes down the street and bits
18:38:25 somebody, jumps on a kid or something.
18:38:27 But an insurance company now will not write you if you

18:38:30 have guard dogs.
18:38:31 Guard dogs are just a thing of the past.
18:38:33 This is relatively new technology.
18:38:35 People are scared of it.
18:38:36 You know, there's nothing to be scared of.
18:38:41 And I think if you talk to my customers there's a good
18:38:45 many more here that can speak if you would like for
18:38:47 them to.
18:38:48 But as much as anything, this is a safety issue for
18:38:52 their employees.
18:38:54 You know, you can get all sorts of war stories about
18:39:00 people coming on the docks, a wreck her driver running
18:39:05 into people inside their yards.
18:39:07 It's a safety thing as well as an economic thing.
18:39:09 >> Thank you.
18:39:10 Any other questions by council members?
18:39:11 Mr. Dingfelder?
18:39:16 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Ms. Moreda, there seems to be a
18:39:18 little bit of confusion.
18:39:20 Somebody said let's allow it because that area of
18:39:22 town, yada yada.
18:39:24 That's not what we are here about.

18:39:26 The way it's proposed right this second shows that it
18:39:28 can be in any district, residential, anywhere in the
18:39:34 city, any district in the city.
18:39:36 That's the way it's proposed right now.
18:39:37 >>GLORIA MOREDA: That's correct.
18:39:40 >> And we would sure work with council amending it.
18:39:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Come back up.
18:39:47 Right now we allow barbed wire fences in industrial
18:39:51 zones.
18:39:52 I think I heard when I was in the back.
18:39:55 I think I also heard that you can get a variance for
18:39:58 barbed wire fence in other zones if you can show that
18:40:00 there is a need for that from past history of break
18:40:04 ins and things like that.
18:40:06 Why not just do it that way?
18:40:07 Allow electric fences in industrial zones anywhere
18:40:11 else, if you go through the variance process and can
18:40:13 show that there is a real true need for it.
18:40:16 I can't imagine ever in a residential area that there
18:40:19 could be a need for it.
18:40:20 But maybe in a commercial general.
18:40:24 >>> And I don't think it was brought out, and all we

18:40:27 do is commercial stuff.
18:40:28 We have never ever done anything for anybody
18:40:30 residential.
18:40:33 >> I hope not.
18:40:33 But would you all be amenable to revising this to make
18:40:39 it applicable in industrial areas only?
18:40:44 >>> Industrial and maybe commercial.
18:40:50 >> It seems to me you should look at this just like
18:40:53 you do barbed wire fences, that there are probably
18:40:55 places where you ought to be able to put them in, and
18:40:57 there are other places where you can put them in, but
18:40:59 you have got to show a real --
18:41:03 >>> Yes, sir, we would be amenable to that, yes, sir.
18:41:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
18:41:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: On the commercial properties that he
18:41:10 has the fences are, are apparently on IG and CI areas
18:41:17 and there's only one, two, three, four out of maybe 10
18:41:21 or 12 that are within two blocks of a residential
18:41:24 area.
18:41:24 So I think that if he would amend it to have it on the
18:41:29 IG or heavy commercial intensive areas, that would be
18:41:32 fine.

18:41:33 But I wouldn't do it any other way.
18:41:36 And why do they have -- some of these pictures, they
18:41:41 are so busy with all kinds of fences and so on.
18:41:43 Is that something you would need to do?
18:41:47 >>> No, ma'am --
18:41:50 >>CHAIRMAN: Come to the mike.
18:41:52 >>> We do insist that our customers have a chain link
18:41:55 fence outside of ours to keep the public from
18:41:58 inadvertently walking into it, from little Johnny from
18:42:02 riding his try cycle into it with you bee don't
18:42:06 require any kind of razor ribbon, barbed wire, but we
18:42:10 do require some kind of fence, just for the public
18:42:12 safety.
18:42:12 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
18:42:13 Thank you.
18:42:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you always go higher than the
18:42:18 existing --
18:42:19 >>> Oh, yes, sir.
18:42:20 And I would strongly, strongly -- we can make it
18:42:23 whatever height we want to.
18:42:25 But in the early days, we made them eight feet tall.
18:42:28 And what we ran into, a lot of these places that we do

18:42:32 are like car lots.
18:42:34 All the keys are in the car.
18:42:36 Where they take the new cars off the train.
18:42:38 There are thousands of brand new cars there with the
18:42:40 keys all in them.
18:42:41 So if they ever get in, the damage is done.
18:42:44 In the early days we made them eight feet tall.
18:42:49 They are just single strands of wire.
18:42:51 8 inches apart.
18:42:53 Way unnoticeable.
18:42:55 I bet if you ride down Nebraska, unless you are
18:42:57 looking for them, you will never see them.
18:43:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's wrong with eight feet?
18:43:02 >>> Eight feet, they would climb on top of the chain
18:43:05 link and then once they are on the inside the damage
18:43:08 is done.
18:43:09 Then they have got access to the keys and they just
18:43:12 crash through the gate.
18:43:14 By making it ten feet -- and that's only three more
18:43:17 strand than just eight inches apart, very
18:43:20 unnoticeable.
18:43:21 But it does keep them from popping over the top of our

18:43:23 fence and then getting into where they can do their
18:43:27 mischief or whatever you want to call it.
18:43:30 But if they ever get inside the fence, then the damage
18:43:33 is done.
18:43:35 >> I had one other question of Gloria.
18:43:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Moreda?
18:43:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Some of these examples seem to show
18:43:44 streets like North Nebraska, or Columbus.
18:43:47 That sort of thing.
18:43:49 Is it possible -- and Mary had mentioned commercial
18:43:52 intensive.
18:43:53 Is it possible you have commercial intensive --
18:43:57 >> That's why I jumped up.
18:43:59 I'm very concerned about the CI being included in
18:44:01 this.
18:44:03 Nebraska, Hillsborough, Florida Avenue, CI.
18:44:07 Up against residential.
18:44:12 And to at least require the Variance Review Board to
18:44:15 consider this, as they would a barbed wire, I think,
18:44:19 is more appropriate than allowing it as a permitted
18:44:22 type of fencing in CI.
18:44:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Why not the IG area then?

18:44:29 >>> IG is fine.
18:44:30 Industrial is fine.
18:44:31 Because those prohibit residential uses and are
18:44:34 primarily industrial in nature.
18:44:36 But when you go to the commercial districts you're
18:44:40 getting into very close proximity to residential.
18:44:44 And I think it's an inappropriate appearance.
18:44:48 >> The reason I mention that is because from that
18:44:52 piece of paper --
18:44:53 >>> Many of them are NCI, absolutely.
18:44:56 And that's why the gentleman did not want to change
18:44:59 it.
18:45:00 >> But it seemed to me like they weren't within a
18:45:05 residential area.
18:45:06 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Well, there are some -- CI that are
18:45:11 big and not near residential.
18:45:12 But I'm telling you, you open it up to CI, you will in
18:45:17 many corridors be right against residential.
18:45:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But we allow it in industrial, as a
18:45:23 matter of right, and then anything -- any other
18:45:26 category of commercial or whatever, they have to go
18:45:28 through variance.

18:45:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's a good idea.
18:45:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?
18:45:34 Do we have to continue this to change that?
18:45:39 >>GLORIA MOREDA: If you would make the motion
18:45:40 directing me how you would like to amend this, and
18:45:43 probably three weeks to give me a chance to draft it.
18:45:47 And I think it could go regular on a day meeting.
18:45:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Then the motion would be to follow
18:45:53 the same guidelines as barbed wire fences, whatever
18:45:56 those are, bring that back.
18:45:57 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I would assume you would like these
18:46:00 conditions also drafted as part of it, just with the
18:46:04 limitation that the location is the same, as barbed
18:46:09 wire, with a condition that the Variance Review
18:46:11 Board --
18:46:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
18:46:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
18:46:19 (Motion carried).
18:46:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can I have a question as to what date
18:46:21 and time, please?
18:46:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Three weeks.
18:46:35 >>THE CLERK: November 16th, if you want to

18:46:38 continue the public hearing.
18:46:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Can it be in the morning?
18:46:52 >>> Yes.
18:46:52 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll do it in the morning on the
18:46:54 16th.
18:46:57 >>> He's indicating the 1st of January.
18:47:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Perfect.
18:47:02 !!
18:47:03 >>GWEN MILLER: In the morning, 10 a.m.
18:47:15 All right.
18:47:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: that's all right with the maker of
18:47:23 the motion?
18:47:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
18:47:25 We are ready now.
18:47:28 Anyone in the public that's going to speak on item 1,
18:47:32 item 8, item 10, item 11, item 14, item 15, 16, 17,
18:47:38 18, and 19, please stand and raise your right hand.
18:47:42 Item 1.
18:47:58 Item 10.
18:47:59 Item 8.
18:48:00 Item 11.
18:48:01 Item 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, raise your right hand.

18:48:07 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:48:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I ask that all written communications
18:48:16 relative to tonight's hearing that have been available
18:48:18 for the public for inspection to City Council be
18:48:22 received and filed at this time.
18:48:28 Do you have e-mails related to it?
18:48:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a motion?
18:48:37 Motion and second.
18:48:37 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
18:48:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Very briefly if any members of
18:48:41 council have any verbal communication with any
18:48:43 petitioner, his or her representative, or any member
18:48:46 of the public in connection with any of today's
18:48:47 hearings, that are quasi-judicial, that member should
18:48:51 disclose the person, group or entity with whom the
18:48:54 verbal communication occurred and the substance of
18:48:56 that verbal communication.
18:48:57 Finally, ladies and gentlemen, there's a lot of people
18:49:00 here tonight.
18:49:01 It's a very busy tonight.
18:49:02 I would ask that you help things along by stating that
18:49:04 you have been sworn when you state your name.

18:49:08 And I am going to have a little sign up here in front
18:49:10 of me just to remind you and I would ask your
18:49:13 cooperation.
18:49:13 Thank you.
18:49:15 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
18:49:16 I'm back here on the item from this morning on that
18:49:18 lease termination.
18:49:20 I would like to hand in the document at this
18:49:22 particular point.
18:49:23 If you have any discussion.
18:49:24 I would like to request that if you are so inclined to
18:49:27 do the lease termination before you do the first
18:49:30 reading on the ordinance coming before you tonight.
18:49:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Is everybody agreeable with that?
18:49:37 Okay.
18:49:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought we were going to hear the
18:49:41 presentation and then vote.
18:49:45 >>GWEN MILLER: All right, the presentation first.
18:49:47 We need to open item number 1.
18:49:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
18:49:53 >> Second.
18:49:53 (Motion carried)

18:49:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
18:50:35 I have been sworn.
18:50:40 The first case this evening is Z 06-113.
18:50:43 Central Park Village.
18:50:45 1202 north governor street.
18:50:48 This is an area wide rezoning going from RM-24 to PD
18:50:52 planned development for mixed use residential,
18:50:56 commercial, and school.
18:51:00 The petitioner is asking for several waivers in the
18:51:05 staff report. The majority of the waivers are related
18:51:06 to tree and landscape requirements.
18:51:09 They are also asking to be allowed to remove two grand
18:51:12 trees.
18:51:13 They are asking for reduction of protected tree
18:51:15 canopies and require 50% down to 17%.
18:51:19 They are looking to reduce all parking garage drive
18:51:22 ails from 26 feet to 24 feet.
18:51:25 And they are looking for a waiver of the required
18:51:27 buffer adjacent to vehicle use areas given the urban
18:51:30 nature of the project.
18:51:34 Petitioner is proposing to rezone the property located
18:51:37 at Kay Street West of Nebraska Avenue north of Cass

18:51:39 Street and east of Central Avenue, a planned
18:51:43 development district.
18:51:43 This is a 28.9-acre site currently Central Park
18:51:46 Village, and they are looking to reestablish the park
18:51:52 to a traditional grid pattern area with urban mixed
18:51:55 use.
18:51:57 The site currently has 484 existing units.
18:52:01 The proposed development before you would ask for
18:52:05 entitlement for 2030 residential units, 50,000 square
18:52:10 feet of office, 50,000 square feet of commercial, and
18:52:13 39,000 square feet of community service.
18:52:18 The projected Florida area ratio is 2.3.
18:52:28 This is an aerial of the existing site.
18:52:47 The county building looking down to the site across
18:52:51 Cass Street.
18:52:56 The proposed residential component will be
18:52:58 approximately 800 mixed income rental unit, and 1250
18:53:06 condominiums, approximately 70% of the rentals and 10%
18:53:11 of the condominiums will be affordable.
18:53:27 The proposed development plan going to be a 12-block
18:53:35 with commercial fronting on that green.
18:53:38 This is the existing Perry Harvey park.

18:53:41 The development would put in all new grid street
18:53:48 systems currently existing and realigning Harrison
18:53:52 Avenue in order to serve as an entryway for
18:53:56 development.
18:53:56 Additionally, the St. James Episcopal church here,
18:54:00 this site would be retained and turned into an
18:54:03 African-American museum on-site.
18:54:06 They have been through the architectural review
18:54:08 committee.
18:54:08 And received a certificate of appropriateness on
18:54:10 October 4th for the reuse of that site into the
18:54:13 museum.
18:54:20 Unlike the typical TBA that would come to you, chapter
18:54:24 27 requires 50 acres, 20.89 acres, therefore would
18:54:29 come in as a PD.
18:54:30 We have added notes to the site plan that would have
18:54:36 this site going in through incremental review.
18:54:39 So as each lot would come in it would be revised --
18:54:43 I'm sorry, reviewed by the DRC in order to ensure that
18:54:47 it meets all of City of Tampa code requirements
18:54:55 Additionally, during incremental review, all access
18:54:59 onto Nebraska Avenue would be reviewed by the Florida

18:55:01 department of transportation and the design then would
18:55:05 be subject to their approval.
18:55:12 There are a few technical objections that are
18:55:15 associated with this T site and they came from
18:55:18 landscape, based on the removal of the grand trees,
18:55:21 and on the reduction of the required canopy, given
18:55:24 that the site is required to maintain 50% of the tree
18:55:29 canopy and asking for a waiver down to 17%.
18:55:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff?
18:55:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Earlier today we had a petition in
18:55:46 Port Tampa where the petitioner wasn't able to handle
18:55:49 all the trees on their property, but they put them on
18:55:53 the adjacent landfill site to beautify it.
18:55:56 Is that something that has been explored by this
18:55:59 petitioner?
18:56:01 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, I believe the petitioner has
18:56:04 discussed with parks and recreation the opportunity to
18:56:06 transplant some of the existing trees into Perry Harvey
18:56:09 park which is adjacent.
18:56:11 The park could not handle all of the trees given that
18:56:14 it is active recreation space.
18:56:17 But they have had discussions.

18:56:18 And I believe that would be further addressed during
18:56:21 incremental review, also allow the petitioner to speak
18:56:24 to that.
18:56:26 >> Also along Nebraska Avenue which we are trying to
18:56:28 improve.
18:56:28 It seems to me we have -- that's an area right now
18:56:33 needs all the enhancement it can get.
18:56:35 And wouldn't it be appropriate to make those things
18:56:39 part of the adoptive plan rather than you saying it
18:56:45 would be addressed during incremental review?
18:56:47 Rather than our waiving all the 17% of the trees.
18:56:54 Couldn't we just say that 50% of them would be placed
18:56:57 within the neighborhood, and then that could be worked
18:56:59 out during incremental review?
18:57:02 >>> Yes, you could get petitioner to add that note to
18:57:05 the site plan, speaking to that.
18:57:09 The other thing I did want to mention that that on a
18:57:14 typical -- you would have an agreement for us today
18:57:17 with a package.
18:57:19 This development agreement will be forthcoming in
18:57:21 January.
18:57:22 There are notes on the plan currently that does not

18:57:24 allow for the petitioner to move forward on
18:57:26 development of this project until the development
18:57:30 agreement has been adopted by council.
18:57:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask some questions.
18:57:39 I have been reviewing this and it's very PDA-ish and I
18:57:45 understand we are changing rules and trying to make
18:57:48 some strides.
18:57:50 But you mentioned a number of times a grid that they
18:57:52 are going to establish this urban grid.
18:57:54 And as I look at the plan, on the northern portion,
18:57:57 there is connectivity, there is a relationship to the
18:58:01 sidewalk, there is a bit of a pedestrian sensibility.
18:58:04 But on the second part it appears that we have block
18:58:10 and not a grid.
18:58:11 And I would like to ask Mr. Stair, our urban planner,
18:58:14 to address that.
18:58:15 Because connectivity is something that is very
18:58:16 important, and one of the things that we lost during
18:58:19 the Central Park Village phase and I was hoping to
18:58:21 regain.
18:58:23 With the redevelopment opportunity.
18:58:25 >>> If I may add to that also before Wilson comes up,

18:58:31 the developers to require to then further connect the
18:58:35 grid pattern down to Cass Street.
18:58:37 >> But what about the east-west part on Harrison?
18:58:40 It looks like this mega block.
18:58:42 There are actually three mega blocks.
18:58:47 But at any rate --
18:58:49 >>> I did actually measure that block.
18:58:50 It's 465 feet by 240.
18:58:53 >> That is not a comfortable walking distance for a
18:58:56 block.
18:58:56 Isn't that twice the size of an average block, and
18:58:58 four times the size of a downtown Tampa block?
18:59:01 >>> A downtown Tampa block are 220 feet by 220 feet.
18:59:05 Our tend to be a little smaller.
18:59:07 I had the opportunity for a couple minutes to check.
18:59:10 And Chicago's blocks are about 325 by 375, just to
18:59:14 give you an idea.
18:59:15 I wanted to pull some additional but time ran out.
18:59:25 >>WILSON STAIR: Urban manager, and I have been sworn.
18:59:31 Good urban policy, when it comes to grids, is that to
18:59:36 get them inasmuch as you can, because they give people
18:59:42 more options.

18:59:43 And I do agree with you, councilwoman Saul-Sena, that
18:59:49 mega blocks really encumber people to make their way
18:59:57 around them.
18:59:58 So in this particular instance, we did ask the
19:00:02 petitioner why they did not extend Harrison.
19:00:08 And the mega block that's 450 feet in length and runs
19:00:13 north to south, this block here.
19:00:25 Our downtown blocks are really roughly 210 by 210.
19:00:31 And they are small blocks compared to a lot of other
19:00:35 cities.
19:00:36 And for the most part, the petitioner has good size
19:00:40 blocks.
19:00:41 I mean, they work traditionally, they are very good,
19:00:45 with the exception of this block, and perhaps the one
19:00:49 next to it.
19:00:52 And I did ask them about it.
19:00:54 And they said it made their development scheme tough
19:01:01 to work out.
19:01:03 But in basic urban design policy, we like to keep the
19:01:08 grid system.
19:01:10 And if you did Harrison Avenue over Nebraska, you
19:01:15 would have on the large north-south block here, you

19:01:20 would have roughly two blocks about the size or a
19:01:23 little bigger than your park standard CBD block.
19:01:29 But on the further one, you would cut that block down,
19:01:34 and you probably have a rim of 130 by 100-foot that
19:01:43 would be hard to do something with.
19:01:45 But, you know, you could do dog walks, or a pocket
19:01:49 park or something like that.
19:01:51 >> We actually have three petitions in the Channel
19:01:53 District later tonight that are on pieces that size.
19:01:58 >>> Right.
19:01:59 In essence, that's the basic good urban policy.
19:02:03 But the petitioner may have some reason financially
19:02:08 why they can't do it.
19:02:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Based on what Mrs. Saul-Sena
19:02:20 suggested couldn't they bridge over the Harrison
19:02:24 street, and they would still be able to build whatever
19:02:29 they want to build above it?
19:02:31 But then you would have the connectivity of the house
19:02:35 and the street going under the building.
19:02:38 >>> It is possible.
19:02:41 >> Wouldn't that accomplish both things?
19:02:42 On the one hand, you have a better grid system in

19:02:46 terms of walkability.
19:02:48 But then the flip side is that they can build whatever
19:02:51 they want on top.
19:02:53 Kind of like what we have over here at the convention
19:02:55 center.
19:02:56 >> Yeah.
19:02:59 >> The bridge right over the top of it.
19:03:01 >> You get kind of the tunnel effect and light it but,
19:03:06 yes, could you do it that way.
19:03:08 That's a good compromise in that sense.
19:03:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I guess in theory, Wilson, we can do
19:03:20 anything in theory.
19:03:21 Dug a tunnel under or a bridge over.
19:03:25 That's kind of what that thing is over there.
19:03:29 >> Build a building on top of it.
19:03:30 >> Any idea how much that costs to do something like
19:03:33 that?
19:03:37 >>WILSON STAIR: No, sir, I do not.
19:03:38 >> If we continued Harrison onto Nebraska which
19:03:41 clearly would, you know, disrupt the plan that's in
19:03:45 front of us, that seems that's a pretty radical change
19:03:50 too.

19:03:51 So the grid system, while maybe not ideal, Wilson, do
19:03:54 you think that the good outweighs the bad in this
19:03:59 proposal?
19:04:02 >>> My honest answer is that I feel like you should
19:04:09 continue the Harrison across and Nebraska.
19:04:14 That gives the whole site more circulation.
19:04:20 And you don't end up with somewhat of a dead-end on
19:04:24 one end of the property.
19:04:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
19:04:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission?
19:04:32 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:04:35 I have been sworn.
19:04:44 As relates to the comprehensive plan there are two
19:04:47 land use categories just under 29 acres in size.
19:04:55 One of the types, this part over here.
19:05:04 The site is also known with Central Avenue being over
19:05:07 here.
19:05:10 That's one of the original areas for African-Americans
19:05:13 in the City of Tampa.
19:05:15 Also in the 1950s was known as a significant
19:05:19 business district for African-American businesses.
19:05:21 Today, Central Park Village is a public housing

19:05:24 project situated in the end of the downtown core.
19:05:27 From a context standpoint sandwiched between the
19:05:30 continually evolving Ybor City area to the east and of
19:05:33 course the evolving central business district area to
19:05:35 the south, and of course Channel District to the
19:05:37 southeast.
19:05:41 The revitalized central business district to the
19:05:45 north, the newly redeveloped interstate is to the
19:05:49 northwest.
19:05:49 The area not only is located, identified as a
19:05:53 community redevelopment agency but is also within
19:05:55 Tampa's enterprise zone.
19:05:58 The Central Park community will benefit from
19:06:00 redevelopment and will continue to contribute to the
19:06:04 growth for the city and its residents.
19:06:07 Its residents will continue to experience positive
19:06:09 growth.
19:06:10 It is consistent with a variety of policies within the
19:06:13 comprehensive plan.
19:06:14 There are some policies.
19:06:16 Let me tell you about the ones that it's consistent
19:06:18 with, as far as -- consistent with elements, with

19:06:22 policies within the future land use element, within
19:06:24 the historic resources element, and also within the
19:06:27 housing element.
19:06:28 We would also like to bring to the attention, since
19:06:30 this was an established African-American community,
19:06:34 continues to be an established African-American
19:06:36 community, that there are a variety of policies within
19:06:37 a minority of this element that relate to minority
19:06:41 business development and economic development, that
19:06:45 hopefully will be seized upon as far as the continual
19:06:50 involvement and improvement of this entire community
19:06:52 of the Central Park area.
19:06:54 Planning Commission staff has no objections to the and
19:06:58 finds the proposed plan consistent with the
19:06:59 comprehensive plan.
19:07:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Garcia, did you view this at
19:07:05 all in terms of come patible as developed to scale,
19:07:08 just the scale of the development, on the southern
19:07:10 portion?
19:07:11 Or did you just look at the overall density and
19:07:14 whether that's a good thing?
19:07:16 >>> We compared this to several other projects that

19:07:18 came into the city of significant magnitude over
19:07:21 recent times, i.e., the Tampa Heights project, and one
19:07:26 you will be seeing this evening which is independent
19:07:28 park.
19:07:29 Both of those projects are significant scale as far as
19:07:31 residential density is concerned. The difference
19:07:35 between those and this particular project, this
19:07:37 particular project has significantly less acreage to
19:07:39 deal with.
19:07:40 And they are going to be providing significant amount
19:07:44 in excess of 2,000.
19:07:47 By providing that much density that close to the urban
19:07:51 core, the design of the site allows the project to
19:07:57 come in with a certain height.
19:07:59 I think you're seeing on the northern site closer to
19:08:02 the interstate and closer to where the credit union
19:08:06 is -- you're seeing an eight to ten story and then
19:08:10 getting progressively higher as it gets closer to the
19:08:12 central business district.
19:08:14 From a compatibility aspect you will have projects
19:08:17 come to you in the near future that will be of a
19:08:20 similar scale on the south side of Cass Street similar

19:08:24 to the scale we are seeing proposed this evening.
19:08:27 I would agree with you, though, as far as the
19:08:29 sensitivity of potentially a step-down as it comes
19:08:32 back closer to Cass Street, to have a much softer feel
19:08:36 to Cass Street would be a more appropriate thing to
19:08:39 do.
19:08:40 It seems the developer is handcuffed somewhat by not
19:08:43 having acquired the additional properties to the
19:08:45 south, which I do believe stated that they will be
19:08:49 making a concerted attempt to acquire those
19:08:51 properties.
19:08:52 Therefore, you might see evolution in the overall PD
19:08:57 of this in the future.
19:09:00 >> Petitioner?
19:09:00 >> David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street.
19:09:09 Suite 22003-3602.
19:09:12 For the petitioner.
19:09:14 And the petitioner, bank America community development
19:09:18 bank and Tampa housing authority, are the applicants
19:09:21 and a joint venture to redevelop Tampa Central Park.
19:09:24 You have heard a lot of discussion tonight about
19:09:27 what's the surrounding area, what the land use is, and

19:09:30 in a few minutes we are going to give you a powerful
19:09:33 presentation to really give you a flavor of what we
19:09:35 have seen happening in this redevelopment community
19:09:38 opportunity.
19:09:39 But just to over a few of the high points.
19:09:43 This is the RMU 100, 3.5 F.A.R. permitted, it's an
19:09:51 area that's intended for high density development.
19:09:54 There are only 2.3 F.A.R., 70 dwelling units per acre.
19:10:00 And the differentiation of scale on the project is
19:10:02 roughly related to the opportunities for affordable
19:10:06 housing, transition away from the traditional low
19:10:10 density properties to the north, and moving towards
19:10:13 the central business district with a higher densities
19:10:17 and we know there are several projects coming down the
19:10:19 pike that are going to have high-rise buildings on the
19:10:21 other side of Cass Street, across Tyler, that are
19:10:26 coming forward, specifically Tyler, I know is go going
19:10:30 to have one proposed across from the greyhound bus
19:10:32 station that currently exists and it's going to be
19:10:35 proposed 30 story building as well.
19:10:43 That's another night.
19:10:44 But I think the urban core is what we are trying to

19:10:46 focus on and it's the scale of the project and density
19:10:49 where we have the rental product developed with
19:10:53 intensity and height that allows it to be affordable,
19:10:56 and we have a complimentary for-sale product that is
19:11:00 at a scale that will attract people to buy here.
19:11:05 Basically when you are looking at for-sale product we
19:11:10 are trying to augment that side of the property, and
19:11:13 provide for transitional lower density on the north.
19:11:17 So we are well within the consistency of the comp
19:11:20 plan.
19:11:22 The CRA documents recommend a revision, meeting to our
19:11:27 east which is Tampa park apartments and other parts of
19:11:29 the CRA.
19:11:31 Land use being proposed in those areas in the future
19:11:33 to be consistent with or very close to that which is a
19:11:38 proposed Liss development today.
19:11:41 We think this is a great opportunity.
19:11:43 I can't emphasize -- I said it earlier today and I
19:11:48 said I wasn't going to say it but many tried and few
19:11:51 have got then far to actually pull off this
19:11:53 development.
19:11:54 And we think we have very serious proposers that can

19:11:57 make this happen.
19:12:01 We have a PowerPoint presentation.
19:12:02 I handed out a book that basically is a copy of what
19:12:05 you are going to see on the PowerPoint.
19:12:08 And if you queue that up.
19:12:12 Thanks.
19:12:12 This is just an overall representation of the area
19:12:15 that we are talking about.
19:12:17 As you can see, central business district immediately
19:12:19 to the south, due west.
19:12:24 We have Ybor off to the east.
19:12:26 We have the interstate off to the north.
19:12:28 The transportation consultants have described this as
19:12:30 one of the best access sites in the entire City of
19:12:32 Tampa.
19:12:34 We are close to the Crosstown.
19:12:35 We are close to the interstate.
19:12:36 We are close to Ybor City.
19:12:38 We have arterial roads and four-lane roads immediately
19:12:41 abutting us.
19:12:42 The extension of Harrison that is proposed in the plan
19:12:45 provides a direct connection for transit down to the

19:12:51 Hartline station. This is one of the busiest routes
19:12:53 coming down Nebraska heading south.
19:12:55 We have made an effort with Hartline and they are very
19:12:59 happy with what we proposed.
19:13:00 This shows the reestablishment of the traditional
19:13:03 street grid that we talked about.
19:13:05 And to get to councilman's Saul-Sena's comments
19:13:10 regarding the grid.
19:13:11 Originally we looked at this development, and we were
19:13:14 looking for the central town center court yard was, to
19:13:18 make a connection directly to Orange Avenue, through
19:13:20 the park.
19:13:21 That was not a good location.
19:13:23 It provided a high speed curve, access in, talking to
19:13:29 the transportation staff, Harrison with its existing
19:13:31 signalization was the preferred connection, and
19:13:34 actually provides a lot of access for not only us but
19:13:37 again as a reference to Hartline.
19:13:39 The street grids that we were establishing here and
19:13:43 key to our development is the fact that we are
19:13:46 maintaining Scott street in its Conn current
19:13:49 configuration.

19:13:50 We are maintaining governors which is the current
19:13:53 north-south road that currently goes through the
19:13:57 housing project, and is proposed to be maintained.
19:14:01 We are reestablishing -- can't put it back in the
19:14:05 exact location but reestablishing Central Avenue,
19:14:07 which was displaced by the redevelopment in the park
19:14:12 many, many years ago but reestablishing that as the
19:14:16 eastern boundary of the park, and providing for not
19:14:21 only connectivity, but for parking that can be used by
19:14:24 park users that are more convenient and more
19:14:26 accessible to the various park activities.
19:14:30 Again, showed Harrison connection to the light
19:14:33 provides access to the property.
19:14:36 The central town center is the focal point for this
19:14:39 development.
19:14:39 It's two one-way, has two slots for bus pullouts, we
19:14:46 have an agreement with Hartline that it can provide,
19:14:52 if we have fronts on buildings, don't have to have
19:14:54 shelters, into the arcade, and they are very excited
19:14:58 about this because this is the most heavily traveled
19:15:00 route that they have coming from north Tampa down
19:15:02 Nebraska, and it ties directly into the Marriott

19:15:05 transit station.
19:15:07 I'll stop at the screen right here, because when we
19:15:10 made our connection to Harrison, it did cut diagonally
19:15:15 across the project in the development and tied into
19:15:18 our main circumstance.
19:15:19 And what we are trying to do is provide convenient
19:15:22 access, but not necessarily cut-through thoroughfare
19:15:26 for people coming from Nebraska, which is the reason
19:15:29 why transportation turned this into a one-way section.
19:15:33 They had a lot of people at high speed cutting through
19:15:36 stops to hit the interstate to get on the interstate
19:15:39 and head north.
19:15:40 So we didn't want to necessarily set up the same
19:15:42 situation with a connection directly through Nebraska,
19:15:47 not to mention FDOT is trying to limit the number of
19:15:50 cuts on Nebraska as they converted to a three-lane
19:15:53 section down in this part of the project.
19:15:56 So there's a couple of practical reasons why we didn't
19:16:00 continue Harrison all the way through.
19:16:01 One was mentioned by Wilson.
19:16:03 We would cut the block that is on Nebraska -- pretty
19:16:08 much unuseful piece of property, very, very small, not

19:16:13 likely to be developed.
19:16:13 This isn't the Channelside where we can have bonus
19:16:16 density F.A.R. to 7 and do a lot of those things that
19:16:20 the Channelside folks tell us.
19:16:23 We don't necessarily have a lot of what the
19:16:25 Channelside has, i.e., more visibility to the water,
19:16:28 access to the Channelside and the box and Ice Palace.
19:16:35 We are somewhat removed so it's not necessarily the
19:16:37 same type of feel for small block developments to
19:16:39 occur at this location.
19:16:40 Yes, ma'am?
19:16:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern, looking at the three
19:16:46 high-rise blocks that are right there, is that those
19:16:50 are really -- for pedestrians, very chunky, high, big
19:17:01 blocks that are just creating a barrier, and my fear
19:17:03 is you are doing this subtly on purpose to create a
19:17:08 barrier between that and the development to the north,
19:17:12 and that you are creating -- you are segregating this
19:17:18 part of land from the rest of it.
19:17:20 And that's not good urban planning.
19:17:23 >>> And I beg to disagree to the extent that what we
19:17:26 have got is a representative scale to the 300-foot

19:17:33 height in this area.
19:17:34 And that is truly just to a representative scale.
19:17:39 When we go through review on each of these pods the
19:17:42 same standards that are applied in the central
19:17:44 business standard can be applied to development along
19:17:46 that corridor.
19:17:47 So the pedestrian interconnections, the interface of
19:17:50 the building with the streetscape, is all going to be
19:17:53 there.
19:17:53 We are not going to have this shear wall effect, the
19:17:57 canyon effect on these properties.
19:17:59 What we have tried to do is put to you the worst case
19:18:02 scenario that this is -- these buildings could be
19:18:05 here.
19:18:05 It's not going to create this shear wall effect.
19:18:14 In Channel District you have long blocks that have
19:18:17 short buildings.
19:18:18 You have tall buildings that have short blocks.
19:18:20 I think the fact that you have different styles is not
19:18:26 going to be the impediment to pedestrian connection.
19:18:29 The impediment connection is the redevelopment of Cass
19:18:33 Street because right now Cass is a very not hospitable

19:18:38 place to walk, because of the fact it's a bunch of
19:18:41 parking lots, a railroad track, a four-lane road.
19:18:44 And before you can actually get to someplace that has
19:18:46 any activity, you have actually walked quite a ways.
19:18:50 So we think most of the initial walking activity is
19:18:52 going to be centered in the actual development.
19:18:55 And I'll get to that a little more.
19:18:58 But I want to cut it off.
19:19:03 I have two more to go.
19:19:05 Basically, what we have done, and what was mentioned
19:19:07 by staff is while we have set these roads up to
19:19:12 internally circulate, we have also provided for
19:19:14 maintenance of right-of-way to continue the grid down
19:19:17 to Cass Street in the future, whether we acquired the
19:19:20 property adjacent, or whether or not a future
19:19:23 developer comes in and throws an opportunity for those
19:19:25 connections to occur.
19:19:27 Obviously if a developer is able to acquire the site,
19:19:30 the developer will extend the street grid.
19:19:32 If the developer does not acquire them and future
19:19:35 developers come in, and the city asks them to put a
19:19:40 sub in then we'll connect to it.

19:19:44 A dedicated open space that will allow to us make that
19:19:47 street connection all the way down to Cass to open the
19:19:49 property providing the property next to it, if you
19:19:52 were coming to develop, with our project, or develop
19:19:54 on their own.
19:19:55 So we have looked at the north-south movement.
19:19:59 Because when we look at this area, people are moving
19:20:03 east-west, and if they move east-west through the part
19:20:08 of Harrison that was connected we get in really at
19:20:13 Florida.
19:20:13 It doesn't go all the way through.
19:20:15 >> If they would get into Florida.
19:20:17 >> But now, Cass is the signalized loop that allows
19:20:22 you to go Tyler and most of the activity will be
19:20:24 coming from the downtown area which allows them to
19:20:27 come down Kennedy, allow them to take Cass, and
19:20:30 connect into the downtown area through Jefferson's
19:20:33 connection, and pierce, or they can take Harrison and
19:20:36 get to the same place.
19:20:37 Harrison, they get over Fowler Avenue but not
19:20:41 necessarily flying through the project, which we are
19:20:44 trying to get a neighborhood scale feel for this

19:20:47 pedestrian friendly.
19:20:49 I know -- I'll just -- I'll just keep ORG on going.
19:20:56 Now what we are doing here is basically showing the
19:20:58 master plan with the street grid.
19:21:00 We have shown Perry Harvey park because it's not part
19:21:03 of the rezoning.
19:21:04 But the developer has committed $3.5 million on the
19:21:09 pro forma to improve Perry Harvey park. It has been
19:21:13 the focus of the charettes, it's a start to renovation
19:21:17 of Perry Harvey park.
19:21:18 Of the realignment of Central Avenue, a process.
19:21:23 As we get to the end of the site presentation, we'll
19:21:26 have the charette plan that comes out of the third
19:21:32 charette and we'll talk about that a little more.
19:21:34 But as you can see the street grid is finished.
19:21:36 We have central town center which is the focal point
19:21:38 of pedestrian activity, retail shops, and basically we
19:21:42 are going to have a very active center for
19:21:45 development, and should be a very exciting place to
19:21:50 live.
19:21:51 As you can see in this aerial, you can see on Cass
19:21:54 Street heading to the central core, a long way to walk

19:21:58 before you get to anyplace that you would like to walk
19:22:02 to.
19:22:05 But we would like it to happen as soon as possible.
19:22:10 We would like to be able to control the Cass Street
19:22:13 property to provide transition and make Cass Street a
19:22:15 nice walkable street connecting it to the downtown
19:22:18 grid.
19:22:26 The first element showing up in your books, so they
19:22:37 are not just a pass through side, amenities on the
19:22:40 upper floors, their own pools and recreation areas,
19:22:43 incorporated in each one of the development.
19:22:48 Lots two and three are in the upper left.
19:22:50 Those are the first two sites that we are going for.
19:22:53 There's tax increment financing deals.
19:22:56 One family project.
19:22:57 And we are shooting for a March application which is
19:23:01 why all of this is very critical to us.
19:23:04 >> I just want to say, I think these are great.
19:23:06 Especially since -- they are really good.
19:23:11 >>> Thanks very much.
19:23:11 We worked very hard on it.
19:23:22 This is the proposed for-sale residential condominium

19:23:25 blocks.
19:23:25 What we have here are four buildings, basically the
19:23:29 eight-story building is located in the center of the
19:23:34 graphic, with the multi-story buildings or the
19:23:37 high-rise buildings.
19:23:38 Again along the southern part of the site.
19:23:40 Again, there's multiple reasons for the location
19:23:44 there, basically views, and also the orientation, the
19:23:49 mid-rise buildings orientation is -- it's good to have
19:23:54 those.
19:23:54 It's close to the park and integrated as possible.
19:23:56 And we think what we would like to point out is that
19:23:59 the maximum we can go is 28 stories on each block.
19:24:03 We will be looking for individual developers to come
19:24:05 in and make proposals, as part of the architectural
19:24:08 review committee.
19:24:08 We committed to in the vision book.
19:24:12 You have a member of the city staff, which no other
19:24:15 developer has proposed to do this and has committed
19:24:17 to.
19:24:18 And that's the urban design manager, architectural
19:24:21 review committee so as each one of these pods come in

19:24:23 they can ensure it's a high quality project.
19:24:26 >> Some of the other people -- how many people on the
19:24:29 committee?
19:24:30 >> There's four slated to be on there.
19:24:32 It's a master developer, controlled environment.
19:24:35 The Tampa housing authority.
19:24:36 The Bank of America.
19:24:37 Wilson and one other.
19:24:40 So it's a very significant step and realize it's very
19:24:45 important.
19:24:46 We have an office building at Scott and Nebraska, five
19:24:50 stories with the parking structure.
19:24:54 The jewel of this whole project is the central town
19:24:59 square.
19:24:59 And we have 50,000 square feet of retail.
19:25:06 Portion of the development facing the town square.
19:25:09 It's designed to encourage pedestrian activity.
19:25:13 It's also allows them to provide some recognition for
19:25:16 the culture and heritage in this area.
19:25:20 Lake Charles was indicated that he reported -- it
19:25:25 should be playing right now but they told us they
19:25:28 couldn't get the audio to work.

19:25:30 But it was very good sign.
19:25:35 >> Do you want to sing it?
19:25:36 >> I could but I can't do it at the same time.
19:25:41 What we have here, and this is a continuation,
19:25:44 renovated St. James church.
19:25:46 This is kind of -- we have it connecting from the town
19:25:50 square into the park, direct connection.
19:25:52 It's going to be restored.
19:25:53 It's going to be an activity area.
19:25:58 The African-American museum.
19:26:02 Again renovated Perry Harvey park.
19:26:13 Looking from the -- from the northwest into the
19:26:18 development.
19:26:19 As you can see, we have -- Meacham Alternative School
19:26:29 is currently on the property.
19:26:30 And they have joined in the application in order to
19:26:33 further this along and we are very glad to have on
19:26:37 board.
19:26:37 Looking at the next, coming right up to town square.
19:26:44 This is a representation of how you can tie the park
19:26:47 in into the central town square.
19:26:51 The one in the foreground, you see the church, the

19:26:53 renovated church.
19:26:54 And we have representations with the musical heritage
19:26:57 and the jazz heritage.
19:27:00 That's all the developers part of the charettes.
19:27:05 Notice mass transit available coming around the corner
19:27:07 by the church.
19:27:12 The next view wave is more down towards the center
19:27:15 courtyard.
19:27:16 This is the real active center of the development.
19:27:20 It's active entertainment areas, places for people to
19:27:27 congregate, eat lunch with each other, also use the
19:27:30 retail establishments that we envision coming in.
19:27:34 The next view is coming up.
19:27:43 You can see we are trying to make the pedestrian area
19:27:46 friendly with on the side of the building maybe
19:27:49 arcade, fronts which will have built-in overhangs
19:27:55 built into the building so everybody feels freedom to
19:27:57 walk around the neighborhood.
19:28:00 >>KEVIN WHITE: I hate to interrupt your presentation.
19:28:03 Looking at your slide presentation, and
19:28:11 African-American people.
19:28:12 >> I must admit it's intentional.

19:28:15 >>> We figured it might be.
19:28:20 Only one white person.
19:28:22 >>> It was the photographer.
19:28:26 What we have here --
19:28:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Entertain you anyway we can, Mr.
19:28:32 Smith.
19:28:33 >>> What would possibly happen in the roundabout there
19:28:36 may be -- we move on.
19:28:44 We have a lot of the interior that we'll try to move
19:28:47 this on.
19:28:48 This is looking from the town square to the more dense
19:28:52 portion of the property.
19:28:53 And anyone in the town square section of the
19:28:56 development as they look towards the south is not
19:29:00 going to feel they are in a canyon, because they are
19:29:02 going to have a lot of active areas that they'll be
19:29:05 looking through, and participating in, and the
19:29:09 high-rise buildings are not going to be a barrier.
19:29:11 They are not going to be closing them in and making
19:29:14 them feel uncomfortable because the people in the
19:29:16 central square are actually screened, because of the
19:29:20 view angle as they come into the town square from the

19:29:22 mid rise buildings to the high-rise buildings.
19:29:25 We also have ten-foot sidewalks all through the
19:29:30 project.
19:29:30 And pedestrian activity.
19:29:39 Seemed like a good idea to have all these slide when I
19:29:41 put them in here but describing them all -- this is
19:29:48 looking back toward downtown.
19:29:49 When you look at the development and you look towards
19:29:52 downtown, the high-rise portion of the development is
19:29:54 really going to blend in with the skyline of downtown.
19:29:59 We are dealing with an issue where you are trying to
19:30:00 go from less dense to more urban.
19:30:03 We are consistent with our height, with the credit
19:30:07 union that's gone in as you go towards downtown and
19:30:11 then you have a higher element.
19:30:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you hold up?
19:30:15 >>> I can go back.
19:30:29 >> It's clear in your core area you have a lot of
19:30:31 commercial to facilitate that but what I'm concerned
19:30:34 about is a lot of dead frontage along some of these
19:30:38 other streets.
19:30:42 Where I don't think it's intended to be commercial.

19:30:44 And it appears to me that it's just the six or
19:30:47 eight-story buildings just coming down to the street
19:30:51 level.
19:30:52 We had this discussion on the -- I don't know if you
19:30:55 were here.
19:31:02 >>> Probably not but I understand what you're saying.
19:31:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I am wondering about is, I'm
19:31:13 fine with, you know, six story apartments or eight
19:31:16 story apartments above.
19:31:17 But what I am thinking about is you could create a lot
19:31:19 more street life and pedestrian life, a lot more eyes
19:31:22 on the street, if you had your first level as a town
19:31:26 home type of thing, and then built above that.
19:31:28 So just like you have got commercial on the bottom,
19:31:31 and then five or six stories of town homes -- I mean
19:31:34 apartments above, when you come around these side
19:31:37 streets -- and I don't know the names on the
19:31:40 particular -- come around the side streets like
19:31:42 Harrison or what have you, why not try and do the same
19:31:45 thing, put in a brownstone, you know, townhouse type
19:31:49 thing that would have a stoop, and direct access out
19:31:52 onto the street.

19:31:53 And then build above that.
19:31:57 >>> I wouldn't say that's out of the question.
19:31:59 As a matter of fact one of the slides I will show you
19:32:01 in a minute has that type in it but it's not one of
19:32:07 the things we want to committee to because the
19:32:09 for-sale product is going to be coming in by
19:32:11 individual developers and they'll be market driven and
19:32:14 what we committed to, though, was to make sure that
19:32:17 the pedestrian level was not just the walls, that
19:32:25 there will be additional setbacks, provided on those
19:32:28 areas, and --
19:32:36 >> That never came up in discussion with the --
19:32:41 >>> No.
19:32:42 Because basically when we looked at the for-sale
19:32:44 product, we were looking at that as a future partner
19:32:48 or developer to come in and propose what their vision
19:32:51 is for it.
19:32:53 And we would have a development team to make sure it's
19:32:58 consistent with the vision wave for the overall
19:33:00 development
19:33:04 The for-sale, what we have is we have rental.
19:33:07 And then we have our for-sale.

19:33:09 And so the for-sale blocks are really looking forward
19:33:13 whether or not it was WCI or Bird or one of those that
19:33:18 wanted to develop a pod, that we would be able to
19:33:21 consider what they have in the context without
19:33:23 restricting their creativity.
19:33:25 >> But even the rentals, I'm looking at the last pod
19:33:30 we just had up, three, four, what, six buildings.
19:33:39 >>> Can you bring that back, hopefully?
19:33:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you rent out that type of
19:33:47 unit just as well.
19:33:48 But not have it address that type of architectural
19:33:51 feature.
19:33:55 Actually entryways to the street.
19:33:57 >> And I'm not going to speak for the architect.
19:34:00 I would think that the rental product is going to have
19:34:05 active areas, because the parking garages are going to
19:34:07 be internal to the development.
19:34:10 So on the four sides of the building there will be
19:34:14 active areas, but it may not be a townhouse product in
19:34:19 that particular location.
19:34:22 You know, I don't know if I'm missing what -- we can
19:34:28 go back.

19:34:30 Let me see if I can get back here.
19:34:33 Let me get back to that other slide.
19:34:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The building that's closest to me,
19:34:44 you know, on the front of that picture, the brown one,
19:34:48 I think that's sort of a classic example.
19:34:50 I don't think there's commercial at the bottom of
19:34:52 that.
19:34:53 >> At that particular building, the commercial and
19:34:57 what you have is the opportunity for entranceways and
19:35:00 pedestrian access directly accessing the multifamily
19:35:04 development.
19:35:06 You know, the intent is to have pedestrian activity
19:35:11 scale all through that central core, and to have
19:35:14 interesting, protective walks down the side streets
19:35:17 for these --
19:35:21 >> As you wrap around the back, I just see a lot of
19:35:24 dead space.
19:35:25 >>> Well, I have been told that the client, Ron
19:35:33 Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street.
19:35:36 The client and the architect has been discussing for
19:35:39 the last five minutes are excellent questions, Mr.
19:35:41 Dingfelder.

19:35:42 And the only few things we can think of between the
19:35:44 three of us just now is the fact that in order to make
19:35:47 it work financially, we have to rely as Mr. Smith said
19:35:52 on five or seven different developers.
19:35:55 And as the developers come into the various
19:36:00 combinations on the architectural review committee,
19:36:02 Mr. Wilson Stair, was put on that committee a couple
19:36:05 of weeks ago.
19:36:10 When that time comes to actually work out that block,
19:36:12 if that developer as you and we see that would be a
19:36:16 great idea, indeed that's what's going to happen.
19:36:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But that's not going to happen
19:36:21 unless we talk about it tonight.
19:36:25 Because unless --
19:36:26 >>> And we are giving you the best answer that we are
19:36:30 able to find buyers.
19:36:33 And developers come in.
19:36:35 >> M. hall, the architect for the project.
19:36:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
19:36:46 >>> Yes, I have been sworn.
19:36:48 In answer to your question, the rental facilities have
19:36:53 programs on the ground floor.

19:36:55 All of their activity centers.
19:36:57 So they'll become very active spaces.
19:37:00 There will be some office space down there to manage
19:37:02 the facility.
19:37:03 There will be libraries.
19:37:04 There will be media rooms.
19:37:06 There will be workout rooms, fitness centers, you
19:37:09 know, gathering rooms.
19:37:11 So it's programmed right now that the majority of that
19:37:13 lower level will be around the perimeter, will be very
19:37:17 active spaces with windows, people can look into,
19:37:21 people can see out of, and there will be public
19:37:23 spaces.
19:37:24 Unfortunately for those particular projects, having
19:37:28 residential doesn't work as well as the base.
19:37:31 It may be something looked at as the projects develop
19:37:35 but the trouble is what you are trying to do is create
19:37:37 similar units all to themselves instead of having
19:37:40 something totally unique to the project.
19:37:42 Now for the for-sale projects what you are describing
19:37:44 is exactly what the hope would be.
19:37:46 So that is something that's a vision.

19:37:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You know what?
19:37:53 We are saying the same thing.
19:37:54 But council recognizes that if we don't get it written
19:37:56 on the plan that we adopt tonight, that we aren't
19:38:03 going to have a place at the table in the future.
19:38:05 There's going to be one staff person, and the
19:38:07 developers.
19:38:07 We need to make sure that the pedestrian access, the
19:38:11 transparency, the activity, all of that is written in
19:38:15 it now.
19:38:16 And we may not be able to accomplish it tonight.
19:38:18 But as we saw from this morning, when we requested
19:38:22 that something be clarified and redefined the
19:38:25 architects were able to come back in two weeks with
19:38:27 much clearer verbiage that made us feel better about
19:38:31 the activity level being generated on the street.
19:38:34 You have got it.
19:38:35 I think we're thinking the same way.
19:38:38 But we have to be reassured before we adopt this that
19:38:41 that's really going to be what's going to happen.
19:38:43 Because this is the public finds desirable.
19:38:55 >>> Roxanne, the senior vice-president for Bank of

19:38:58 America Community Development Corporation.
19:39:00 I have been sworn in, sir.
19:39:02 And very specifically, our mission is for the
19:39:06 area-wide rezoning to occur with the understanding
19:39:08 that there's many contingencies within the master
19:39:12 development agreement.
19:39:13 We have the same vision and desires that you are
19:39:15 expressing tonight.
19:39:17 We recognize that the mixed income rental apartment
19:39:22 communities will have unique financing structures and
19:39:26 will have to be very delicately balanced to ensure
19:39:29 that there is economic feasibility for affordable
19:39:32 housing, which is our goal.
19:39:35 The for-sale product, which will also have an
19:39:37 affordable component within it, will not have the same
19:39:42 restrictions to it that the mixed income housing is.
19:39:46 The reason why it is being brought to you in a
19:39:49 five-minute fashion tonight is because of our need to
19:39:52 be able to submit a full application in March to
19:39:58 Florida housing finance corp to finance that
19:40:00 affordable housing.
19:40:02 If we change our plans whatsoever in what we depict to

19:40:06 you tonight, we lose an entire year in our ability to
19:40:09 apply for that financing.
19:40:11 However, I would say we would be happy to work on any
19:40:14 appropriate language that council sees fit within the
19:40:17 master development agreement to satisfy those
19:40:19 concerns.
19:40:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't understand something.
19:40:25 You said March.
19:40:26 And then you said, but we have to tonight.
19:40:30 I don't --
19:40:31 >>> I would be happy to try to clarify that.
19:40:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If what Ms. Saul-Sena was that
19:40:37 sometimes, very often, especially on a project this
19:40:39 big, we would ask somebody to tweak up some things,
19:40:42 include some additional language, come back in two
19:40:44 weeks.
19:40:46 What does two weeks do?
19:40:48 >>> Two weeks further delays the zoning approval
19:40:50 process.
19:40:51 And by virtue of the process, while it may not seem
19:40:56 like a lot, however, because it is a PD, we are
19:40:58 required to come in right behind approval for the

19:41:00 area-wide rezoning.
19:41:04 For the two specific development that is we are trying
19:41:06 to ensure that we are positioned to succeed on.
19:41:09 From a time line perspective that puts us right
19:41:11 against the wall for March.
19:41:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can discuss that late we are our
19:41:22 staff and with the understanding the two buildings,
19:41:24 the ones that we are fine with.
19:41:26 We are fine with it.
19:41:27 It's the more massive ones.
19:41:28 And it's the question of the overall site plan.
19:41:32 This is a huge deal.
19:41:33 This is 28 or 29 acres and this is the public's first
19:41:37 opportunity to publicly discuss this.
19:41:39 And I can't imagine that you really think that we are
19:41:42 going to vote on it tonight.
19:41:48 >>> Well, just to clarify what my client indicated is
19:41:52 that since blocks 2 and 3 are the ones moving forward,
19:41:58 we basically have a provision in the site plan that
19:42:01 says no permits can be pulled for any development on
19:42:04 the remainder of the property, until such time as the
19:42:07 development agreement is entered into.

19:42:10 The development agreement is scheduled to be worked on
19:42:13 and come forward in January.
19:42:16 That would coincide with the TIF being calculated and
19:42:20 those elements.
19:42:21 So we think there's an opportunity to do that and move
19:42:26 on tonight, keep on the schedule, pick up the details
19:42:29 on the development.
19:42:30 Because it will affect all the other blocks.
19:42:33 Additionally we have language in the vision book which
19:42:35 is incorporated by reference that provides for streets
19:42:39 1-A and 1-B, particularly the one that councilman
19:42:44 Dingfelder pointed to that requires 50% of capacity of
19:42:47 pedestrian level.
19:42:48 So that is already in the vision book for design
19:42:50 guides to make sure that we don't have this shear wall
19:42:54 or blank face, and no interaction.
19:42:57 So there are design guidelines already in place that
19:43:00 were developed by staff, and we incorporated verbatim
19:43:05 into the development.
19:43:08 Moving forth --
19:43:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Which are the buildings that the Tampa
19:43:17 housing authority is going to be administering to?

19:43:21 >>> Basically, the Tampa housing authority partner in
19:43:24 the overall development, the Bank of America and the
19:43:27 Tampa housing authority, are going to move forward
19:43:30 with tax credits, petitions, on blocks -- if I look in
19:43:37 my notes but I believe it's blocks 2, 3, 4.
19:43:42 It's actually on the zoning site plan.
19:43:47 Give me one second.
19:43:49 Second or third note.
19:43:50 It's lots 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12.
19:43:54 Those blocks are the ones that abut the central town
19:43:58 center, and abut Scott street.
19:44:00 So they are in the center of the development, and not
19:44:04 on the southern end towards Cass Street.
19:44:06 The ones on Cass Street are the for-sale product.
19:44:12 >> Does the housing authority have any say-so in the
19:44:15 way that buildings are being constructed?
19:44:19 >>> I would say they have input into the target market
19:44:24 group.
19:44:25 The intent for which this T development is moving
19:44:27 forward.
19:44:29 We will get a little later in the package.
19:44:32 The target income group that we are looking for, for

19:44:34 mixed income housing.
19:44:36 I think their input has been negotiated between the
19:44:39 developer and the Bank of America through it's
19:44:43 agreement.
19:44:43 So their involvement is already entrenched in the
19:44:45 project and their vision is clear.
19:44:47 We are trying to provide 640 rental units at 60% or
19:44:56 below of the AMI.
19:44:59 And in the for-sale we are looking at over 100 units
19:45:04 in the for-sale available at 100 to 120 percent of
19:45:10 medium.
19:45:11 So there's a lot of affordable housing going into this
19:45:14 development.
19:45:14 That's really why it's happening.
19:45:17 >>> Right.
19:45:17 But has the authority taken a look at this plan before
19:45:21 we did?
19:45:22 >> My understanding, represented to all the meetings,
19:45:26 yes, ma'am.
19:45:26 >> So have they concurred with buildings that Bank of
19:45:32 America is going to be building for them?
19:45:35 >>> Yes, we had a meeting today, and --

19:45:41 >> I see Mr. Ryan back there.
19:45:43 Mr. Ryan, would you come up and tell me what your
19:45:48 authority has discussed?
19:45:56 >>> I have been sworn in, by the way.
19:45:57 Jerome Ryan, Tampa Housing Authority.
19:45:59 A couple of quick issues here.
19:46:03 We have a 50-50 partnership with Bank of America.
19:46:07 It takes a super majority to change anything so we are
19:46:10 actively at the table making decisions regarding
19:46:12 what's going to be the number of units and that kind
19:46:14 of thing.
19:46:15 So we have had discussion was our board about the
19:46:18 structures.
19:46:19 We are still having instructions.
19:46:21 We still have development agreement, a number of
19:46:23 agreements that have to be put together before we come
19:46:25 to some final conclusion as to where we end up in the
19:46:28 process.
19:46:29 But we do support Bank of America.
19:46:31 They are in fact our partners and we are a 50-50
19:46:33 partner still.
19:46:35 >> Thank you.

19:46:38 Could you show us which structures are we talking
19:46:42 about?
19:46:43 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:46:44 In fact the easiest way to do that will be to put it
19:46:47 on the Elmo.
19:47:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Take the hand mike, please.
19:47:07 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:47:08 What we are looking at here and what we discussed is
19:47:11 lots 2, 3, 4, and 8 and 12.
19:47:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Now those buildings that you just
19:47:21 showed, those are the 5 to 9 stories high.
19:47:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON:
19:47:25 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:47:25 5 to 7.
19:47:26 Then when you come into the for-sale they start
19:47:28 getting higher.
19:47:29 >> And, let's see, four and which one again?
19:47:35 >>> Two, three.
19:47:36 This is an office building.
19:47:37 >> Okay.
19:47:38 >>> And this is multifamily so we have 2, 3, 4, 8 and
19:47:42 12.

19:47:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Number 8, is that a high-rise?
19:47:46 >>> That's 100 feet maximum.
19:47:48 >> 100 feet?
19:47:50 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:47:50 >> And 12.
19:47:52 >>> 12 is 100 feet maximum as well.
19:47:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
19:47:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: You said there's going to be an
19:48:00 affordable component in your market rate projects as
19:48:04 well?
19:48:10 >>> Yes, sir.
19:48:12 >> If you have it now do you have a definition?
19:48:15 >>> On the for-sale product it's 100 to 120% of
19:48:21 median.
19:48:22 What we do, we have some statistics at the end to show
19:48:24 what you the AMI is currently and the people that
19:48:27 would basically fall into the rental market and the
19:48:31 for-sale market.
19:48:32 >> What percentile?
19:48:34 >>> Well, overall, 38% of the development is an
19:48:38 affordable product.
19:48:43 And the market rate is -- the market rate is 1200

19:48:47 units so we have, overall, about 7, 800 units that are
19:48:52 going to be affordable, or have 1200 units, 1250 that
19:48:56 are market rate.
19:48:57 And thinking about this, the market rate units are
19:49:00 really what's helping a the development to make it
19:49:04 work for the affordable units in the overall
19:49:08 development scheme, because of the infrastructure
19:49:10 that's involved.
19:49:10 And so we have the for-sale that's kind of -- we don't
19:49:15 usually subsidize but basically it helps provide the
19:49:18 product, and a good design product for affordable mix.
19:49:30 >>> We'll get through this.
19:49:32 The view that I just showed you was downtown but this
19:49:37 is a flier that's supposed to be moving -- there we
19:49:41 go.
19:49:41 This flies you in and gives you a scale as you run
19:49:43 from downtown heading into the development.
19:49:47 These are again the high-rise component is
19:49:49 representative of what --
19:49:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When you look at the block on the
19:50:03 lower right side with the pool and the high-rise, do
19:50:05 you see how that's just a big block?

19:50:07 I have to say, I think this is a great plan.
19:50:09 I love the streetscape.
19:50:10 I love the historic structure.
19:50:12 I love the -- I love everything to the north of
19:50:16 Harrison street.
19:50:17 It's the scale of that block on the right and the one
19:50:19 next to it, the one next to it, that I think just
19:50:22 don't work.
19:50:23 And y'all can see, next to the park there's this just
19:50:27 big glob of a building.
19:50:31 >>> If I could back, I'll show you where we have
19:50:37 scaled in there.
19:50:38 If we can get back to that.
19:50:43 And this is again the architect's representation.
19:50:45 You see where the blue car is in the scheme.
19:50:48 Right there by the park.
19:50:49 That's Central Avenue.
19:50:52 There's a step up.
19:50:53 Those were envisioned by the architect to be townhouse
19:50:57 components of this overall product.
19:50:59 >> Does it say that anywhere?
19:51:01 >> Well, again, we are trying to provide you graphic

19:51:03 representation of what could happen, and creative
19:51:06 design.
19:51:06 We have the development agreement coming in.
19:51:08 We have got the ability --
19:51:18 >> On the top right corner, you know, it basically
19:51:22 says not using these representations.
19:51:25 >> I think what we have is a couple things.
19:51:27 One, we have very specific -- we have design
19:51:31 guidelines which are incorporated.
19:51:32 We have 71 conditions.
19:51:38 What I am saying is, the fact -- the activity area
19:51:44 with the pedestrian on it, I think that is something
19:51:46 that in the developer's agreement, since this is a
19:51:49 block that cannot have a building permit pulled, we
19:51:51 have the opportunity between now and January to deal
19:51:56 with how the bottom facade is dealt with on each
19:51:58 block.
19:52:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
19:52:01 But it seems to me that whether that's lined with
19:52:04 townhouses, that's a zoning decision, that that's not
19:52:07 a developer's -- maybe I'm wrong, Julia.
19:52:12 Maybe you can clarify.

19:52:14 Where.
19:52:16 That would have a good relationship to the park,
19:52:18 breaks up the scale, blah-blah-blah.
19:52:21 Isn't that the right place to make sure it's in this
19:52:24 rezoning rather than in a developer's agreement?
19:52:26 Does the developer's agreement deal with issues of
19:52:29 design and land use?
19:52:31 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:52:33 I think that you could have, within the development
19:52:36 agreement, staff is required to come back to you with
19:52:41 the notes on the zoning to deal with design issues.
19:52:44 I'm not sure that as it relates to changing the bottom
19:52:48 level to townhouses from condos.
19:52:52 For example, if you wanted to say, having porches,
19:52:57 with a step down, then you wanted to have those kinds
19:52:59 of things included, which is what I thought Mr.
19:53:01 Dingfelder was speaking about earlier, and it's really
19:53:04 just kind of changing around the way that vision back
19:53:07 looks, you could make a motion at the end in terms of
19:53:10 changing the actual footprint of the building or what
19:53:14 goes in each building, and take a moment and speak
19:53:17 with staff to find out if it's something that could be

19:53:20 dealt with later in the development agreement.
19:53:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a really important question.
19:53:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what it says here.
19:53:29 >>> It is an area wide rezoning.
19:53:31 >> It says for PD.
19:53:33 >> For planned development.
19:53:35 >> But you are a little more constrained in what you
19:53:37 can -- what you must decide today versus what can be
19:53:41 put up.
19:53:41 But I think that there is room, because you have a
19:53:44 development agreement coming forward that tweaks some
19:53:47 of the design.
19:53:48 But that is different than changing uses and another
19:53:51 thing that I would have to look at.
19:53:57 >>> What we have, we have established a policy that
19:53:59 provides for a maximum number of stories, a maximum
19:54:02 number of units per block, and we will be reluctant to
19:54:08 commit to -- this is a townhouse facade.
19:54:12 Because financially it's a killer, because what
19:54:15 happens on this development is when you are trying to
19:54:17 develop a tower component or a multilevel component,
19:54:27 construction issues when you start wrapping townhouses

19:54:29 along the bottom.
19:54:30 Now in the development agreement scale, we believe
19:54:32 that we can deal with the relationship to the
19:54:35 pedestrian areas, we can deal with the opacity on
19:54:39 there, the active areas.
19:54:40 I think those things can clearly be dealt with on a
19:54:42 developer's agreement.
19:54:44 But I would think, in a zoning or developer's
19:54:47 agreement, we would have a hard time committing to
19:54:49 doing townhouses on these blocks in for-sale because
19:54:54 the numbers just for a townhouse component just don't
19:54:58 make sense.
19:55:00 >> Then what would you say is happening down there
19:55:02 next to the blue -- it looks to me like it's a
19:55:06 structured parking lot.
19:55:07 >>> Basically what we have there is that again the
19:55:10 activity areas for development, what is the exercise
19:55:14 rooms, the offices or anything that can happen.
19:55:17 >> There.
19:55:17 There.
19:55:20 >>> I can't see that.
19:55:21 When you point there, I'm sorry.

19:55:25 >> Where the blue car is.
19:55:26 >> Yes, where the blue car is.
19:55:28 Again what we are representing here is that there is
19:55:30 not going to be an opaque wall, that it's going to be
19:55:33 6% or more opaque and then opacity, and won't have
19:55:37 pedestrian -- will have pedestrian areas and activity.
19:55:39 That will allow people walking up and down or parking
19:55:41 across the street.
19:55:43 We have parking for the park directly across central
19:55:45 so people can get close to the park activities.
19:55:48 We don't want this to be a shear wall area either.
19:55:51 But we have the ability, we believe, through the
19:55:54 developer's agreement to deal with those design
19:55:56 standards relative to the high-rise blocks to deal
19:56:00 with those concerns on opacity and pedestrian
19:56:03 interest.
19:56:07 Hopefully you understand why.
19:56:13 Let me try to advance through here.
19:56:15 Again, this is to meet the maximum model to provide a
19:56:20 fly-in from downtown into the development.
19:56:24 Again, not as much detail, because we are just trying
19:56:28 to get the scale relationship of the development as

19:56:32 you fly around into the central core of the
19:56:37 development.
19:56:39 Here as you see, you are flying into the town square,
19:56:43 over St. James church, into the activity area for the
19:56:49 development, very pedestrian oriented and friendly.
19:56:54 This is where everybody will meet and greet the
19:57:03 residents in the site.
19:57:05 Again we are heading back to the south.
19:57:08 This shows a view heading south back towards the
19:57:13 downtown area.
19:57:16 Again, the scale, as you look through the downtown
19:57:19 area, provides a transition that you don't get a
19:57:21 feeling that you're someplace not out of the
19:57:24 opportunity or suburban area.
19:57:26 This is small, but this is an excerpt from the -- this
19:57:32 is from the final charette, the design concepts with
19:57:36 active areas, multi-use course, tribute to the history
19:57:42 of the area, an advisory committee has been
19:57:46 established to deal with the historical elements.
19:57:48 And the best way to deal with the park.
19:57:51 And we believe that, you know, it's going to be a
19:57:55 great place to be and connected -- connected to in the

19:57:58 future.
19:57:58 As we move on, the next slide that I will show you is
19:58:04 the fact that we talked about the affordability.
19:58:06 We have lost over 10,000 -- affordable housing units
19:58:15 due to condos and conversions.
19:58:18 For a family of four, it gives you an idea of what the
19:58:21 median is these days and what target we are looking
19:58:24 at.
19:58:31 It shows the 76% for registered nurse.
19:58:34 56% for vocational nurses and paramedics and EMTs,
19:58:38 38%.
19:58:39 Teachers, well within the target range for our rental
19:58:44 product.
19:58:47 Again law enforcement.
19:58:49 Firefighters.
19:58:51 Construction industry.
19:58:54 Construction trades.
19:58:56 Shipping.
19:58:57 Shipping workers.
19:58:59 Public service workers.
19:59:08 Back office.
19:59:10 The architect for what it's costing to do these

19:59:12 elevations.
19:59:13 [ Laughter ]
19:59:14 But that gives you an idea with the income ranges.
19:59:17 Hospitality.
19:59:19 Host for delivery service.
19:59:21 Military.
19:59:23 Again we are talking about this is where the sources
19:59:27 are.
19:59:27 We didn't make these numbers up.
19:59:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You didn't include council members in
19:59:33 there.
19:59:33 >>> We thought that would be unfair to do that.
19:59:36 [ Laughter ]
19:59:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We work part time.
19:59:40 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:59:42 As indicated we have some technical objections.
19:59:45 The waivers we asked for are very reasonable.
19:59:47 We have identified on our site plan a potential
19:59:50 transplant candidate.
19:59:52 We have identified trees within our setback, but we
19:59:54 have to count them as debits because we can't give
19:59:57 them the protective radius.

19:59:59 But during construction plans we can actually deal
20:00:01 with rental issues, that get reduced radiuses and work
20:00:05 that out with the parks staff.
20:00:07 That is in our notes and commitments already in the
20:00:09 site plan.
20:00:10 Transportation, to get a contribution of 100,000 as
20:00:17 mitigation for impacts in the road area networks.
20:00:21 We will go through FDOT permitting for site
20:00:25 connections.
20:00:30 With that, I would be glad to answer any questions.
20:00:32 We do have the developer and representatives, the
20:00:36 consulting team.
20:00:37 I would like to commend staff for working on this so
20:00:40 diligently with us to get us to where we are today.
20:00:42 And I respectfully request your approval tonight.
20:00:46 >>GWEN MILLER: One question.
20:00:47 Let's go back to the school.
20:00:49 It's going to be a middle school, you say?
20:00:51 >>> Yes, ma'am.
20:00:52 >> Are you going to move Meacham school or build a
20:00:55 brand new school?
20:00:57 >>> It's going to be a brand new school: Meacham

20:01:00 school is subject stow demolition.
20:01:06 It wasn't a landmark site.
20:01:08 Itself was put on the national register which is an
20:01:10 honorary designation and no federal funds have been
20:01:13 used to maintain that historic status and we have
20:01:16 checked with the school board, the state, and the feds
20:01:20 relative to the status of the school.
20:01:23 The Meacham family has participated in the charettes,
20:01:27 and one request they have made is that the middle
20:01:29 school be made for the Meacham family.
20:01:31 Yes, ma'am.
20:01:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
20:01:34 Mrs. Saul-Sena?
20:01:35 >>> Thank you.
20:01:36 There's a governor's street south of Harrison, and
20:01:39 then the street that doesn't have a name, just to the
20:01:42 east of that.
20:01:44 I have been looking through here.
20:01:45 I looked through it four times.
20:01:46 And I can't find any pictures of what those streets
20:01:49 look like.
20:01:49 Those streets are my biggest concern.

20:01:51 Those are the streets between the 30-story building,
20:01:54 and currently when we have rezonings, we ask for
20:02:01 pictures on all four sides.
20:02:04 And that's for like a house.
20:02:05 I mean that's for like a small thing.
20:02:07 You are talking 30-story building and we don't have
20:02:09 any --
20:02:10 >> What we do is we have typical sections.
20:02:12 >> Do you have anyone that shows any of the streets
20:02:16 between the 30-story building?
20:02:18 >>> Yes.
20:02:18 What we have -- and again we do not have these he will
20:02:21 delegations for those streets but we have the street
20:02:25 typical sections that guarantees pedestrian area.
20:02:30 And we'll go through.
20:02:41 >> We didn't show it in the presentations.
20:02:49 The vision book is part of the zoning and its
20:02:51 reference.
20:02:56 What wave here, again we'll start and give you all of
20:02:59 them.
20:03:01 >> Don't give us all of them. The only thing -- I'm
20:03:04 happy with everything.

20:03:06 What I am interested in is specifically the street
20:03:08 between the building south of Harrison.
20:03:18 What I'm interested in is not the width of the street.
20:03:21 I mean, I am interested in width of the street but I'm
20:03:24 interest on buildings on either side and what's going
20:03:27 on.
20:03:28 >>> What I indicated was elevations for all four of
20:03:30 those have not been provided.
20:03:32 That's why we included Wilson Stair on the
20:03:34 architectural review committee, and committed to the
20:03:37 urban design standards, as well as the application of
20:03:41 the central business district standards and the
20:03:43 review.
20:03:44 >> Okay.
20:03:44 For example, is there access on those blocks which are
20:03:50 450 feet long?
20:03:51 How many openings are there?
20:03:53 Is it one solid thing?
20:03:55 >>> Well, again, the opacity standards that are
20:03:59 established --
20:04:00 >> We have been there.
20:04:01 >>> And that would be 50% of the building facade would

20:04:04 have to be transparent.
20:04:06 And, therefore, we also have do have for any parking
20:04:09 garages to have --
20:04:17 >> What activity?
20:04:19 >>> They will have -- if the building was designed, I
20:04:22 could tell you exactly what was going to be there.
20:04:25 >> And what you're saying is it's going to be a
20:04:28 process, but we want to know -- I mean 450 fiend of
20:04:33 green parking is not what we want.
20:04:35 >>> And 450 feet of screen parking is not what we want
20:04:42 but to say we have designed it and this is exactly
20:04:44 what it's going to look like --
20:04:45 >> I'm not talking about exactly.
20:04:47 I am talking like every 50 feet, there will be a point
20:04:51 of access, or, you know,.
20:04:58 >>> Architecturally.
20:04:59 >> I think the screening.
20:05:03 >> We are not on those lots.
20:05:13 >> Unless we hear to the contrary.
20:05:17 >> I would be willing to support --
20:05:21 >> The whole area-wide rezoning.
20:05:23 We can't take a it take it out of the entire area.

20:05:29 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
20:05:31 In speaking with Abbey and looking at the rezoning in
20:05:37 front of you it's very general.
20:05:39 So you have the opportunity, after you want us to
20:05:43 approve the rezoning and then make as a secondary -- a
20:05:47 condition of the development agreement, the developer
20:05:51 come back, petitioner come back as part of the
20:05:53 development agreement, with anything that's more
20:05:57 restrictive than what we currently allow on the
20:06:00 zoning, what we design, the placement of townhouses,
20:06:04 et cetera.
20:06:04 I mean, that is something that you could legally do.
20:06:08 But it would be something I would request the
20:06:10 applicant to indicate whether or not they would agree
20:06:13 with, because I think if they are not in agreement
20:06:15 with that now, you should know that now, as opposed to
20:06:18 making that determination.
20:06:20 But because this is a very broad, broad PD and there
20:06:25 is no exact location of where things are, you would
20:06:27 have that opportunity.
20:06:29 But as I said, it would have to be more restrictive
20:06:32 than what is allowed under the zoning.

20:06:36 >> We are going to go to our audience portion.
20:06:39 Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak on
20:06:41 item number 1?
20:06:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A reminder to please state whether
20:06:50 you have been sworn when you give your name.
20:06:52 Thank you.
20:06:57 >>> Good evening, council.
20:06:59 I have been sworn in.
20:07:01 I wanted to -- James Adams.
20:07:06 I'm with the Tampa Bay human rights coalition this
20:07:12 afternoon.
20:07:13 Four years ago, 30,000 people were on the waiting list
20:07:18 for public housing assistance.
20:07:22 When the housing authority closed its waiting rooms,
20:07:28 it's estimated that there is approximately about
20:07:32 50,000 people may be in the need for housing.
20:07:38 Based on the plan that we reviewed, that the housing
20:07:41 authority has on the web site.
20:07:46 This is a big concern of ours as a community that
20:07:49 there may be a housing crisis that we're not looking
20:07:53 at as we move forward on this wonderful project that I
20:07:57 truly support.

20:07:59 And I think the concern in this 50-50 partnership is
20:08:03 that these questions that I would like to submit that
20:08:08 we submitted to the council, if I may present these.
20:08:14 These are 25 questions we asked the community as we
20:08:20 had a meeting on Saturday.
20:08:21 And the concern is, I believe -- to talk to some of
20:08:26 the residents.
20:08:27 And many of them are elated and ecstatic about the
20:08:31 fact that they are going to be moving to a better
20:08:35 life, per se.
20:08:37 And we applaud that effort.
20:08:39 But what concerns many of them who have felonies, been
20:08:44 living there for years, misdemeanors, or whatever the
20:08:47 requirements of the housing authority, they are not
20:08:50 going to make it.
20:08:52 They will not get a housing situation out of the deal
20:08:55 if it's not done right.
20:08:57 This agreement needs to conclude, when you do this
20:09:01 multi-million dollar project.
20:09:03 It's all -- it's nonnegotiable to leave any of these
20:09:09 people stranded.
20:09:09 These people are hurting.

20:09:12 You're dealing with the violent issues in the
20:09:15 neighborhood.
20:09:15 It's running rampant.
20:09:17 They are being made promises to.
20:09:18 We are seeing the most eloquent presentation possible.
20:09:22 And we applaud that.
20:09:23 But I believe that the Bank of America, and the
20:09:27 housing authority, must have a sensitive plan to what
20:09:32 this ought to do.
20:09:33 These people are frustrated when they go to these
20:09:35 meetings.
20:09:36 They are tiered of being made promises to.
20:09:39 They are tiered of staff treating them like less than
20:09:41 human beings.
20:09:43 These are American citizens.
20:09:46 Some have made mistakes when they were ten years old
20:09:49 and are still in our society, I truly understand our
20:09:53 government, and I love our justice system.
20:09:56 But what I'm hoping today that this council will look
20:09:59 at those 25 questions that we submitted and the people
20:10:09 that may be displayed when there's not enough housing.
20:10:12 What are you saying to us?

20:10:14 You are going to take people out of housing and put
20:10:17 them in better housing?
20:10:19 What are you saying to us?
20:10:21 If there's a crisis, how can we begin to build the
20:10:30 true efforts of people in a time like this?
20:10:32 Thank you.
20:10:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:10:35 Next.
20:10:41 >> My name is Walley Anderson.
20:10:44 I also have been sworn.
20:10:45 James and I are members of the Tampa human rights
20:10:47 coalition, the Tampa Bay human rights coalition.
20:10:50 James asked me to review the Tampa housing authority
20:10:53 annual plan which is on their web site.
20:10:56 And what's troubling about their proposal is their
20:11:00 definition of affordable housing compared to the
20:11:05 families who are in Central Park Village now.
20:11:13 2,000 families are living in extreme low poverty.
20:11:17 They have income of less than 12,400 a year.
20:11:20 Almost 7,000 families -- and the ratio is three to one
20:11:25 when I say a family -- almost 7,000 families are in
20:11:30 low income.

20:11:31 The moderate income definition that's being used
20:11:34 tonight, they aren't going to qualify.
20:11:39 Their 483 units are going to be knocked down.
20:11:41 And they aren't going to be able to move back in to
20:11:44 the Central Park Village.
20:11:46 There is no mention of what the Tampa housing
20:11:49 authority is receiving in exchange for its 50-50
20:11:54 partnership.
20:11:54 The St. Pete Times has recorded the housing authority
20:11:58 is going to receive $27 million.
20:12:02 How is that money going to be spent?
20:12:04 Is it going to be used to buy affordable housing for
20:12:07 low income residents of Tampa?
20:12:10 The City of Tampa has commissioned a minority
20:12:14 contracting disparity study.
20:12:19 Just over 1% of contracting from prime contractors in
20:12:23 Tampa went to minority black businesses.
20:12:27 What requirements in this plan are going to require
20:12:31 black contractors and subcontractors?
20:12:35 They are going to put in 50,000 square feet of retail
20:12:38 space.
20:12:38 What requirements, what assurances are in this plan

20:12:44 that black-owned businesses are going to be able to
20:12:47 participate in this project?
20:12:51 The irony of the project is they want to have a piano
20:12:56 honoring ray Charles, a great American entertainer.
20:13:01 The irony is, there's a place called the Jackson
20:13:04 house, which is near the railroad station, you don't
20:13:08 have to build that.
20:13:10 It's there.
20:13:11 Ray Charles stayed there.
20:13:14 Duke Ellington stayed there.
20:13:17 A lot of hosts of black entertainers that have made
20:13:20 American culture what it is stayed in the Jackson
20:13:23 house.
20:13:24 And there's a real threat of that building being torn
20:13:26 down in the name of the redevelopment of Tampa.
20:13:31 If there's any true interest in assisting and
20:13:34 recognizing Tampa's black heritage, let's focus on the
20:13:37 Jackson house.
20:13:38 And let's find a way to find housing for the least of
20:13:41 these.
20:13:43 These people in extremely low income that are going to
20:13:45 be removed.

20:13:46 Where are they going to go?
20:13:48 Are there no available housing units in Tampa?
20:13:51 They are full.
20:13:52 Where are those 483 families going?
20:13:54 And are they going to displace 483 other families?
20:14:01 We have been asking those questions for the Tampa
20:14:03 housing authority since June.
20:14:05 And they have not answered.
20:14:07 Thank you very much.
20:14:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
20:14:20 >> Mark Huey, economic and urban development
20:14:23 administrator for the city.
20:14:24 I haven't been sworn in.
20:14:25 >>GWEN MILLER: You better be sworn in.
20:14:30 [ Laughter ]
20:14:32 (Oath administered by Clerk)
20:14:39 Good evening.
20:14:40 I wanted to provide just a little bit of redevelopment
20:14:42 context.
20:14:43 I'm here representing the Community Redevelopment
20:14:44 Agency.
20:14:47 Let me -- we worked hard really for this kind of

20:14:57 development in this neighborhood.
20:14:57 I want to remind you of some of the challenges
20:15:01 redevelopment faces.
20:15:04 Medium income in the area, about $10,000 compared to
20:15:07 $24,000 city-wide.
20:15:10 69% of the residents live in poverty.
20:15:13 52% area children residents live in poverty.
20:15:18 47% of the structures within the CRA are deteriorating
20:15:22 or deteriorated.
20:15:23 Renters occupy 97% of the residential housing stock.
20:15:29 Roads are unsafe.
20:15:30 Forget about trying to walk or take a bike ride.
20:15:36 There are illegal dumping sites.
20:15:38 Stormwater flooding versus all the infrastructures,
20:15:43 replacements or significant improvement.
20:15:51 Double the city crime rate.
20:15:52 There hasn't been a lick of investment in this
20:15:54 community outside of the credit union in decades.
20:15:58 And because of that, as a CRA board, we created the
20:16:02 CRA, the redevelopment agency.
20:16:04 Again, just to encourage this kind of redevelopment.
20:16:10 Anytime you have a very formidable development team

20:16:12 that will come forward.
20:16:13 The housing authority and the Bank of America, with
20:16:17 the financial substance to really make the new
20:16:20 neighborhood that's being proposed happen.
20:16:23 2000 units of the new neighborhood with town center
20:16:26 supported by commercial retail, and very
20:16:29 significantly, 800 of those units truly affordable
20:16:34 residential units, which is a goal of our community.
20:16:39 They are committing to recreate Central Avenue to
20:16:45 replace Central Avenue.
20:16:46 You have seen a commitment to redo Perry Harvey park,
20:16:49 to recreate an African-American museum, and all that's
20:16:55 been done with a great deal of community sensitivity
20:16:56 by the development team.
20:17:01 I though No there were some questions about minority
20:17:04 contractor presentation.
20:17:05 Those will be dealt with in development agreement.
20:17:07 I can assure you that both the housing authority and
20:17:09 Bank of America have a very significant commitment
20:17:12 including minority businesses and their development
20:17:15 process.
20:17:16 I would like to say in that context, I would hope this

20:17:19 is something we are celebrating tonight.
20:17:21 And really, I appreciate the great deliberation that
20:17:26 council is making over the quality of the project that
20:17:31 will be built.
20:17:31 But it's something that this community has been
20:17:34 striving to see happen for decades.
20:17:36 And I appreciate your interest in really moving
20:17:41 forward tonight, and letting this project continue on
20:17:46 its important development track.
20:17:48 Thank you.
20:17:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: I see the director of housing
20:17:56 development in the back.
20:17:57 Would you come forward?
20:17:58 I want to say one thing while you are coming up in
20:18:00 response to what Mr. Evans was speaking about a little
20:18:02 bit earlier.
20:18:05 I think some of the clarifications that you may be
20:18:07 able to straighten out, was the concern of the
20:18:13 displacement of the residents, and then how transition
20:18:19 back in if they choose to do so, or what the
20:18:22 requirements are.
20:18:23 I will just make a couple of comments about a bus tour

20:18:26 that we took together.
20:18:29 And the same thing happened in College Hill, Ponce
20:18:33 DeLeon, although it was a smaller scale development,
20:18:36 although beautiful nonetheless.
20:18:38 But on that bus tour that council members and members
20:18:41 of the public, and public housing were able to take,
20:18:45 we took a tour throughout the entire city to look at
20:18:49 areas available public housing that is available in
20:18:53 the city.
20:18:53 Some were even in Hyde Park that I didn't even know
20:18:56 and I have been here all my life, in the middle of
20:18:59 Hyde Park, public housing component that I didn't even
20:19:01 know were there.
20:19:03 And what are we doing so the public and this council
20:19:08 in the listening audience will know, what are we doing
20:19:10 with the displacement of the people in Central Park
20:19:12 Village?
20:19:14 Where are they going?
20:19:15 How will they have an opportunity to come back, if and
20:19:17 when -- and the bus tour took me around -- some of the
20:19:23 people that left public housing and were displaced to
20:19:26 other public housing went into a single-family housing

20:19:30 components didn't even want to come back.
20:19:33 And it's an opportunity as well.
20:19:35 So if you could address that.
20:19:37 >> And I'm glad you answered that question because
20:19:38 obviously there's some misinformation out there and
20:19:42 obviously some people don't quite understand how we do
20:19:44 our business.
20:19:47 There are federal regulation that is require us to do
20:19:49 certain things when it comes to relocation.
20:19:51 One is to make sure that the residents have a better
20:19:54 place to go to, number one.
20:19:56 And the second thing that they are required to do is
20:19:58 to give residents the first right of refusal to come
20:20:01 back to the new development.
20:20:03 So every resident in Central Park will have the
20:20:07 opportunity, if they choose, to come back to that
20:20:10 development if they want to do that.
20:20:11 It's up to them.
20:20:12 You mentioned College Hill.
20:20:18 We located 1300 families from there compared to 484
20:20:21 families here.
20:20:22 We have done probably 2,000 relocations in this city

20:20:24 because we have renovated and made those units pretty
20:20:30 much market rate.
20:20:31 You can drive down many of those units and not even
20:20:33 know they are public housing units.
20:20:36 >> Did that.
20:20:36 >>> We have been conceptual in finding units for
20:20:39 residents in public housing.
20:20:40 For example, I'll give you an example.
20:20:42 We have had over 100 meetings in the last three years
20:20:45 on relocation issues, residents of Central Park.
20:20:50 The interesting thing about it is residents of Central
20:20:54 Park probably know more about relocation than we do.
20:20:58 For the last six months we have had meetings on
20:21:00 Tuesday at 3:00 and 6:00 to discuss not only the
20:21:03 supported services side, which is something we are not
20:21:05 required to do, but we thought it's important that we
20:21:08 provide residents the opportunity to provide services
20:21:10 in the community, to provide them with the opportunity
20:21:12 for job training, and jobs.
20:21:14 We think that's important.
20:21:16 That's the important part of the process.
20:21:17 And obviously Bank of America thinks it's important,

20:21:20 too.
20:21:20 So in essence what I am saying to you is that we will
20:21:24 make sure that every road that moves out of Central
20:21:26 Park has a better place to live.
20:21:29 We are currently relocating some of our residents now
20:21:31 on an emergency basis, because they find themselves in
20:21:36 difficult situations and they need to move now.
20:21:41 Seems to me once they are approved along with
20:21:43 vouchers, too, there are in fact enough units in this
20:21:46 community to address the needs that we have in public
20:21:48 housing.
20:21:49 In addition to that, moving in public housing will
20:21:52 have the opportunity to do that, too.
20:21:54 Keep in mind, we have people moving in out of public
20:21:56 housing all the time.
20:21:57 The people in the park will have an opportunity over
20:22:01 those in addition to the vouchers that are available.
20:22:05 So to suggest people won't have a place and to even
20:22:08 suggest people won't have an opportunity to come
20:22:10 back -- we spend a lot of time working on this.
20:22:15 We are experts at this.
20:22:16 We are so good at relocation that huh and other

20:22:20 housing authorities contacted to us contact us how to
20:22:23 get it done.
20:22:24 And our residents that live in Central Park are very
20:22:28 familiar with the process.
20:22:29 As I said earlier if they want to come to a meeting
20:22:31 and see what's going on we welcome that.
20:22:34 We have board meetings every month.
20:22:35 We welcome that.
20:22:37 We have been talking about Central Park for at least
20:22:38 five years now.
20:22:39 So what is happening is nothing new.
20:22:42 You know, it's disgusting at this point that we are at
20:22:46 this point, because I guess the biggest concern is we
20:22:49 have been promising resident folks, gosh, for five
20:22:52 years we are going to move.
20:22:53 And we finally got to the point of getting to that
20:22:55 point to get that done.
20:22:56 So I would say that we will provide whatever is
20:22:59 needed, not only in terms of services to the residents
20:23:02 but also opportunities for them to move.
20:23:04 As a matter of fact, we have done a lot of things
20:23:08 people don't do. We are transporting residents,

20:23:11 taking them back and showing them units that are
20:23:13 available to them.
20:23:13 So there are units available in this community.
20:23:15 Yes, there is a housing crunch in this community.
20:23:18 But we have been successful as a housing authority
20:23:20 providing the necessary housing for the people that
20:23:22 live in public housing that need housing.
20:23:25 Our goal is to make the lives of people in public
20:23:28 housing better and make sure they have a better place
20:23:30 to live.
20:23:31 Right now they don't have a better flies live.
20:23:33 >>KEVIN WHITE: The other thing that Mr. Evans
20:23:37 mentioned, the felons and things of that nature, if
20:23:41 you -- if you are a resident of Central Park Village
20:23:44 now and you qualify into the current guidelines, and
20:23:47 you are a resident or tenant in good standing, are
20:23:50 there any qualifications to come back?
20:23:53 O or are you automatically admitted into the new --
20:23:57 >>> You are pretty much automatically.
20:23:58 We are working with every resident.
20:24:00 We recognize that residents within public housing such
20:24:02 as Central Park have got some issues.

20:24:05 We have the same problems as College Hill.
20:24:10 We'll work with you and give that you second chance.
20:24:12 Now, if you blow that second chance, then you're out.
20:24:17 That's the reality.
20:24:18 At the end of the day, everybody is currently on
20:24:21 lease, that has a lease in Central Park, will have a
20:24:23 place to live.
20:24:24 >> And my last comment.
20:24:29 I'm sorry, I forgot the attorney's name.
20:24:31 Wally Anderson, I'm sorry.
20:24:33 To address one of the things that you said.
20:24:35 It's one of the things that this council is doing in
20:24:37 addressing the ordinance or the executive order now
20:24:41 that we are trying to get into ordinance fashion, the
20:24:45 WMBE program for our vendor contractors in this city,
20:24:49 I'm sure Bank of America, they have shown in the past
20:24:53 that they are good partners.
20:24:55 And embracing diversity and all of the projects that
20:24:59 they do.
20:25:00 And I'm sure that being a 50-50 partner and being the
20:25:06 makeup and component and complexion of most -- the
20:25:11 Central Park area, I'm sure the housing authority is

20:25:13 going to be sitting there pressing minority
20:25:18 participation in this redevelopment as well.
20:25:21 But everyone if neither one of them did that, that's
20:25:24 one of the reasons this council as a body has
20:25:28 commissioned the disparity study to be done and
20:25:30 hopefully by the end of -- I think we came to the
20:25:34 conclusion maybe January or so, that that will be in
20:25:37 ordinance form and will be city mandated for any of
20:25:40 these type projects that we come forward with.
20:25:43 So hopefully that won't be an issue.
20:25:48 At any time further in the future in that point on and
20:25:51 we had a few hiccup was that and I think we are
20:25:54 getting the final resolve hopefully by January that
20:25:58 will be taken out of executive order and put in the
20:26:00 form of an ordinance in the legislation in the City of
20:26:03 Tampa.
20:26:04 So I'm sure --
20:26:08 >>> Our board is going to make sure that happens.
20:26:10 >> Then I wanted that on the record.
20:26:13 >>> Absolutely.
20:26:13 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you.
20:26:15 That's all I had.

20:26:25 >>> My name is Nancy Valez.
20:26:29 I have been sworn in.
20:26:30 I keep hearing about the condominiums being
20:26:32 affordable.
20:26:33 I haven't heard of pricing.
20:26:34 I haven't heard how much are they going to be sold for
20:26:38 or price range.
20:26:40 This worries me.
20:26:41 I am a licensed broker and all of the medium,
20:26:45 everything that was shown, the people cannot afford.
20:26:48 Most of the people that were shown tonight, that they
20:26:51 make 30,000, 40,000, they can't afford a house for
20:26:56 150,000-plus.
20:26:59 A mortgage payment for around 150,000.
20:27:03 Those are beautiful condominiums.
20:27:05 Town homes are going to be built.
20:27:07 What is the praise range?
20:27:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: Said it was conceptual earlier.
20:27:14 Five years from now.
20:27:22 >> I have been hearing that the people that live in
20:27:23 the area are somewhere else and they are being --
20:27:28 where are the people moving to?

20:27:31 Where are they going?
20:27:36 In Tampa.
20:27:36 They are not in the county.
20:27:37 I mean, they are moving far away from the city, far
20:27:40 away from where they are right now.
20:27:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Ryan already explained where they
20:27:46 are going.
20:27:47 >>> But it's not -- they are really not being helped.
20:27:52 It's a beautiful thing that they are doing.
20:27:53 But they are really kicking out everybody in the area.
20:27:57 To benefit Seminole Heights and benefit all of those
20:28:00 areas that are there.
20:28:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, I don't think so.
20:28:04 >>> Okay.
20:28:04 And what about the affordable pricing?
20:28:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How can you tell?
20:28:09 >>> They are wanting someone to say, okay, we want to
20:28:15 get -- how can do you that?
20:28:19 How can you say, go ahead and get your agreement or
20:28:21 whatever they have to do.
20:28:23 You don't know how much the place are going to be
20:28:27 selling for.

20:28:28 Because they are selling for the median income.
20:28:31 But people with those incomes cannot afford those
20:28:36 houses.
20:28:37 They really can't.
20:28:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:28:39 Mr. Smith?
20:28:41 >>> Thank you very much.
20:28:42 Just a couple of points.
20:28:44 Regarding the minority business enterprise efforts.
20:28:48 20% of the development of minority businesses are
20:28:53 involved in the redevelopment, that's a commitment
20:28:55 already made between Bank of America and the Tampa
20:28:57 housing authority.
20:29:00 >> Guarantee or minimum?
20:29:02 >>> That's the goal.
20:29:03 I can ask -- that's the goal.
20:29:06 Oftentimes, you need to set the goal.
20:29:09 Sometimes it's met.
20:29:10 Sometimes it can't based on the trades available.
20:29:12 And 30% employment opportunities of the target as well
20:29:14 as for the development.
20:29:16 Regarding the price points, I think there's a

20:29:19 misunderstanding.
20:29:20 The AMI that we showed was related to the target
20:29:22 population that will be served by the rental.
20:29:26 Clearly, someone making 60%, 70% of AMI is not going
20:29:31 to be able to afford after they purchase a home.
20:29:39 >> What, AMI?
20:29:42 >>> Area median income.
20:29:44 I'm sorry, I thought everybody would know what that
20:29:45 was.
20:29:46 I'm sorry.
20:29:54 Condominiums, we are looking at those to be market
20:29:56 units and with an affordable component.
20:29:59 We had about 100 of those units that will be
20:30:01 affordable and 100 medium to 120% median income.
20:30:06 To address a couple of the council questions
20:30:09 concerning concerns earlier, the developer is more
20:30:11 than willing to commit to any developer agreement that
20:30:14 we are going to be coming forward to identify all the
20:30:18 blocks that currently do not have illustrations or
20:30:21 renderings related to them, the capacity, number of
20:30:25 openings and the spacing at the time of these
20:30:27 development agreement. That allows you us to work

20:30:30 with staff and identify those issues, put them in
20:30:32 parted of the agreement development, but also allows
20:30:34 us to keep on track with our approval so that we can
20:30:37 have zoning approved, and file a tax credit
20:30:40 application.
20:30:42 It's not a piecemeal thing.
20:30:44 We could have come in and brought in two blocks and
20:30:46 brought another two blocks.
20:30:47 We wanted to provide vision for Central Park.
20:30:50 And that's the only way to do that is get this area
20:30:53 wide PD approved tonight.
20:30:56 Moving forward with assurance that no building on any
20:30:59 of those blocks are going to occur before the
20:31:01 development agreement is entered into to the
20:31:03 satisfaction of this council.
20:31:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
20:31:06 Mr. Dingfelder?
20:31:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I might have missed it earlier, Mr.
20:31:13 Smith.
20:31:13 But there's some comments here that are part of the
20:31:15 package from the D.O.T. as related to Nebraska.
20:31:19 Did you get into that?

20:31:20 >>> I did not get into that.
20:31:22 We met with FDOT, transportation staff is present.
20:31:27 FDOT basically saying at the time of permitting when
20:31:29 we come in if there's turn lanes or anything related
20:31:32 to tying in our development, but this would be
20:31:35 developer cost.
20:31:35 And we recognize that.
20:31:37 And we don't have an issue with you what they said.
20:31:43 We also met with them relative to the Boulevard
20:31:45 connection.
20:31:45 Their comments related to it was too wide.
20:31:49 We agreed to the plan already that it would be narrow
20:31:51 to meet their spacing standards.
20:31:54 >> How about a light at Nebraska?
20:31:56 >>> We did not believe that signal warrants were going
20:31:59 to be met for lighting at Nebraska.
20:32:01 And if they are --
20:32:03 >> Isn't there a light over that way anyway?
20:32:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Not at Nebraska.
20:32:10 >>> It's at Scott.
20:32:11 It's unlikely another light will be approved between
20:32:13 Scott and Cass.

20:32:15 At that location.
20:32:17 But, again, one would go for the actual permitting to
20:32:21 make the access to FDOT's road.
20:32:24 Those issues will all be addressed and they will be
20:32:27 reviewing a traffic analysis.
20:32:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the other question goes back to
20:32:33 what Julia was talking about and kind of left that
20:32:36 question dangling out there.
20:32:37 You were going to confer with your client about
20:32:39 committing I think you guys were pretty clear you are
20:32:50 not going to be making any commitments tonight.
20:32:53 But Julia indicated there should at least be some
20:32:56 commitment on the record, and work it out in the
20:32:57 development agreement.
20:32:58 >>> Right.
20:32:59 I think what I tried to do a few seconds ago, to make
20:33:01 it clear, was that I talked to Julia in between I
20:33:05 talked to the client.
20:33:06 We don't have any problem with providing more detail
20:33:08 relative to the opacity, how many, you know, what the
20:33:12 spacing will be, to make sure that this is not just a
20:33:16 shear wall down these blocks.

20:33:18 We commit to work with staff between now and the
20:33:20 development agreement.
20:33:20 And it will be part of the developer's agreement when
20:33:23 it comes back to council targeted for January.
20:33:26 So the zoning only will give us enough authorization
20:33:35 to develop two parcels without a developer's
20:33:37 agreement.
20:33:37 And that will allow us to move forward with
20:33:39 incremental review on those, get those applications
20:33:42 filed by the deadline, and be well on our way to
20:33:47 getting this project or the reality.
20:33:49 >> You have been around here enough to know that's a
20:33:51 pretty unusual way to handle things.
20:33:53 Usually we bang things out, on the site plan, in the
20:33:56 condition, that I think you're asking us to take a
20:34:00 leap of faith and say we'll work those out with the
20:34:02 developer agreement, and especially when it comes to
20:34:06 the administration, to the entrances, to the break-up
20:34:10 of those massive blocks that Ms. Saul-Sena was talking
20:34:13 about.
20:34:14 >>> Yes, sir.
20:34:14 And I think, yeah, it is a little different.

20:34:22 The fact that this is 28 acres mixed income
20:34:26 development, that is going to be built out over a
20:34:29 period of years, it's not like Mr. Warren is coming in
20:34:35 and he's going to build all these.
20:34:36 We are going to have other developer partners coming
20:34:39 in with a for-sale product.
20:34:40 What we are trying to do is provide the scope and the
20:34:43 scale, the relationships, which is the detail that we
20:34:47 are committing to, to get out of the family --
20:34:51 development agreement he so when the review comes in,
20:34:54 when the proposals come in for incremental reviews and
20:34:56 Wilson Stair, or whoever his successor may be at the
20:34:59 time it occurs, will be sitting there looking at these
20:35:02 saying, yeah, that's consistent with the vision,
20:35:04 that's consistent with the development agreement, and,
20:35:07 yes, it's an improved development.
20:35:09 If it isn't, if it doesn't, it's not consistent, it's
20:35:12 not going to make it to review because we'll have
20:35:14 those details in the developer's agreement.
20:35:17 Timing is what's causing us to move this thing so
20:35:19 fast.
20:35:21 It's terrible to lose a year when you have got so much

20:35:24 momentum going, for the fact we are only going for two
20:35:28 blocks. But we have a great concept, a great vision,
20:35:31 and I think this is a great opportunity for to us get
20:35:33 this thing moving.
20:35:34 And I don't think anybody is losing anything by
20:35:37 deferring some of these details on the for-sale blocks
20:35:40 for the developer's agreement.
20:35:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Smith, you are really eloquent,
20:35:45 and my -- the one things that I would really like you
20:35:50 to consider, putting in to play on the development
20:35:55 agreement is the question of connectivity.
20:35:59 That is my real heartburn in this.
20:36:01 The connectivity to the south.
20:36:03 I understand you haven't acquired the blocks yet on
20:36:07 Cass.
20:36:09 The connectivity to the east, I really think you
20:36:11 should pursue it.
20:36:13 I mean, you're getting a lot of resistance.
20:36:15 But there's a very, very strong argument to be made
20:36:18 for why that is important.
20:36:20 When we look back on the old photograph of the area,
20:36:23 before the public housing was there, it was all grid.

20:36:29 So my question is, would you consider in this
20:36:34 developer's agreement to put in a commitment that will
20:36:37 not preclude connectivity to the south, and to the
20:36:45 east?
20:36:45 And I would be willing as incentive to allow you
20:36:48 greater density if that's something that would make
20:36:50 your parcels more valuable, specifically, the block
20:36:56 that's 450 feet.
20:36:57 That is just -- I mean, something that would be an
20:37:03 incentive to you to just not have that block as
20:37:09 gargantuan as it is, and then something that would say
20:37:13 if you acquire the parcel to the south,.
20:37:23 >>> Before you answer, I don't think one council
20:37:25 member can guarantee greater density.
20:37:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I'm just raising the issue,
20:37:33 thinking outside the box.
20:37:34 [ Laughter ]
20:37:35 >>> And I can assure you density is not the issue.
20:37:38 We have created plan with density per block
20:37:48 Extra density is not necessarily going to be incentive
20:37:51 for us on that.
20:37:52 But I'm not arguing with you.

20:37:56 But I have to talk to the client regarding the
20:38:01 commitment.
20:38:01 Because what I can say is we can commit to looking at
20:38:04 the pedestrian activity issues.
20:38:06 The vehicular connectivity to the east, I just don't
20:38:08 see that being a feasible -- we have looked at it.
20:38:12 And we -- it would not be a permittable grid with
20:38:17 FDOTs and restricting access to its major
20:38:21 thoroughfares.
20:38:22 But if you give me just a second, I can check --
20:38:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't recall it being a motion that
20:38:28 we need to do that.
20:38:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was a question.
20:38:31 It was a question.
20:38:32 And pedestrian connectivity frankly would be great.
20:38:36 >>> I can take a look at that.
20:38:38 Does anybody else have any questions so I can check
20:38:40 all at one time?
20:38:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.
20:38:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Civitas was wonderful.
20:39:14 We all loved it.
20:39:15 Their plans are much more specific and polished.

20:39:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: If I remember correctly.
20:39:24 >> I liked it.
20:39:25 >> I didn't.
20:39:51 >>> Long-term we may have some other plans to that
20:39:55 site, if some good things happen along Nebraska
20:39:58 Avenue.
20:39:59 We can look to pedestrian connectivity off of Nebraska
20:40:02 as part of the development agreement.
20:40:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
20:40:08 >> Motion and second to close the public hearing.
20:40:10 (Motion carried)
20:40:11 What's the pleasure of council?
20:40:16 >> Motion to approve.
20:40:17 >> Second.
20:40:20 >> We have to pick up the lease first if you are going
20:40:22 to make a motion.
20:40:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to make a motion.
20:40:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
20:40:27 >> Second.
20:40:27 (Motion carried).
20:40:31 >> Move an ordinance providing an area wide rezoning
20:40:33 in the general vicinity 1202 north governor's street

20:40:37 south of K Street West of Nebraska, north of Cass
20:40:40 Street east of Central Avenue in the city of Tampa,
20:40:42 Florida more particularly described in section 1 from
20:40:44 zoning district classification RM-24 residential
20:40:47 multifamily to PD planned development, providing an
20:40:52 effective date.
20:40:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:40:55 Mrs. Saul-Sena.
20:40:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
20:40:56 I can't ever think of a development agreement that has
20:40:59 as much significance as this.
20:41:04 I have a question of the staff not about the zoning
20:41:06 but development agreement.
20:41:07 To what degree are we as council members going to
20:41:10 participate -- is it something between Mark Huey and
20:41:22 the developers, what is the stat us?
20:41:29 >>> The administration is going to prepare it,
20:41:31 negotiate it, bring it back before you, and you will
20:41:33 get it.
20:41:34 And then you will be briefed I'm sure before then but
20:41:36 if you don't like it you will approve it.
20:41:41 The legislative body doesn't get involved in

20:41:42 negotiating these items but you have the final say
20:41:46 obviously.
20:41:46 >> So they are items that we are concerned about being
20:41:48 included.
20:41:49 What is the appropriate way for us to share that?
20:41:51 Is it now?
20:41:52 >>> You can share it now, or you have two or three
20:41:54 months now between now and January to get with the
20:41:56 individual staff members, Mr. Huey and whoever else
20:41:59 you want to get with in legal department and let us
20:42:01 know what it is you want.
20:42:03 And then -- but you have the final say on these items.
20:42:09 >> One more thing. Will the development agreement
20:42:11 address what the process is for when these things come
20:42:14 in for final review when they are a an actual project?
20:42:17 >>> This is done very similar to the heights project.
20:42:20 When the development agreement is going to consist of
20:42:22 many attachments.
20:42:24 The zoning is obviously being done now but it's going
20:42:27 to involve the financing.
20:42:28 Tax increment financing is involved with these items.
20:42:30 You will have a large say in that.

20:42:31 The project will not go forward unless the tax
20:42:34 increment financing is put in place.
20:42:36 There's going to be a development district as it was
20:42:38 there.
20:42:39 The allotted elements are going to have to come
20:42:41 together between now and January.
20:42:42 It will all come back before you.
20:42:44 And you will have a say in all of those items when it
20:42:46 comes back before you, and let the administration know
20:42:49 before then what it is you want included.
20:42:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
20:42:53 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:42:55 Opposed, Nay.
20:42:55 (Motion carried)
20:42:56 We need to open item number 8.
20:42:59 >> So moved.
20:43:00 >> Second.
20:43:00 (Motion carried).
20:43:01 ,.
20:43:01 >>SAL TERRITO: Was that both items, the zoning and the
20:43:11 lease?
20:43:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

20:43:13 We did both of them.
20:43:14 Thank you.
20:43:15 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
20:43:54 Want to just keep moving things along.
20:43:56 Item number 8 is Z 06-98.
20:44:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Abbey, why don't you hold and let
20:44:05 the room empty?
20:44:06 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This is the property at 2966 and 2730
20:44:56 North Dale Mabry.
20:44:59 Petitioner is requesting rezoning from PD planned
20:45:03 development vehicle sales and leasing vehicle repairs
20:45:05 to PD planned development vehicle sales and leasing
20:45:08 vehicle repairs.
20:45:09 They are asking for two waivers.
20:45:12 Associated with the rezoning, which is an existing
20:45:20 waiver on the existing PD and the other is for
20:45:22 perimeter landscape to reduce from 8 feet to 3 feet.
20:45:25 And waiver of --
20:45:29 >> Site plan?
20:45:40 >>> I provided it.
20:45:40 The petitioner is proposing to rezone the property on
20:45:42 North Dale Mabry.

20:45:43 This is Jerry Ulm Dodge to construct structured
20:45:47 parking in the rear of the existing site with 11,000
20:45:53 square foot service area, the parking structure will
20:45:55 be four stories in height, 60 feet with a 55,000
20:46:01 square foot building footprint.
20:46:07 There are several objections to the final, the final
20:46:12 site plan that was submitted.
20:46:14 The data table is not consistent with the site plan.
20:46:17 That needs to be addressed.
20:46:19 There is dimensional criteria that needs to be
20:46:23 addressed.
20:46:23 Solid waste has objections related to refuge
20:46:28 collection, location, the screening, the landscape has
20:46:33 objections related to the provision of a table of
20:46:41 trees as incentive, the requirement of planned trees,
20:46:46 and waivers that are needed.
20:46:48 There are two additional waivers that are needed as
20:46:50 downright cited by our landscape specialists, one for
20:46:53 the vehicle use area, one for the waiver of gren space
20:47:00 and assessment of payment in lieu.
20:47:07 Just to show you, this is Jerry Ulm dodge on North
20:47:10 Dale Mabry and Columbus drive

20:47:17 Here are some pictures of the existing site.
20:47:19 This is actually looking west from Dale Mabry into the
20:47:25 site.
20:47:28 This is looking south on Dale Mabry.
20:47:36 This is the back of the lot where they will be
20:47:39 constructing the structured parking garage.
20:47:44 Here's another shot in the back of the lot which
20:47:46 actually looks west.
20:47:50 This is looking west, excuse me.
20:47:54 This is an existing pre-owned section of the current
20:47:58 PD.
20:47:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On page 4, it says, number one,
20:48:23 petitioner is only providing 34 of the required 185
20:48:27 trees, and has not asked for a waiver?
20:48:31 >>> That's correct.
20:48:31 And that is the objection that was brought forth by
20:48:34 our landscape specialist as to the fact that they need
20:48:37 a waiver if they are only going to be supplying 34
20:48:40 trees.
20:48:43 >> Do you have to do that?
20:48:44 Do you have to ask for waiver if you are not --
20:48:47 >>> Yes.

20:48:48 And that is why staff is objecting to the site plan
20:48:50 that was submitted.
20:48:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission?
20:48:58 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:48:59 I have been sworn in.
20:49:01 Some additional comments to add on to Ms. Feeley's
20:49:07 comments.
20:49:08 The site is located on the northwest corner of
20:49:11 Columbus drive and Dale Mabry Highway.
20:49:14 Car dealership.
20:49:16 The site is in close proximity to several regional
20:49:20 attractions, Raymond James stadium, Reg international
20:49:24 mall to the west, and of course within the Westshore
20:49:26 district activity center.
20:49:29 Dale Mabry highway is classified as a major arterial,
20:49:34 in this section of Columbus drive which transforms it
20:49:37 into Boy Scout Boulevard to the west, also considered
20:49:40 a major arterial road.
20:49:43 Overall Planning Commission staff finds the proposed
20:49:46 request consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:49:48 We do have a comment regarding community appearance
20:49:51 considerations.

20:49:52 Regarding policy D-622 of the comprehensive plans
20:49:55 specifically within the land use element, which talks
20:49:57 about roadways specifically designated as scenic
20:50:01 corridors, certainly gateways into the City of Tampa
20:50:07 should be considered eligible for planning.
20:50:09 The site in question -- considered a gateway into the
20:50:17 City of Tampa.
20:50:18 It is recommended that the applicant does make an
20:50:20 attempt to provide some additional landscaping along
20:50:22 the Dale Mabry frontage to contribute to the aesthetic
20:50:26 features that are required along Dale Mabry highway.
20:50:29 The proposed site plan does offer landscaping
20:50:31 presentation along both corridors, Columbus drive and
20:50:35 Dale Mabry, and offers no significant aesthetic
20:50:38 contribution.
20:50:40 Overall like I said, the existing use is compatible
20:50:42 with the intent of the RMU 100 land use category which
20:50:46 is your most intense land use category other than the
20:50:51 CPD district.
20:50:52 Basically commercial intensive use is consistent with
20:50:57 the intent of that plan.
20:50:58 Of course we do have a lot of other intensive

20:51:00 commercial use, other uses of significant commercial
20:51:04 intensity along Dale Mabry Highway.
20:51:08 To conclude my presentation, Mr. Dingfelder --
20:51:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good eat ago long there.
20:51:16 >>> Burger King.
20:51:20 Chili's.
20:51:23 Sonny's across the street.
20:51:26 Thank you.
20:51:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:51:27 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: 501 East Kennedy here tonight
20:51:38 representing Jerry Ulm dodge.
20:51:40 With me tonight is Dwight, also like lamb from
20:51:47 Suncoast design group and Randy, our transportation
20:51:52 engineer.
20:51:53 I would like to tell you a little about the rezoning
20:51:54 and then I'll address the staff report if I may.
20:51:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn, Ms. Zelman?
20:52:01 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Yes, I have.
20:52:02 As you know the site is at the corner of Columbus and
20:52:05 Dale Mabry.
20:52:05 As you may not know, it's been occupied by a car
20:52:08 dealership since 1968, almost 40 years.

20:52:14 Jerry Ulm has owned it since 1990, and a local family
20:52:18 owned business.
20:52:20 Many of you will recall, actually all of you should
20:52:22 recall that in 2003, you rezoned the site in order to
20:52:26 add what used to be the golden diamond source store.
20:52:30 He was actually adding property to the dealership
20:52:33 site.
20:52:33 And he also got permission to replace that for with
20:52:37 the building that he had seen.
20:52:39 Later on I am going to show you some photos, if I may,
20:52:42 and they are going to demonstrate and I think you will
20:52:45 agree the site looks much better now since the time of
20:52:47 that rezoning.
20:52:48 He's made a number of significant improvements.
20:52:52 Jerry Ulm dodge was named as the 2005 national dodge
20:52:56 dealer of the year.
20:52:59 Unfortunately for them, business has been doing well.
20:53:01 And that has brought about the need for this rezoning.
20:53:04 They simply have the need to store more inventory,
20:53:07 that is cars, on their site.
20:53:11 Also, as some of you, or probably all of you know by
20:53:14 now, the Ferman dealership on Kennedy has closed,

20:53:18 which now leaves that site on Kennedy available for
20:53:20 the kind of redevelopment that you want to see on
20:53:23 Kennedy, which of course is the gateway to downtown
20:53:25 Tampa.
20:53:26 But as a consequence of that, Jerry Ulm has the Ulm
20:53:34 inventory which made the need for utilizable space on
20:53:37 his site that much more critical.
20:53:39 And what's different tonight since 2003 is he's not
20:53:43 adding any more property to the site.
20:53:44 Therefore, the change that's being proposed is to
20:53:47 actually put a garage at the back of the property in
20:53:50 order to enable him to have that additional inventory.
20:53:56 He will now be removing what's an unsightly service
20:53:59 building and integrating the automobile service into
20:54:02 the ground floor of the garage.
20:54:05 The garage is 60-foot height maximum, total of 216,000
20:54:10 square feet.
20:54:11 You know, again, to grow on his own site as opposed to
20:54:16 expanding into other areas.
20:54:18 The rezoning seeks an additional 1,540-foot square
20:54:23 feet of space to be added to the main dealership
20:54:26 building.

20:54:30 These improvement are really going to improve the
20:54:32 aesthetics of the site.
20:54:34 Let me give you one example.
20:54:35 The Columbus frontage, Boy Scout, Columbus, this is
20:54:50 what you are looking at now.
20:54:56 This is a rendering of what that will look like with
20:54:58 the garage in place.
20:55:00 One of the things that we are doing, and the
20:55:02 conversation earlier this evenings was pertinent, is
20:55:05 removing an existing family -- fence and barbed wire
20:55:10 at the top and replacing it with a landscaped hedge
20:55:14 and the garage is designed to be much more attractive.
20:55:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They have a rotating car.
20:55:22 Are you going to have a rotating car?
20:55:30 >>> Not into it.
20:55:31 Let me real quickly, if I could.
20:55:33 Staff already did some of this.
20:55:35 This is what the site used to look like.
20:55:39 And this is what again it looks like now.
20:55:47 This is a rendering, again this is the actual site
20:55:51 with the rendering of the garage superimposed.
20:55:54 You can see that the scale really is compatible.

20:55:57 It's not going to be an eyesore.
20:56:00 This is a billboard that used to be on the site.
20:56:02 You can see the picture was taken in 2004, before the
20:56:06 billboard was removed.
20:56:08 That's something that was done voluntarily it wasn't a
20:56:14 requirement of the zoning.
20:56:15 He lost, I believe, $75,000 a year in revenue.
20:56:19 The improvements to the main building, he spent
20:56:22 approximately $2 million on those and another 700,000
20:56:25 on the smaller building and again those weren't
20:56:27 requirements of the rezoning.
20:56:29 Those were things that he did to improve the
20:56:32 aesthetics.
20:56:33 And so I bring that up only because I do want to make
20:56:36 clear that he does have a commitment to improving the
20:56:39 aesthetics at the site.
20:56:41 Now let me talk a little bit -- and before I stop I'll
20:56:48 pass out before and after pictures.
20:56:50 But let me look a little bit at the site plan and the
20:56:53 staff report.
20:56:55 The landscaping, the requirements had been probably
20:56:59 one of the most difficult things for him to grapple

20:57:02 with.
20:57:02 Again this is a car dealership since 1968 at a time
20:57:06 when landscaping wasn't required much of anywhere in
20:57:08 the city especially not a car dealership.
20:57:11 Again, unlike in 2003 we are not adding any new land
20:57:16 to the site.
20:57:16 So we can't create new green space without ripping up
20:57:20 existing asphalt, that the car lot is display.
20:57:29 We are not creating any new impervious area. The
20:57:31 garage is going on top of what is already pavement.
20:57:33 And a lot of cities and counties would not even
20:57:39 trigger the requirements that he brings the site to
20:57:44 the current code.
20:57:45 But after reviewing the staff report and going through
20:57:47 this, we actually have found a way to get as close as
20:57:51 possible to as close as we can.
20:57:55 And we do actually have -- and I do want to thank
20:57:58 Abbye Feeley and Mary Bryson because they met with
20:58:03 Steve and Mike from Suncoast auto design several times
20:58:06 this week in an attempt to get the site plans to where
20:58:09 they could remove all of their objections.
20:58:11 And we are ready to submit.

20:58:12 We can do it first thing tomorrow morning and come
20:58:14 back in two weeks and hopefully get a new site plan
20:58:17 approved.
20:58:18 I want to walk you through what has changed from what
20:58:20 you are looking at.
20:58:22 With regard to the trees, we have some issues where in
20:58:25 fact they have actually calculated wrong the number of
20:58:29 trees.
20:58:29 The number of trees that are required of your code is
20:58:33 104.
20:58:33 And that's 180.
20:58:35 And that's because it's one every 1500 feet, a vehicle
20:58:40 use area and Vern Buchanan display area, then another
20:58:43 one for every 40 feet of right-of-way.
20:58:47 There are eight existing trees on the site that meet
20:58:51 your criteria for trees that must be retained.
20:58:53 That is five inches or more.
20:58:55 There's another nine, four-inch trees that don't meet
20:58:59 your criteria, trees that must be retained.
20:59:01 But as I understand, replacement trees.
20:59:04 So basically what we are left with is a requirement
20:59:06 that we plant 96, 2-inch trees, that will be done.

20:59:12 In fact, said they were going to plant 48 four-inch
20:59:16 trees which you are allowed to do to make up the 96,
20:59:19 48 times 4.
20:59:20 So we are no longer keeping any waivers.
20:59:23 The number of trees that are required to be planted.
20:59:27 The green space, again, we went back and realized that
20:59:31 they were calculating the amount of green space
20:59:34 required, ultimately determined that 19,298 square
20:59:39 feet of green space is required, and we are providing
20:59:43 14,052.
20:59:46 So again your code requires 20%.
20:59:48 We are only able to provide 14%.
20:59:50 We think that's a relatively modest waiver.
20:59:54 Including within the waiver, though, is the waiver
20:59:58 from the requirement of planting one for 40 feet along
21:00:01 the right-of-way.
21:00:02 If you will recall, in 2003, they did receive that
21:00:06 waiver, not to plant the trees along Dale Mabry.
21:00:09 There are some along Columbus and we are just seeking
21:00:13 to retain that same waiver because again there simply
21:00:16 isn't anyway to do that without having to tear out
21:00:18 vehicles display areas to plant the trees.

21:00:21 Some other items.
21:00:22 There was a traffic study submitted.
21:00:24 Mitigation is being paid.
21:00:30 I think the Planning Commission confirmed that there
21:00:32 are a number of others along Dale Mabry.
21:00:34 There's no intrusion into a residential neighborhood.
21:00:39 Jerry Ulm dodge is a business that employs over 169
21:00:42 people.
21:00:43 Their annual payroll is 10 million.
21:00:45 They contribute a lot to this community, $247,000 a
21:00:49 year in occupational tax and over $4 million a year in
21:00:53 sales tax.
21:00:54 I bring this up again just because, you know, we offer
21:00:58 businesses incentives to come to our community and
21:01:00 really we think that the relatively modest waiver we
21:01:04 are seeking from the green space requirement and the
21:01:06 tree requirement is that type of incentive to
21:01:08 recognize an existing business, it has been a
21:01:11 contributor to this community.
21:01:12 So with that I am glad to take any questions.
21:01:15 And again we do have the site plan now that addresses
21:01:23 every one of the staff's concerns and spells out the

21:01:25 waivers.
21:01:26 What we would like to do is come back in two weeks and
21:01:30 hopefully come back for approval.
21:01:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What you shared with us today is an
21:01:39 improvement.
21:01:40 I voted against the waiver that you requested three
21:01:42 years ago.
21:01:43 I am going to vote against this, because, frankly, it
21:01:50 needs trees.
21:01:51 Planting trees in the median.
21:01:52 You all need to put some trees there.
21:01:54 It doesn't take a lot of room.
21:01:55 You make a little hole.
21:01:57 You put in the tree.
21:01:58 It grows.
21:01:59 It's attractive.
21:01:59 You have just taken over Ferman, but he had trees and
21:02:06 it looked great.
21:02:07 That's one of the reasons for redevelopment.
21:02:11 I'm glad you are putting in these others way in the
21:02:13 back corner.
21:02:14 I think the Main Street deserve that is quality.

21:02:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I've seen Ed Morse Clack and --
21:02:26 Cadillac.
21:02:26 They are probably not as big as a dealership as this.
21:02:30 But Dale Mabry really deserves a little bit more
21:02:32 landscaping than it's getting:
21:02:41 So I think if you can find a way to put some -- maybe
21:02:45 not big trees but something to look a little better
21:02:48 than just a hedge there, a hedge does nothing for
21:02:53 landscaping.
21:02:55 It's just a DUH!
21:02:59 So, you know, I won't approve it unless you can come
21:03:02 back with some kind of landscaping for that.
21:03:05 Like I said, I have seen -- they have done a beautiful
21:03:21 way of doing that, doing their landscaping in there.
21:03:26 And this is just.
21:03:35 >>> Ed Morse, I don't know whether those are brand new
21:03:37 dealerships.
21:03:38 And someone dealing a dealership from the ground up
21:03:40 now would you plan for an area to plant trees.
21:03:43 The difficulty we are under has been the way it has
21:03:48 since 1968 so you can't go back and landscape without
21:03:51 having to rip out your existing --

21:03:55 >> I think you could probably do a little better than
21:03:57 just a hedge there.
21:04:01 It doesn't la nice.
21:04:03 It really doesn't.
21:04:03 I go by there.
21:04:05 Maybe two or three times a week.
21:04:06 Gosh, they ought to do something about this.
21:04:10 So now is your chance.
21:04:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
21:04:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. White is our car dealer.
21:04:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: I am going to have my name on one of
21:04:26 these things. But what I did want to say, I'm looking
21:04:28 at the hedges.
21:04:29 One of the big strengths that they are going to have
21:04:31 is they are abutting up against the sidewalk.
21:04:34 And if you put anything major in there, then you are
21:04:37 going to be affecting the sidewalks and there's going
21:04:40 to have to be anything larger.
21:04:44 It's all concrete.
21:04:57 >>> You can do that.
21:04:57 Then you take away from the display area.
21:05:00 >> You can put it between the edges there.

21:05:03 >> Well, my issue wasn't the tree.
21:05:06 I was just going to say that with the expansion of Mr.
21:05:12 Ulm facility, I was going to say that I think this is
21:05:15 where we were way, way many councils ago before I got
21:05:20 here, and Ms. Saul-Sena may have been here on the
21:05:23 council when we were talking about the Lindell
21:05:25 property.
21:05:25 When they were applying for the garage, and they
21:05:27 wanted to go a few stories up.
21:05:30 And that's one of the things that they have been
21:05:32 dealing with.
21:05:33 And it looks like Mr. Ulm is coming up with a great
21:05:37 proposal.
21:05:37 With the acquisitions he is acquiring, but he's
21:05:40 looking to try to get the amount of space that he
21:05:42 needs.
21:05:42 And it's an attractive setting and I think he's doing
21:05:45 it the right way.
21:05:46 And with the landscaping, I don't know, he's ripping
21:05:52 out the chain link fence that surrounds the -- well,
21:05:59 around the back portion, that's not even visible.
21:06:04 That backs up against the IRS building, correct?

21:06:08 I mean along the back.
21:06:09 So that's not frontage.
21:06:15 If you are saying the back -- I'm saying, on the north
21:06:18 side, along Columbus, Boy Scout, whichever way you
21:06:21 want to call it, there is a pedestrian sidewalk, and
21:06:25 then there's only so many feet that you have to break
21:06:29 up the asphalt that's there now.
21:06:31 And then if you want to plant some major trees --
21:06:36 >> No major trees but sometimes I think maybe they
21:06:38 could just -- creative landscaping is what I am
21:06:42 looking at.
21:06:42 >> I don't have a problem with that.
21:06:44 But if you are planting two 4-inch trees, whatever it
21:06:47 is, if it's trees, creative landscaping, there has to
21:06:52 be impervious surface even around that.
21:06:54 So they will be able to get water.
21:07:00 And then you are looking at huge islands.
21:07:09 >>> Checking with Ms. Bryson, the code requires six
21:07:16 foot clear space around the trees.
21:07:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: Okay.
21:07:20 It's bigger than that.
21:07:21 I didn't know it was six foot.

21:07:23 I know it's bigger than what we are looking at here.
21:07:26 It's more than the width.
21:07:28 But anyway, I was happy with anything is going to look
21:07:33 better than the chain link fence that's there now.
21:07:36 And that's my deal.
21:07:40 But I'm happy.
21:07:41 And kudos on the garage.
21:07:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Zelman, you heard complaints from
21:07:49 Ms. Alvarez, Ms. Saul-Sena.
21:07:50 There are five of us here.
21:07:52 I know that it's not beautiful, lush landscaping.
21:07:55 But I think the reason he's asking for this is because
21:07:58 he needs to accommodate his increased inventory.
21:08:02 And so he's caught between a rock and hard place.
21:08:07 I guess maybe if you can look at this with your
21:08:11 client, see if you can come back with something.
21:08:13 I for one think that I could overlook and support
21:08:17 these waivers simply because of the fact that I think
21:08:19 he's been a good business owner on that site.
21:08:22 And given what it was before and what he has done, I
21:08:25 think Jerry Ulm has been a wonderful business owner,
21:08:28 and of course, yes, he would like more landscaping if

21:08:31 that was possible.
21:08:32 But I don't know how he's going to be able to do that.
21:08:35 So perhaps maybe just to speed this along, I think you
21:08:39 ought to look at it and see if you can do something to
21:08:41 accommodate the council members who are not supportive
21:08:44 of it at this point.
21:08:46 I just want you to kind of --
21:08:57 >> I can see the trees on Dale Mabry.
21:08:58 >> No, no.
21:08:59 I would support it right now.
21:09:00 But they want the landscapings.
21:09:02 We don't want 28,000 oaks there.
21:09:09 What about if she goes back?
21:09:11 Talk about reasonable landscaping instead of nice
21:09:13 landscaping.
21:09:19 >>GWEN MILLER: None of those places got trees.
21:09:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: A lot of conversation right now.
21:09:47 >>> Land Development Coordination.
21:09:49 If they were to take out one or two spaces in the
21:09:52 front they could put in a tree and still provide
21:09:54 protective radius and they could do that for a couple
21:09:58 of trees.

21:10:01 >> We are talking about $10 million?
21:10:05 We are talking about something that would make our
21:10:07 city look better.
21:10:08 We all recognize the proximity to the stadium and
21:10:11 International Plaza.
21:10:12 This is a major, major gateway.
21:10:16 And we are talking about a couple of trees.
21:10:19 We are not talking about Banyan trees.
21:10:23 We are talking about four-inch trees.
21:10:28 >>GWEN MILLER: They are going to grow up to be big
21:10:31 trees.
21:10:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Then they can cut them down.
21:10:34 [ Laughter ]
21:10:38 >>> The waiver that Ms. Zelman referred to are not
21:10:41 currently on the plan.
21:10:46 >> We could continue this for a week so she has a
21:10:48 chance to submit this and have it reviewed.
21:10:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: Find out where she can put two --
21:10:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue for two weeks to
21:10:59 allow petitioner to submit plans.
21:11:01 When she said -- it hasn't been reviewed by staff.
21:11:06 I would like to continue for two weeks to a day

21:11:09 meeting, which would be the 16th at 10:00.
21:11:18 November 9th at 10:00.
21:11:23 Does that give you time?
21:11:28 >>> That has to be in by Monday at ten.
21:11:31 I do not believe -- I mean, they came by.
21:11:36 Dale Mabry, sorry.
21:11:36 They came by this week and we did meet several times
21:11:39 to discuss what they would need to do in order to
21:11:42 remove staff objections.
21:11:43 And putting landscaping, we did discuss under the
21:11:46 removal of the vehicle display area, in order to
21:11:50 create some islands or a larger island at the corner
21:11:52 where you in order to accommodate that.
21:11:56 That was not included at the last plan that they
21:11:58 showed us.
21:11:59 So it's what -- it would need to be in Monday by 10:00
21:12:05 in order to meet your continuance.
21:12:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that possible, to have the plans in
21:12:11 by Monday?
21:12:14 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: We have the plans ready to go
21:12:16 tomorrow.
21:12:16 I'm not sure that they can add any trees on Dale

21:12:18 Mabry.
21:12:24 >> Just submit the plan that meets all the other staff
21:12:26 objections.
21:12:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
21:12:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I believe if that is what
21:12:35 the determining issue is about, the decision that
21:12:38 council is going to make, I would just say that if
21:12:40 council wishes to make a decision tonight, if it
21:12:44 chooses, county do so.
21:12:45 If it wishes to come back in two weeks or three weeks
21:12:48 time with the technical objections but still not
21:12:52 addressing the main objection of council, you will
21:12:55 spend time in a day meeting directing those issues
21:12:58 which will take, as you had today, long public
21:13:01 hearings during the day.
21:13:02 My suggestion is if that's the determinative issue
21:13:05 maybe council should address that now.
21:13:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Zelman, barring the tree issue
21:13:11 right now, how long would you need to get this site
21:13:13 plan together to get back?
21:13:17 >>GWEN MILLER: She has them already.
21:13:19 >>> These address all of the issues except for the

21:13:22 Kennedy and Columbus trees on Dale Mabry.
21:13:25 Actually there are some on Columbus.
21:13:28 Address all the staff issues and are still seeking the
21:13:30 waiver.
21:13:31 >>: Those are ready to go tonight.
21:13:36 >> Have to bring them in tomorrow.
21:13:39 >> So it still would be continued for two weeks.
21:13:42 >> Well, if you got them in tonight -- no, I'm sorry,
21:13:47 the code change does not give the staff the discretion
21:13:50 that requires a two-week con continuance.
21:13:56 >> Going to move to close the public hearing.
21:13:58 Close or continue?
21:13:59 >> I was going to move to close the public hearing.
21:14:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody second?
21:14:03 Second to close the public hearing?ding I have a
21:14:08 question.
21:14:08 I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
21:14:11 >> Moving to continue the public hearing to allow them
21:14:13 to go ahead and submit the plan as revised for staff
21:14:18 to come back.
21:14:19 And in two weeks.
21:14:22 At a 10 a.m. meeting.

21:14:26 As far as I was concerned, no disrespect to Ms.
21:14:29 Saul-Sena.
21:14:29 I just know that trees and cars don't mix.
21:14:33 Not big trees.
21:14:33 And as inventory.
21:14:35 I'm sorry.
21:14:38 Sap, bird dripping, things of that nature, that
21:14:41 totally ruin cars.
21:14:42 That's why -- I'll give you another example.
21:14:49 That's why they have all the inventory parked in a
21:14:51 garage and don't have all the frontage especially when
21:14:53 you are dealing with a it love inventory.
21:14:58 Adds to your costs tremendously.
21:15:00 I don't know, maybe if you can or the client can do
21:15:05 some nice big hedges along Dale Mabry and along Boy
21:15:10 Scout and Columbus, but big huge trees, when don't see
21:15:16 those on Dale Mabry as it is.
21:15:26 >>> Yes, you're right.
21:15:35 >>> Jerry Ulm, Jerry Ulm dodge and I have been sworn
21:15:38 in.
21:15:39 Just a couple of items.
21:15:41 I know everyone is very tired here and so am I.

21:15:51 On the tree issue a long Dale Mabry.
21:15:52 In order to put the trees in on Dale Mabry, we are
21:15:55 going to lose roughly four to five feet of our front
21:16:01 display area.
21:16:02 And the problem with that is that, the way that the
21:16:10 buildings are positioned on the property, and where
21:16:18 the current -- where we do have landscaping, if wave
21:16:23 to come out further from that, we are not going to be
21:16:25 able to have vehicles parked in front of the
21:16:28 dealership, which would be a horrible inconvenience
21:16:32 for our customers.
21:16:33 And we would not be able to have vehicles actually
21:16:36 displayed there in the perimeter of our property,
21:16:38 because it would not be enough room to pull in and out
21:16:45 for either of those rows of vehicles.
21:16:48 That's a major problem.
21:16:49 It's tight as it is.
21:16:50 And if we lost four feet, yeah, we are in trouble.
21:16:58 As far as the shrubs and the landscaping goes, yeah, I
21:17:07 love the shrubs and landscaping.
21:17:08 I love trees, which I showed you a few years ago in
21:17:13 here.

21:17:14 It's our intention and plan to have very nice shrubs
21:17:17 and landscaping along the perimeter of the property.
21:17:21 But we can't have -- you know, you can't have bushes
21:17:26 up this high, because that way, you can't see into the
21:17:30 property, and you can't see the vehicles displayed.
21:17:34 What wave now is this tall border grass, low
21:17:37 maintenance, doesn't have to be sprinkled, we don't
21:17:39 waste any water.
21:17:40 It looks reasonably nice.
21:17:42 I think Ms. Alvarez obviously doesn't think so.
21:17:47 But I respect your opinion.
21:17:51 But it's there because, in my opinion, it looks
21:17:53 reasonably nice.
21:17:54 And it's low to the ground, low maintenance.
21:17:57 If it's a matter of trying to figure out some hedges
21:18:01 around the perimeter of the dealership, where we can
21:18:03 all be happy with, ones that aren't too high, and ones
21:18:09 that are reasonably low maintenance, then, yeah, we're
21:18:13 fine with that.
21:18:14 But the tree issue on Dale Mabry, we just -- we can't.
21:18:22 I wish we were starting with a clean sheet of paper.
21:18:25 Believe me, I do.

21:18:26 Because it's very difficult to work with a facility
21:18:30 that was initially constructed back in 1968, and then
21:18:34 to accommodate the growth that we have experienced
21:18:37 over the years, which has been good for everyone.
21:18:41 Certainly it's been good for me and my family and the
21:18:43 dealership.
21:18:44 It's been good for the City of Tampa as well.
21:18:49 And we are doing the best we can.
21:18:53 We are doing the best we can.
21:18:55 We spent a lot of money.
21:18:56 And what we are proposing now, in my opinion,
21:18:59 substantially enhances the look of the dealership,
21:19:04 particularly when you're on Columbus Boulevard, and
21:19:07 you are going to the airport or leaving the airport.
21:19:13 We are taking out a nasty -- it's not just a chain
21:19:16 link fence.
21:19:17 It's a chain link fence with some barbed wire at the
21:19:20 top.
21:19:20 It's ugly.
21:19:23 >> We couldn't agree more.
21:19:24 >>> I'm glad.
21:19:25 And that's coming out.

21:19:27 Fence goes down.
21:19:27 We have nice vehicle display.
21:19:29 We have nice landscaping and hedges all across that
21:19:32 area.
21:19:34 There's a very old service building that's used for
21:19:37 some service and detailing automobiles.
21:19:39 It's made out of metal for the most part.
21:19:41 It looks horrible.
21:19:42 You can see right through the fence line now when you
21:19:45 are at Columbus Boulevard looking directly at that
21:19:49 building.
21:19:49 That goes away.
21:19:53 And a nice attractive looking parking garage.
21:19:55 Folks, we are trying.
21:19:56 I would certainly appreciate, you know, everybody's
21:19:59 support on this.
21:20:02 That's all I've got to say unless there's any
21:20:04 questions.
21:20:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Ulm, there are small dwarf type
21:20:11 palm trees that you can put in there interspersed with
21:20:14 landscaping.
21:20:15 I have them at my house.

21:20:16 They take years to grow.
21:20:18 They grow about this big.
21:20:19 They have got a small trunk, very, very pretty.
21:20:24 They -- I don't remember whether they are called queen
21:20:28 palms or whatever.
21:20:29 Very small.
21:20:30 They would look beautiful.
21:20:32 Just to give it a different ambience.
21:20:36 That's all I'm asking.
21:20:39 >>> How much space do you need for something like
21:20:41 that?
21:20:42 >>> Doesn't take but -- you could do it where your
21:20:47 hedges are.
21:20:47 You can remove some hedges out of there and put these
21:20:50 things right there where they grow.
21:20:52 They don't grow very tall.
21:20:54 They grow maybe, gosh, I have had mine in there three
21:20:57 years, and if they have grown two inches it's too
21:21:00 much.
21:21:00 But --
21:21:02 >>> We could do that on Columbus Boulevard.
21:21:04 On Dale Mabry, we really can't do anything more than

21:21:08 what's there now.
21:21:08 Right now, as far as the border grass that runs across
21:21:15 Dale Mabry, it's in a little bed.
21:21:18 It's maybe a couple of feet high.
21:21:22 If we could put some of these small palm trees and
21:21:26 have it contained and be healthy enough, two feet --
21:21:34 >> I'll take a pick them.
21:21:37 >>> We can't lose any more of that.
21:21:38 >> I'll take a picture and bring them to you.
21:21:43 >>CHAIRMAN: We need to move on.
21:21:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I counted 90 parking space as round
21:21:50 the perimeter.
21:21:51 90.
21:21:53 Wrote.
21:21:54 We are asking you to take six and put something in
21:21:56 there.
21:21:56 If the issue is irrigation, which it sounds like you
21:21:58 don't have irrigation, which is an issue, then you can
21:22:01 put things in containers.
21:22:02 There's a way to do this.
21:22:05 You're a very high profile, accessible person, have a
21:22:09 very high profile corner.

21:22:11 It's past due for you to take down the chain link
21:22:13 fence.
21:22:14 It's past due to make this la really good.
21:22:16 It's going to look great.
21:22:17 The landscaping is the icing on the cake.
21:22:19 It's not going to detract from your dealership.
21:22:22 It's going to add to it.
21:22:23 So what I would like to do is offer a substitute
21:22:25 motion to give you three weeks to come back and have a
21:22:30 chance to incorporate this.
21:22:31 I offered a substitute motion.
21:22:34 Mr. White said two weeks.
21:22:36 And I'll make a substitute motion to allow it to be
21:22:39 continued for three weeks, which would give them
21:22:41 additional time to rework the site plan.
21:22:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was the motion seconded, maaed a.m.
21:22:49 clerk?
21:22:49 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
21:22:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion died on the floor.
21:22:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I haven't had a chance to weigh in.
21:23:00 We all love trees.
21:23:01 But I think we have to -- I think that we have to

21:23:04 exercise business sense as well.
21:23:08 And I cannot support giving up six parking spots
21:23:14 for -- I think that's what you just mentioned.
21:23:20 So I will not support that.
21:23:22 I will support Mr. White's motion to continue it for
21:23:25 two weeks to go with the site plan that you have
21:23:27 presented tonight.
21:23:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion to --
21:23:32 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have a question on that motion then.
21:23:34 If Mr. Harrison is supporting his motion and they have
21:23:37 the site plan already, why do we have to wait two
21:23:39 weeks?
21:23:41 >> Because of the change.
21:23:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That issue is being addressed by
21:23:45 legal department.
21:23:48 And land development.
21:23:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: What's the date then if we do that, if
21:23:51 it's supported?
21:23:53 >>THE CLERK: Flee weeks would be November 16th.
21:23:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Two weeks then.
21:23:59 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to vote on Mrs.
21:24:01 Saul-Sena's motion.

21:24:02 All in favor of three weeks continuance say Aye.
21:24:04 Opposed, Nay.
21:24:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What was the vote?
21:24:12 >>THE CLERK: Miller, white, Ferlita voted no.
21:24:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I seconded it just to get it going.
21:24:20 I voted no.
21:24:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: November 9th, 10 a.m.
21:24:48 >> Second.
21:24:48 (Motion carried)
21:24:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: It doesn't matter how you yell.
21:24:59 It's the number that voted against it.
21:25:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I am going to get a picture of my palm
21:25:07 trees.
21:25:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you have that correct?
21:25:11 >>> Staff cannot accept the site plan tonight.
21:25:18 No later than ten on Monday.
21:25:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Land development tomorrow, but no later
21:25:27 than ten.
21:25:31 Land development before ten.
21:25:32 Okay.
21:25:35 >>GWEN MILLER: we have a motion to open item number
21:25:38 10.

21:25:38 (Motion carried).
21:25:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Ready.
21:27:10 >>> The following petition is Z 06-111 on 222 north
21:27:16 12th and 217 eleventh street in the Channel
21:27:19 District.
21:27:20 The petitioner is requesting rezoning from CD-1
21:27:24 Channel District to CD-3 Channel District, retail,
21:27:27 office, multifamily, residential and hotel.
21:27:30 There are four waivers associated with this petition.
21:27:32 One to reduce the required loading birth to 7 to 2.
21:27:37 Second to remove 100% of the protected trees on the
21:27:39 site.
21:27:40 Third to allow to use the off-street loading to
21:27:45 maneuver within the public right-of-way and the last
21:27:47 to reduce parking garage drive aisles from 26 feet to
21:27:50 24 feet.
21:27:54 The petitioner is proposing mixed use project.
21:28:03 16,310 square feet of office.
21:28:06 40, 000680 square feet of retail.
21:28:09 119 hotel rooms.
21:28:11 274 residential units including 138 studios.
21:28:17 31 bedroom and 106 two-bedroom units based on the

21:28:21 development scenario, 638 parking spaces would be
21:28:24 required and 731 are being provided in an 8-story
21:28:29 parking garage.
21:28:32 The 1.94-acre site is located between north 11th
21:28:36 and 12th Street, along Kennedy Boulevard, and also
21:28:41 listed several other projects that are going on in the
21:28:43 Channel District.
21:28:44 You have Grand Central to the north, palmos to the
21:28:51 north, and the parking garage.
21:28:53 I'm sorry, of the proposed site.
21:28:55 And this area is artist unlimited and a BP gas station
21:28:59 is also located over there.
21:29:06 Just -- this provides with you some pictures.
21:29:09 This is grand Centro currently under construction.
21:29:14 This is a view looking east from Kennedy.
21:29:22 The site to the east.
21:29:26 The subject site.
21:29:33 The 12th Street view of the subject site.
21:29:38 And further down 12th Street.
21:29:44 This is a view south on 12th Street towards The Towers
21:29:46 of Channelside.
21:29:49 And a have you north, the subject site.

21:29:53 Then Grand Central.
21:29:55 The petitioner is applying for proposed floor area
21:30:02 ratio of 4.9 that translates into an additional --
21:30:07 >> Do you have more?
21:30:08 We only have two site plans?
21:30:15 Shouldn't we have seven?
21:30:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Don't worry about it.
21:30:18 We're fine.
21:30:24 >>> We normally get three but when you open them up
21:30:27 it's very hard to all open them up at the same time.
21:30:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When it comes to books, though,
21:30:43 give us seven from now on.
21:30:56 >>> there's a bonus F.A.R. that translates to 127,000
21:31:01 square feet of density, bonus features which are
21:31:08 included in the bonus calculation that I provided you
21:31:10 includes public open space, applies to Kennedy
21:31:14 Boulevard, public open space on 12th Street, public
21:31:18 art which would be tower in the plaza area, extended
21:31:23 sidewalk area, enhanced landscaping, furnishings,
21:31:26 ground store retail.
21:31:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Question.
21:31:29 Ground floor retail is not listed in our list of

21:31:32 official trade-offs for increased F.A.R.
21:31:39 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Which are you referring to?
21:31:41 >> The one that our staff provided me.
21:31:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there are two differences.
21:31:50 The comprehensive plan I believe has been provided and
21:31:54 distributed to you and I believe that Ms. Coyle had
21:31:56 provided what she intends to bring back to council.
21:32:00 I believe it's on November 2nd.
21:32:03 >> But we haven't seen it yet.
21:32:05 >>> I don't know if she spoke to each of you
21:32:07 individually or not.
21:32:08 But she's intending to bring back a list or a
21:32:14 calculation that is consistent with implementation of
21:32:18 the comprehensive plan.
21:32:20 As you know, the periphery bonus is mentioned in the
21:32:24 comprehensive plan, but there is nothing commensurate
21:32:29 presently in the code in which to calculate.
21:32:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The thing we received from Florida
21:32:35 economic advisors says the ground floor retail is
21:32:38 valued at 2,297,000.
21:32:42 But it isn't something that we get points for.
21:32:48 >>> Legal department.

21:32:49 As it was explained to me -- and I don't -- I will let
21:32:54 the petitioner make their case but as this was
21:32:56 explained to me the ground floor retail is some sort
21:33:01 of incentive.
21:33:03 I'll let them explain it.
21:33:05 >> Let them explain.
21:33:06 >> I'll let them explain it.
21:33:07 But it could be that it falls under the density
21:33:12 credits.
21:33:12 It could be other innovative amenities or linkages.
21:33:16 >> I would say that an art gallery would be
21:33:20 innovative, performance state, studio space, living
21:33:23 space, things identified as important for the Channel
21:33:26 District.
21:33:26 The ground floor retail is something that we expect,
21:33:29 and shouldn't require subsidy because everyone will
21:33:36 want their ground floor subsidized.
21:33:40 Like residential, put in ground floor retail, and we
21:33:43 don't expect to be giving them extra density.
21:33:48 >> What you don't understand, every time we have one
21:33:50 of these there's a new item.
21:33:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know, it's very creative but it

21:33:55 not what we should be doing.
21:34:01 >>MICHAEL CHEN: Channel District CRA manager.
21:34:07 The ground floor retail incentive was part of the
21:34:11 strategic action plan released by Wilson Miller and
21:34:14 there is a value that is calculated against that.
21:34:20 >> I don't think that -- we have never used before.
21:34:23 And it's something I don't think we approved.
21:34:27 It was never approved before.
21:34:32 And it sets a very dangerous precedent for retail.
21:34:35 We can say we want retail, everybody is going to say
21:34:39 what are you going to give to us for it?
21:34:43 >>MICHAEL CHEN: That's fine.
21:34:45 All I can say is there was one of the listed bonus
21:34:48 incentives in the strategic action plan.
21:35:05 Fell feel the comprehensive plan doesn't actually have
21:35:07 the point system that's currently in there for the
21:35:09 calculation, the bonus provision, and that Cathy Coyle
21:35:11 is bringing the codified version of this in the next
21:35:15 few weeks.
21:35:17 So it's council's discretion.
21:35:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a copy of Cathy's listed and
21:35:28 ground floor retail is not on it.

21:35:33 It isn't.
21:35:33 I think it's a nice building.
21:35:35 I just don't think it's playing according to the rules
21:35:37 that we play by.
21:35:41 >>> And council can ask the petitioner to go ahead and
21:35:43 recalculate the bonus density without that and to
21:35:45 bring that back.
21:35:47 >> Or put it in something that we do approve.
21:35:52 >>> Cathy had reviewed what we have tonight, and found
21:35:55 that was consistent with the strategic action plan.
21:35:58 She had reviewed all the bonus provisions that are
21:36:00 coming forward to view tonight.
21:36:02 >>: Here?
21:36:03 >>> No, she is not.
21:36:04 She is out of town.
21:36:05 That's why I'm saying -- legal can address it.
21:36:13 >>: We'll just deal it with.
21:36:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Finish your presentation.
21:36:17 Let's move on.
21:36:18 >>> Okay.
21:36:21 The only objections are technical in nature and were
21:36:24 from landscape, as a reduction of 100% of the trees.

21:36:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission staff.
21:36:42 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:36:44 I have been sworn in.
21:36:47 Pretty simple as far as the regional mixed use 100.
21:36:52 This is a little bit north of really what you would
21:36:55 call the heart of the Channel District area.
21:37:00 I think Ms. Ferlita did a great job of giving you the
21:37:03 context of what the existing environment is around the
21:37:06 area, and of course the approved projects if you were
21:37:10 to look at the aerial, the first phase of the
21:37:15 development, the only one that's significant, under
21:37:34 existing character for the Channel District area.
21:37:37 Regarding the proposed request, and proposed F.A.R.,
21:37:41 which she has already given you specifically as far as
21:37:42 the number of residential units, as far as the density
21:37:45 and of course the intensity issue as relates to the
21:37:49 commercial uses on the site.
21:37:51 Proposed F.A.R. is for 4.9 F.A.R.
21:37:57 Of course, the applicant has submitted a CBD bonus
21:38:03 peripheral to city administration for consideration by
21:38:05 the appropriate people.
21:38:09 Regarding that, since the inception of the strategic

21:38:13 action plan, and subsequently the approval of the
21:38:18 original, I guess, project in the central business
21:38:20 district sets a precedent for you, voted for approval,
21:38:27 the project director to the south -- fur to the
21:38:30 southeast of that particular project provided an
21:38:32 avenue for an actual applicability of the point
21:38:37 system, and the point system is something that has to
21:38:39 be created and implemented by the city.
21:38:46 The comp plan basically talks about the CBD periphery
21:38:49 bonus itself that talks about you had a bonus
21:38:51 provision that has to be implemented via provisions in
21:38:55 the Land Development Code.
21:38:58 That is, I would still have to say, an evolving
21:39:00 process but one that I think continuing negotiation
21:39:04 with the city administration.
21:39:05 Planning Commission's recommendation on this is
21:39:07 predicated on city administration finding the proposed
21:39:11 CBD periphery bonus analysis and also provided by the
21:39:14 applicant sufficient in accordance with the requested
21:39:17 F.A.R. figure.
21:39:18 Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent
21:39:20 with the provisions of the Tampa comprehensive plan

21:39:23 and would not object with the proposed request based
21:39:26 on that.
21:39:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tony, just to get some
21:39:32 clarification on what Mrs. Saul-Sena was talking
21:39:34 about, in the current approved comprehensive plan, as
21:39:38 re-- is retail listed as one of the bonus criteria?
21:39:44 >>> If you were to look at the existing listing over
21:39:46 here --
21:39:49 >> That's why I asked you.
21:39:50 >> I think she has it.
21:39:59 Other innovative amenity or other linkages --
21:40:04 >> That's the catch y'all that we want to hide that
21:40:06 under?
21:40:07 >> Yes, sir.
21:40:08 I would have to concur with her on that.
21:40:11 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
21:40:24 >>> Good evening, council members.
21:40:26 I have not been sworn in this evening.
21:40:27 I was sworn in this afternoon.
21:40:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that came in late, would you
21:40:34 please stand and raise your right hand?
21:40:35 (Oath administered by Clerk).

21:40:42 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 south Boulevard here on behalf
21:40:44 of the applicant, Channelside holding LLC.
21:40:49 I have with me this evening representatives from
21:40:57 Finergy, Mr. Gagliarni.
21:41:01 I have Dennis Carr and Richard Vangali who will do a
21:41:08 presentation in a moment.
21:41:10 We also have representatives from Wilson Miller,
21:41:12 Michael English and Marcy Fennmark, and I think the
21:41:16 staff did an excellent job providing you all with an
21:41:19 overview.
21:41:20 So I won't dwell on that.
21:41:21 I would just like to speak briefly to the technical
21:41:27 objection regarding the removal of trees.
21:41:29 I believe we have actually satisfied their concerns by
21:41:34 proposing mitigation through enhanced landscaping.
21:41:37 And I think the staff does concur in that.
21:41:40 We'll be happy to deal with that in more detail later
21:41:43 if you have any questions.
21:41:46 Regarding the retail, the strategic action plan, as
21:41:50 Mr. Chen indicated, specifically lists retail as a
21:41:54 bonus item.
21:41:55 More importantly, as of last week, we were in

21:41:59 discussion with Cathy Coyle and she specifically
21:42:02 approved the retail as part of the bonus proposal for
21:42:06 this project, and that approval is reflected in the
21:42:09 staff report, which is before you this evening.
21:42:13 With respect to Ms. Saul-Sena, you are dealing with a
21:42:18 procedure none of which is reflected in an adopted
21:42:22 ordinance.
21:42:22 You have a strategic action plan which sets the
21:42:25 framework for this bonus that's been -- that's what we
21:42:29 in the public have been working from.
21:42:32 I have not seen a list prepared by Cathy.
21:42:36 All we would have is the strategic action.
21:42:38 Apparently we understand council endorsed some months
21:42:41 ago.
21:42:41 And we believe in fairness to this applicant and
21:42:44 others, we should be allowed to proceed under the
21:42:48 documents that have been given to us, and again I
21:42:51 would say specifically, we did deal with Cathy.
21:42:54 She never even alluded to the fact that that might not
21:42:57 be an eligible criterian and we are of course relying
21:43:02 on the language in the strategic plan.
21:43:06 With that, I would like to ask Mr. Dennis Corn to

21:43:13 present the site plan and architectural plans for the
21:43:15 building.
21:43:16 Thank you.
21:43:20 >> Dennis Carr, urban city architect, 655 North
21:43:23 Franklin Street.
21:43:27 Yes, I have been sworn.
21:43:31 We are just going to talk about the aesthetics
21:43:36 statistically.
21:43:36 Staff did a good job of orienting to you where the
21:43:39 site is but we will go ahead and quickly run over
21:43:41 that.
21:43:42 It's in the north central part of the district
21:43:45 fronting on Kennedy, 12th Avenue, 12th Street to
21:43:49 the east, 11th street to the west.
21:43:51 And you can see this is a close-up view of the ground
21:43:55 floor plan.
21:43:56 This is a view looking southwest.
21:43:59 It actually shows every project you see here in the
21:44:01 background in terms of light gray is an approved
21:44:06 project and then this is our project here facing
21:44:10 Kennedy, facing grand Centro, Ybor square and The
21:44:16 Towers of Channelside in the background.

21:44:19 This is another graphic.
21:44:21 And you can see -- I don't know if you can see it from
21:44:27 here but this is an eastern elevation of the entire
21:44:29 district where we start with the Channelside retail
21:44:34 project, the aquarium, this is Cumberland Avenue,
21:44:37 Whiting, Washington, all the way north to the 30-story
21:44:43 approve towers there.
21:44:44 This is Martin.
21:44:45 The grand Centro.
21:44:50 This is our project.
21:44:51 So that sort of gives you a good concept -- context
21:44:56 for the project.
21:45:13 So if I can go ahead and go through the entire-this is
21:45:18 a mixed use project.
21:45:19 It's quite complex actually it has retail, office,
21:45:23 hotel, and residential units.
21:45:26 Pretty much the entire ground floor plan is retail,
21:45:30 except for some of the open spaces that you see here
21:45:34 that I will go through quickly.
21:45:35 This is Kennedy Boulevard.
21:45:37 And when thought that it was important to set some of
21:45:41 the mass of this building back.

21:45:44 I think that's about 50 feet to create an urban plaza.
21:45:47 You can see that here.
21:45:49 It's a model.
21:45:50 There is a small one-story retail space here.
21:45:52 We call it retail for now but a restaurant with a
21:45:56 stair tower that leads to a terrace above that
21:45:59 restaurant.
21:46:00 And that could be probably part of the same tenant.
21:46:04 The idea is that this tower would become public art
21:46:08 only.
21:46:09 So it's not totally designed.
21:46:11 It's sort of a place holder at this point.
21:46:13 But that would be a nice -- to sort of break up this
21:46:18 plaza.
21:46:18 Also to the south, we have a public park, privately
21:46:23 owned by public park that we'll get into more detail
21:46:26 later.
21:46:27 We have a plan showing that.
21:46:28 Basically the way it's broken up is that this is hotel
21:46:35 and this is the hotel vertical circulation.
21:46:37 This bar here that you see the taller portion is
21:46:41 condo.

21:46:42 And this is the circulation for that.
21:46:46 With retail working around this plaza with the covered
21:46:50 arcade.
21:46:51 This is planned to be a large retail, hopefully
21:46:55 grocery with a small cafe on the end.
21:46:59 That also has an arcade.
21:47:01 So if we were to travel up the building here is the
21:47:10 second floor plan.
21:47:10 We get into parking.
21:47:12 So what we have done is wrap the eastern and northern
21:47:16 parts of the building with units, and office for the
21:47:20 first floors two and three, and this was already --
21:47:26 already has units in here for the condo tower.
21:47:29 As we step up the 9th floor is actually the
21:47:33 amenities, sitting over -- we call at three-story
21:47:37 garage but the garage itself is 7 stories, the first
21:47:39 stories being retail.
21:47:41 That's the amenity deck which makes sense with the
21:47:43 angle of the sun, want to allow access to that.
21:47:47 And then this last piece here is what you see here,
21:47:50 this is a 25-story portion, that is five units per
21:47:54 level.

21:47:56 This is a 17 story portion.
21:47:59 The hotel is eleven.
21:48:00 And again the garage is eight.
21:48:04 So these are closer-in view us not of the entire
21:48:09 district but a little closer to give you an idea of
21:48:12 what's going on, because the model is a massing model.
21:48:16 It's mono chromatic.
21:48:17 Again, here is the plaza facing Kennedy, the one-story
21:48:23 retail portion, and then the stair tower.
21:48:26 This is a 25-story tower.
21:48:30 You can see by looking at this, you know, we were
21:48:33 given a large program, were given a very complex mixed
21:48:36 use project.
21:48:37 What we trade to do is really break it down within
21:48:40 this block, and got basically a square with a small
21:48:43 L-shape that, you know, really pick your massing.
21:48:49 You know, we thought that this corner, the northeast
21:48:51 corner, was best for the point tower, we'll call it,
21:48:55 and that everything else sorted of eroded beyond that.
21:49:04 This is the image that has been up since the
21:49:06 beginning. You are actually standing on the Ventana
21:49:08 site here looking south west.

21:49:10 And you can see Grand Central ghosted in the front.
21:49:13 But this shows basically the 12th Street and Kennedy
21:49:19 view.
21:49:19 And what I'll start to do now is talk about the
21:49:23 exterior material.
21:49:26 Basically, it would be the structure is concrete with
21:49:33 retention slab.
21:49:34 The exterior from the second floor up would be either
21:49:38 pre-test concrete painted or CMU with stucco and
21:49:43 painted.
21:49:44 But what we wanted to do was create some lines in the
21:49:47 building that you can see better in this view.
21:49:50 The first two floors for the most part are masonry
21:49:54 unit, basically brick.
21:49:57 What we started with is sort of the old Tampa soft
21:50:03 brick.
21:50:03 Beyond that we get up to the 8th story.
21:50:05 There's another line.
21:50:06 And we also break it up vertically.
21:50:08 And you can see that in the model.
21:50:11 Because of these large spaces, break it up vertically
21:50:17 colorwise.

21:50:18 Turn this around.
21:50:19 This is the southwest portion.
21:50:21 That's actually the entrance to the parking garage.
21:50:25 This is the southern portion.
21:50:26 There's an adjacent site here just six feet off of our
21:50:30 building.
21:50:30 And then this is the park space.
21:50:33 And then this is the 12th Street elevation with the
21:50:37 garage coming out.
21:50:39 The first story being -- the second story being units.
21:50:46 Looking along the Kennedy side.
21:50:49 So we are talking about materials, the garage, the way
21:50:55 we have chosen to design the garage is because, you
21:50:59 know, it's a necessity, unfortunately.
21:51:02 But we tried to hide it back in this corner, which we
21:51:05 really feel that Kennedy is the frontage, the most
21:51:09 important.
21:51:10 And also the first two stories for the most part are
21:51:13 taken up with at least something other than cars.
21:51:20 So we have broken down the modules, very similar to
21:51:22 that of the Kennedy elevation.
21:51:24 So we are really carrying that whole pattern all the

21:51:28 way across.
21:51:29 This would be precast, infilled with some sort of
21:51:33 architectural metal, grill work.
21:51:39 And then we'll start to get into a little closer view,
21:51:42 some more detail.
21:51:43 This is off of 11th street.
21:51:47 The hotel entrance, and what we have is a pull-off
21:51:53 area, parallel parking, loading and unloading.
21:51:56 And the hotel entrance here, with a metal canopy,
21:52:00 sorted of creating a horizontal plain.
21:52:04 We are going to propose to you pretty bright colors to
21:52:06 sort of engage people.
21:52:08 You can -- I don't know if you can pick up from this
21:52:11 view the -- of course the landscaping in the
21:52:15 right-of-way would be AP action plan.
21:52:23 This is a closer-in view of the plaza on Kennedy.
21:52:28 So there are really two public spaces.
21:52:30 There's a plaza on Kennedy and then the southern part.
21:52:33 The Kennedy plaza is -- they are really studies in
21:52:37 contrast.
21:52:38 The plaza is mostly hardscape to allow a grid of trees
21:52:44 to create sort of a box, much like that of Bank of

21:52:46 America tower, TECO plaza, just a nice space to sit
21:52:52 under.
21:52:52 And that's a very urban space.
21:52:54 The space to the south, however, is a little looser, a
21:52:58 little more artful.
21:53:02 What we have done is create a hard space right in
21:53:04 front of this cafe, get people off the street into
21:53:09 that, and again some more trees.
21:53:11 But then really bring the swath of green space in here
21:53:15 with the back drop being landscape, a little more
21:53:21 control, with water features spilling out into a pool.
21:53:26 You can see from my views and some of these images
21:53:29 that night writing the pool with the landscape
21:53:36 elements, the glass would be -- we are thinking
21:53:38 recycled glass, and sort of texture to that.
21:53:46 Richard, do you want to add anything?
21:53:52 We have flat elevation.
21:53:56 >>GWEN MILLER: You did a great job.
21:53:58 Any questions by council members?
21:53:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's a pleasure to see such an
21:54:03 attractive design.
21:54:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's go to the public.

21:54:06 Does anyone in the public want to speak on item number
21:54:09 10?
21:54:09 Anyone want to speak on item number 10?
21:54:12 Please get up and come up and line up so we can move
21:54:14 it on.
21:54:18 >>DAVID MECHANIK: If I might, I have Mr. English to
21:54:20 speak to one small issue on the retail bonus.
21:54:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After he does that I want to ask
21:54:30 our city attorney some questions about it.
21:54:35 >>> Madam Chairman, you are not confusing period of
21:54:37 transition with Channel District plan.
21:54:39 >> Name on the record, please.
21:54:41 >>> I'm sorry.
21:54:41 Michael English.
21:54:44 I have been sworn.
21:54:45 Thank you.
21:54:47 You adopted the strategic plan but you don't have an