TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, September 10, 2015
5:30 p.m.
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software
compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
17:13:32
17:32:16 [Sounding gavel]
17:32:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Good evening.
17:32:21 We are going to call this meeting to order.
17:32:23 Roll call.
17:32:26 Miranda here.
17:32:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
17:32:29 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Present.
17:32:30 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
17:32:30 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
17:32:35 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
17:32:35 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
17:32:38 I wanted to let everyone know, I am going to be
17:32:43 excusing myself from item number 4 because my
17:32:46 father and uncle are petitioners.
17:32:49 I had understood now that number 1 and number 2
17:32:52 which are area rezonings are adjacent to that so I
17:32:56 am going to also excuse myself from those and, as
17:33:01 a result, I will see you back here at item number
17:33:04 5 since item number 3 is not going.
17:33:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record, Mr. Cohen will
17:33:13 be able to file the appropriate document at the
17:33:17 next regular meeting.
17:33:21 MARY SAMANIEGO: Land Development Coordination.
17:33:25 Items number 1 and 2 which are area-wide rezonings
17:33:30 REZ 15-52 and 53 were set for 5:30 this evening.
17:33:35 However, the applicant noticed for 6:00 this
17:33:38 evening, so I respectfully request that these
17:33:42 items are forwarded --
17:33:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item number 1 and 2?
17:33:48 MARY SAMANIEGO: Yes, sir.
17:33:54 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
17:33:56 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Hill, Ward, Henderson, suite 3700
17:33:59 Bank of America Plaza on behalf of the applicant
17:34:01 on number 1 and 2.
17:34:03 The official letter received from the clerk said
17:34:06 the notice is 6:00.
17:34:08 When the agenda came out 6:00 but can came out
17:34:12 5:30. You can always go later.
17:34:14 You can't go earlier.
17:34:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
17:34:20 Anyone here wants to speak on item number 1 or
17:34:25 number 2?
17:34:27 All right.
17:34:29 Then in this case we stand adjourned until 6:00.
18:02:44 >>> [Recess]
18:02:45
18:02:46 [Sounding gavel]
18:02:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: I am going to call this meeting
18:02:54 to order.
18:02:58 Roll call.
18:03:00 Miranda here.
18:03:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Present.
18:03:05 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
18:03:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.
18:03:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
18:03:10 All right, staff, anything you need to clean up?
18:03:12 MARY SAMANIEGO: Yes, sir.
18:03:16 Land Development Coordination.
18:03:17 Item number 3 on your agenda cannot be heard
18:03:20 because they failed to perfect notice.
18:03:22 So they will be set for a future meeting.
18:03:26 Item number 5 on your agenda they sent a letter to
18:03:29 the clerk requesting a continuance.
18:03:33 We have room available on our November 12th
18:03:35 hearing night.
18:03:38 I believe the applicant is here to speak on this
18:03:41 if you would like.
18:03:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
18:03:53 We will open the public hearing.
18:03:56 Miranda move to open the public hearing 1 through
18:03:58 9.
18:03:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Mr. Miranda.
18:04:00 Second by Mrs. Capin.
18:04:01 All in favor?
18:04:02 Opposed?
18:04:03 Anyone going to speak on item 1 through 9 please
18:04:06 stand to be sworn in.
18:04:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, if I can bring to
18:04:10 your attention, my understanding is people who are
18:04:12 outside and perhaps downstairs in the Mascotte
18:04:14 room, there's an overflow crowd.
18:04:18 (Oath administered by Clerk)
18:04:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item number 1.
18:04:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, forgive me, did
18:04:36 you want to take up the continuance on item number
18:04:39 5 first?
18:04:42 And remove 3?
18:04:44 I would ask the clerk, requesting to remove number
18:04:48 2 from the agenda.
18:04:49 >> So moved.
18:04:50 >> Second.
18:04:51 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Mrs. Montelione Lon.
18:04:53 Second by Mrs. Capin.
18:04:54 All in favor?
18:04:55 Opposed?
18:04:56 All right.
18:04:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you wish to hear from the
18:04:58 petitioner on number 5?
18:05:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Petitioner on number 5.
18:05:05 Item number 5.
18:05:05 >> [Off microphone.]
18:05:32 >> I assume we are talking about Luana.
18:05:41 >> Before we start, you need to be sworn in.
18:05:43 >> I do need to be sworn in.
18:05:47 (Oath administered by Clerk).
18:05:50 >> I do.
18:05:51 I'm the representative of the applicant.
18:05:53 I understand there are some issues with staff and
18:05:56 the Planning Commission about the use.
18:05:58 We would request a continuance.
18:06:04 We have till December.
18:06:05 We are competent we can develop a plan and work
18:06:08 with staff and we would like the additional time.
18:06:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Did you say December?
18:06:13 >> Yes, if council will permit.
18:06:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: We had been informed you
18:06:20 requested to November 12th.
18:06:21 >> I believe my client would request the
18:06:25 additional time.
18:06:26 We want to make sure we get this plan right.
18:06:29 And I believe staff offered.
18:06:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: Do we have anything in November?
18:06:37 I mean December?
18:06:38 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
18:06:40 Right now tentatively December has nine items but
18:06:42 you typically would allow for three continuances
18:06:45 to get to your 13.
18:06:46 So we do have space available, yes.
18:06:54 December 10th.
18:06:54 >> Move to continue to December 10th.
18:06:58 >> Second.
18:07:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Mrs. Montelione Lon.
18:07:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 6:00 in the evening.
18:07:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Mrs. Montelione Lon.
18:07:05 Second by Mrs. Capin.
18:07:07 All in favor?
18:07:08 All right.
18:07:10 We go to item number 9.
18:07:13 It set for public hearing.
18:07:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, there's a
18:07:24 request for a continuance to December 24 B by Mr.
18:07:30 Amarnani.
18:07:32 I don't know if that's correct or not.
18:07:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: Is petitioner here on item number
18:07:36 9?
18:07:37 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: City staff requested a
18:07:43 continuance to September 24.
18:07:47 >> Move to 6 p.m. on September 24.
18:07:50 >> motion by Mrs. Montelione Lon, second by Mr.
18:07:52 Miranda.
18:07:54 In favor?
18:07:54 Opposed?
18:07:55 All right.
18:07:56 Anyone here to speak on item number 9?
18:07:58 All right.
18:07:59 Seeing none, we go to item number 1.
18:08:01 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Land Development Coordination.
18:08:10 Three of the petitions we have tonight are related
18:08:12 so I ask that we open all three of them at once.
18:08:15 They are all adjoining properties.
18:08:17 Item 1, REZ 15-52.
18:08:22 REZ 15-53.
18:08:24 And item 4, REZ 15-51.
18:08:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: We opened all of them.
18:08:31 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Thank you.
18:08:34 REZ 15-52 and 15-53 are at 4712 and 4714 west
18:08:43 Pearl Avenue.
18:08:43 Both of those properties back were a portion of a
18:08:46 larger rezoning to a planned development which is
18:08:48 the same area that was REZ 15-47.
18:08:54 Because of a change in the project, those pro
18:08:56 properties at 14-12, 1414 are no longer part of
18:09:00 the PD.
18:09:01 So it's all being amended.
18:09:04 They are requesting to rezone an area wide
18:09:07 rezoning back to RS-50.
18:09:11 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
18:09:17 I have been sworn.
18:09:19 The three cases that we are discussing --
18:09:24 >> I'm sorry, before we get started, happy
18:09:27 birthday.
18:09:27 >>DAVID HAY: Thank you.
18:09:34 The three cases.
18:09:35 They are located within the South Tampa urban
18:09:40 South Tampa planning district.
18:09:41 Excuse me.
18:09:42 They are located near the northeast corner of
18:09:45 South Westshore Boulevard and west Pearl Avenue.
18:09:52 There is transit along Westshore Boulevard, and
18:09:56 that connects the three subjects sites to downtown
18:09:59 Tampa and to port of Tampa city and all three
18:10:03 sites are within the level B evacuation zone.
18:10:06 Onto the aerial.
18:10:09 This is the first site the .26-acre subject site.
18:10:16 The other site that's going to RS-50 zoning
18:10:22 district, the house directly to the east of these
18:10:25 two parcels are going to the RS-50 zoning district
18:10:29 and then the larger is the larger planned
18:10:34 development.
18:10:38 I'll describe the area.
18:10:39 This is Tyson Avenue.
18:10:43 We have South Westshore.
18:10:44 There's townhomes to the north and to the
18:10:46 northwest.
18:10:48 The Westshore Yacht Club is located down to the
18:10:53 southwest.
18:10:54 And we have some commercial uses on the south side
18:10:59 of the CSX railroad right-of-way that runs along
18:11:02 the bottom of the REZ 15-54.
18:11:10 Onto the future land use map.
18:11:12 The two subject sites that are going to RS-50 and
18:11:16 the larger PD that's here, all of that CMU 35
18:11:21 future land use category.
18:11:23 We have some urban mixed use 60 directly across
18:11:25 the street.
18:11:26 And then the tan color the residential 10.
18:11:32 Planning Commission staff found that the proposed
18:11:35 rezonings to RS-50, the two sites, would be
18:11:40 compatible and comparable to that development
18:11:42 pattern, that single-family detached development
18:11:44 pattern located to the east of Sun Bay South.
18:11:48 The larger planned development is also consistent
18:11:54 with the multifamily vision under that CMU 35.
18:12:02 So all three zoning cases were consistent with the
18:12:05 Tampa comprehensive plan.
18:12:09 If you have any questions.
18:12:12 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Thank you, David.
18:12:22 Mary Samaniego for the record.
18:12:29 I'll briefly go over the aerial.
18:12:32 Here is the subject property for the overall PD
18:12:34 and these are the two houses that would be
18:12:36 converted from the PD back to RS-50.
18:12:42 Here on the zoning map you can see this line that
18:12:46 includes the two residential lots.
18:12:47 Part of the original PD.
18:12:50 Those two lots are no longer part of the project
18:12:52 and will be converted back to RS-50 which is the
18:12:55 new overall encompassing area and then the PD is
18:12:58 being amended through REZ 15-51 to be in the green
18:13:02 area.
18:13:07 Photographs of the subject property.
18:13:11 The subject property looking from the corner of
18:13:14 Westshore and Tyson.
18:13:16 Going down Westshore, there's some old quonset
18:13:24 huts.
18:13:24 There's a shot of some of the structures on the
18:13:27 subject property.
18:13:29 Here is a shot looking to the south of the subject
18:13:32 property.
18:13:33 There's a PVC fence, the railroad tracks, and then
18:13:36 some of the townhomes that have been recently
18:13:38 constructed.
18:13:41 In this area in this larger PD back here.
18:13:45 Here is the subject property looking again.
18:13:48 This is Pearl.
18:13:48 This is Westshore.
18:13:51 From Pearl looking into the subject property.
18:13:55 Driveway cut into the subject property.
18:13:59 This is looking down Westshore towards the north.
18:14:03 This property is 4714 which is the subject
18:14:09 property of REZ 15-52, your item number 1.
18:14:13 This is next door, continuing to the east.
18:14:17 This is 4712 which is REZ 15-53, again to be
18:14:21 converted back to the RS-50 zoning district.
18:14:24 These are adjoining properties further down Pearl
18:14:27 on the same side of the road and across the
18:14:29 street.
18:14:29 And then there's this directly across the street
18:14:33 from the residential properties 4712 and 4714
18:14:37 multifamily development.
18:14:40 Now we are going across Westshore and looking in
18:14:43 this area.
18:14:46 These are apartments across Westshore.
18:14:49 An open field.
18:14:50 And then directly to the south of the subject
18:14:53 property is an industrial warehousing use.
18:14:59 I do have a handout for REZ 15-51.
18:15:07 A row vision to this -- an amendment for
18:15:10 clarification.
18:15:11 Just a note to be added regarding the
18:15:16 specifications.
18:15:20 As I said previously, the larger project is an
18:15:26 amendment to the previously planned development
18:15:28 which is REZ 14-24, which was two multifamily
18:15:34 buildings, totaling 275 units.
18:15:38 Now the proposal before you this evening is for
18:15:42 three multifamily buildings as opposed to the 275.
18:15:48 As far as waivers, the waivers carried over from
18:15:51 the previous rezoning.
18:15:53 And there are no new waivers associated with the
18:15:56 proposal.
18:16:00 There will be main entrances for the site plan at
18:16:05 the Westshore --.
18:16:10 The main entrance will be off of Westshore.
18:16:12 There will be a secondary entrance off of Pearl.
18:16:14 This is one main structure with first floor
18:16:20 parking and then some on-street parking here,
18:16:24 on-site parking, rather, here.
18:16:26 A second building is in this area.
18:16:28 A third building is over here.
18:16:30 And then there's a large stand of trees to the
18:16:33 direct east that will be preserved with this
18:16:35 application.
18:16:37 Principally it's the same design that you approved
18:16:39 back in 2014.
18:16:41 Other than that I have no further comments.
18:16:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions by council?
18:16:48 Petitioner?
18:16:56 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I practice at the Hill, Ward,
18:16:59 Henderson firm.
18:17:01 My address is suite 3700 Bank of America plaza. I
18:17:07 would like to put the site plan on the easel.
18:17:13 This is my markup that I illustrated in blue, the
18:17:44 building footprint.
18:17:45 You can appreciate the location of the building a
18:17:49 little better and I highlighted several conditions
18:17:51 that I will briefly mention to you in my
18:17:53 presentation.
18:17:54 This evening, I represent ABC capital and I'm also
18:17:58 here handling the rezoning of items 1 and 2.
18:18:02 Those two parcels were in the previous rezoning we
18:18:05 did with 275 units.
18:18:07 We are now zoning them back to RS-50.
18:18:18 Properties CMU 35, 35 units per acre.
18:18:22 They have come out of the project.
18:18:23 The remainder that we are still going to develop
18:18:26 is CMU 35 with a PD.
18:18:29 A few highlights that you need to be aware of,
18:18:33 install a bus stop.
18:18:34 We put significant buffering or setbacks on the
18:18:37 north property line.
18:18:39 This is single-family residential along Pearl.
18:18:42 It measures 78 feet and 80 feet.
18:18:45 We have 120 feet over towards Trask of open area.
18:18:51 We saved three grand trees and large plots of
18:18:56 trees here also to add to the buffering.
18:18:59 Parking which is always an issue in these
18:19:02 projects.
18:19:04 We are planning parking at 329 spaces.
18:19:07 329 spaces are required.
18:19:09 The unit count varies a little bit.
18:19:17 Depending upon the number of bedrooms.
18:19:25 There are 28 efficiencies, 168 one- two-bedroom
18:19:31 units, spread over these three buildings.
18:19:33 It's important to note that they are .83.
18:19:39 That's almost three quarters of one, a little more
18:19:43 than three quarters of one when you have a right
18:19:45 to build two times the acreage and we have five
18:19:48 acres here.
18:19:49 So this is a very low intensity manageable density
18:19:55 development in the Westshore area.
18:19:59 Let me summarize one other issue.
18:20:02 The site plan shows a six foot fence on the north
18:20:05 boundary.
18:20:06 We have spoken with one of the owners.
18:20:13 It's on the map right here.
18:20:19 That is acceptable and we will place that on the
18:20:20 site plan as a revision.
18:20:24 There are also findings in the staff report --
18:20:29 pardon me for a moment.
18:20:34 On page 3 at the top there are some revisions that
18:20:38 need to be installed.
18:20:39 We can do those revisions after the tree table and
18:20:42 80% for parking structures to take the massing out
18:20:46 of the parking structure.
18:20:48 We can do that also.
18:20:49 And then Ms. Samaniego provided a revised
18:20:53 condition dated December 10th from Jonathan
18:20:57 Scott on the transportation note, provides for the
18:21:01 mitigation fee of $554 per unit which we will pay
18:21:06 for improvements in the immediate vicinity and
18:21:08 also impact fees that's going to the general fund
18:21:10 and also through infrastructure repair.
18:21:13 This is also -- I forgot the acronym, but
18:21:20 stormwater SWAC project which improves to
18:21:27 stormwater relations and facilities south of
18:21:29 Gandy.
18:21:32 Just one moment.
18:21:35 We have met with the neighborhood.
18:21:40 We have we also have an official from the
18:21:46 condominium across the street also, project.
18:21:50 I will close now, reserve the rest of my comments
18:21:53 for rebuttal.
18:21:54 Thank you.
18:21:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from council?
18:21:56 All right.
18:21:57 Anyone -- okay.
18:22:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have one quick question.
18:22:05 The reason we are taking these two parcels how the
18:22:07 is the decision was made not to maximize the space
18:22:12 that was already a PD?
18:22:16 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Right.
18:22:16 The PD we did last summer.
18:22:18 The project was recast at 194 units instead of
18:22:23 275, and it was no longer necessary.
18:22:26 We are obliged to return them to the previous
18:22:29 owner.
18:22:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I want to make sure that's the
18:22:32 reason why we are reducing the number of units you
18:22:34 have from the previous one.
18:22:36 >> Yes.
18:22:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.
18:22:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone from the public wishing to
18:22:43 speak on item 1 or 2?
18:22:51 >> Good evening.
18:22:52 My name is Rene Ruggiero, 1463 Citrus Street,
18:22:56 Clearwater, Florida.
18:22:57 I'm here this evening with Mr. Chris van Sims and
18:23:03 Mr. Polermo who are the neighboring properties to
18:23:06 this project.
18:23:09 The owners of property 4712 west Pearl Avenue and
18:23:13 4714 west Pearl Avenue.
18:23:16 The owners wanted to be in attendance tonight to
18:23:20 somewhat talk about the proposed amendment from PD
18:23:28 to the RS 50.
18:23:30 Both properties were originally envision dollars
18:23:33 as part of the 196 unit apartment complex.
18:23:37 It's a planned development and it's directly
18:23:39 adjacent to the properties to the west and the
18:23:41 south.
18:23:43 After the initial rezoning of the PD for the
18:23:47 preliminary submission, the developer then
18:23:50 determined that these gentlemen's property was not
18:23:53 necessary for their design.
18:23:57 So they are now log at their pieces of property
18:24:00 that are adjacent to a larger scale multifamily
18:24:07 complex.
18:24:08 So they have a few concerns with how this is
18:24:14 working.
18:24:15 As indicated on the zoning map that were before
18:24:18 you earlier, the property directly across from
18:24:23 their site is PD and it's 3-story apartment
18:24:28 building.
18:24:29 The property to the south of them is PD as well as
18:24:35 to the west.
18:24:38 They are at this point really engulfed by than
18:24:41 multifamily development, from their front door
18:24:44 forward.
18:24:45 It's completely engulfed by multifamily.
18:24:48 So what they would like to do is, if possible, to
18:24:54 consider having it zoned to a higher district to
18:24:57 allow a higher density instead of the RS-50.
18:25:00 We would like to see if it's possible for the
18:25:05 council to consider perhaps to give them a few
18:25:11 more units on this property.
18:25:14 When we are looking at this plan, when their
18:25:19 properties were a part of the project, obviously
18:25:22 when you are part of the project you have no --
18:25:26 there are some things you would not object to.
18:25:28 But now if you are a single-family house
18:25:31 immediately adjacent to this, with a five-foot
18:25:35 buffer to the west, from parking, driveways, so
18:25:40 forth, their opinion on this project is a little
18:25:42 bit different.
18:25:43 They don't want to necessarily object to the
18:25:45 project, but if it remains single-family there,
18:25:51 then it's really not appropriate for them.
18:25:53 (Bell sounds).
18:25:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Miranda?
18:25:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18:25:58 Let me see if I can understand what I am hearing.
18:26:01 That part is now out of that PD from whoever
18:26:03 wanted to buy the property, bought the property,
18:26:06 but evidently from what you said they didn't buy
18:26:08 the property.
18:26:09 They are here.
18:26:10 >> They decided they did not --
18:26:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand.
18:26:14 I can't speak for the other council members, but I
18:26:16 don't think I have the right to rezone anybody's
18:26:18 property without them petitioning for that
18:26:20 rezoning.
18:26:21 And there's where our dilemma is.
18:26:23 I can understand what I have before me and what
18:26:27 the different items between first and second
18:26:32 reading the cleaning up of whatever may or may not
18:26:35 happen in today's evening meeting.
18:26:37 But I can't say to you or anyone else that
18:26:40 certainly I am going to rezone that property, even
18:26:42 though the odds -- I can't calculate, but they
18:26:45 certainly look like they are in your favor.
18:26:47 So what I am saying is I can't rezone somebody's
18:26:50 property that they themselves haven't petitioned
18:26:52 to rezone.
18:26:53 That's where I'm at.
18:26:56 As far as your clients, I'm talking about.
18:26:58 >> Thank you, chairman.
18:27:06 I think I need to clarify for a minute where we
18:27:08 are because this is a somewhat unusual process
18:27:11 that is in fact provided for in your code.
18:27:14 You hardly ever see this probably for good reason,
18:27:17 but your code does provide a process called an
18:27:20 area zoning that allows for a third party to come
18:27:23 in and petition to rezone another person's
18:27:30 property.
18:27:30 And that is the process that we are in for items 1
18:27:34 and 2.
18:27:35 I do understand what the property owners are
18:27:37 saying, which is that they are not necessarily
18:27:41 objecting.
18:27:41 I don't want to put words in your mouth.
18:27:43 But what I heard them saying is they would like
18:27:47 Tampa City Council to consider a request that is
18:27:48 not before City Council tonight.
18:27:50 The request is to take these two properties back
18:27:53 to RS-50 rather than to a multifamily.
18:27:57 That's not the request before you so you can't
18:28:00 consider that request.
18:28:01 You have to request the request before you on the
18:28:03 basis of how the courts set the standards for
18:28:07 review of rezoning which is that the petitioner
18:28:10 has the burden to prove that the proposal is
18:28:12 consistent with the local government zoning
18:28:15 ordinance.
18:28:17 Once that burden is met, if it is met, then the
18:28:20 burden shifts to the government to demonstrate
18:28:22 that maintaining the existing classification,
18:28:24 which is the part of the PD, may handle legitimate
18:28:28 public purpose.
18:28:29 The property owner could potentially come in with
18:28:31 their own rezoning to multifamily, or the
18:28:36 possibility that the application that's pending
18:28:38 could be amended.
18:28:39 It would have to be continued obviously, but those
18:28:42 are really the only two options rather than going
18:28:44 forward with what you have before you tonight.
18:28:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mrs. Capin?
18:28:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I think she answered.
18:28:51 I was going to ask staff to weigh in on this.
18:28:53 So thank you.
18:28:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mrs. Montelione Lon?
18:28:56 >> Good evening.
18:29:00 Al Steenson, 4100 west Leila Avenue, tonight
18:29:06 representing Gandy Sun Bay South civic
18:29:08 association.
18:29:09 And yes, sir, I have been sworn.
18:29:12 The association did not meet in the months of July
18:29:14 and August, and knowing this was coming up, we had
18:29:19 a long discussion about this in our June meeting,
18:29:22 had the folks from ABC capital there, and they
18:29:27 then voted to support this particular item, and in
18:29:33 order to save time, I will simply say that our
18:29:36 position on item 1 and item 2 is exactly the same
18:29:39 as it is on item 1, and that's all I have to say
18:29:43 about that, 1 and 2.
18:29:45 We are supportive.
18:29:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Ms. Montelione?
18:29:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, sir.
18:29:52 In light of what Ms. Kert has said to us, I'm
18:29:59 wondering if the applicant would be willing to
18:30:03 amend the application to instead of asking for
18:30:08 RS-50, ask for the zoning designations that the
18:30:15 property owners actually really want.
18:30:26 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: We have three pending rezonings.
18:30:28 Items 1 and 2 are a PD zoning district on them,
18:30:36 part of a multifamily project.
18:30:38 My client did not close on those parcels.
18:30:41 We are certainly fine if they want to take over
18:30:43 items 1 and 2 and proceed with them and amend
18:30:48 those applications and request an RM-18
18:30:52 designation.
18:30:54 If consistent with CMU 35, that's okay.
18:30:58 We would like to get approved item 4 this evening.
18:31:01 We don't want to hold up our project waiting for
18:31:04 them to be -- we are distinct from their project.
18:31:11 And I wrote a letter to these folks on August
18:31:13 7th and we are going to do this.
18:31:15 We are going to do it at our cost.
18:31:17 And call me if you have any questions.
18:31:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Did you have any conversation
18:31:23 with them after --
18:31:26 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yesterday.
18:31:32 We can't have a back and forth.
18:31:35 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: All we are doing is going back to
18:31:36 square one, putting them where they were, RS-50
18:31:40 last summer.
18:31:41 We are putting them right back.
18:31:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I understand.
18:31:43 I understand.
18:31:45 Ms. Kert?
18:31:50 Could we go forward with item number 4 and have 1
18:31:54 and 2 come back with an amended petition?
18:31:57 >>REBECCA KERT: You could, but when they get to
18:32:01 second reading they are all going to have to catch
18:32:03 up because the entire reason why Mr. Grandoff's
18:32:05 client paid for the area zoning is because staff
18:32:08 won't let item 4 go forward, because then it's
18:32:14 leaving two parcels with entitlements for a
18:32:17 parking lot or something.
18:32:18 I don't want to testify for staff.
18:32:20 I'm trying to repeat what they said earlier.
18:32:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE: By catching up, Ms. Feeley, is
18:32:27 it possible with the calendar that we have?
18:32:31 I mean, if they go to the Euclidean zoning it
18:32:34 would not be as paperwork heavy, documentation
18:32:39 heavy, if they went to PD the property.
18:32:43 So if those two lots and those two property owners
18:32:46 went to another Euclidean zoning district other
18:32:49 than RS-50, would have they be able to make the
18:32:54 cycle for catching up with item number 4?
18:32:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
18:33:00 I am the one who counseled on this when they came
18:33:03 to our office.
18:33:04 So if I may for just a moment.
18:33:05 Those two parcels are entitled as a parking lot
18:33:08 right now.
18:33:08 And the third application goes forward, you have
18:33:11 two pieces of a parking lot sitting out there and
18:33:14 the houses that are there are nonconforming to
18:33:17 that parking locality so they could never be
18:33:19 developed as anything else but a parking locality
18:33:21 that doesn't go with an apartment complex that it
18:33:24 used to go with.
18:33:25 So it was my suggestion to put them back in order
18:33:28 to make them whole back to how they were before
18:33:30 this all started.
18:33:32 The question of catching up, could it catch up?
18:33:35 Yes.
18:33:35 The burden is now on the property owners who were
18:33:39 not active participants when this began to now do
18:33:42 a public notice to go to the RS, and then put Mr.
18:33:48 Grandoff's applicant waiting for the other people
18:33:50 to catch up, so to speak.
18:33:51 And if they don't, you could have still taken
18:33:53 action tonight to put it back to the RS-50, and
18:33:57 they can still elect to come back to you again and
18:33:59 ask for the RM.
18:34:02 So it's really six of one, half of -- I mean, the
18:34:05 burden has been on the people.
18:34:06 What's before you tonight is whole.
18:34:09 It can move forward the way that it is.
18:34:10 The other parts of it is that staff did not
18:34:13 evaluate for these applicants in RM.
18:34:16 They evaluated an RS based on what originally came
18:34:19 through the door.
18:34:20 So I can't tell you tonight that if that
18:34:22 application comes back in a different form, we are
18:34:25 where it's going to be and then we are left with
18:34:28 something that may or may not happen.
18:34:31 So it's your pleasure to handle it as you wish,
18:34:34 and you do have those two options, and the burden
18:34:38 here, but what is before you is whole in all three
18:34:41 pieces, and does not take away their right to come
18:34:46 back to you and ask again for an RM under their
18:34:51 own accord.
18:34:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Understood.
18:34:54 I was trying to find that happy medium.
18:34:59 Sorry.
18:34:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ms. Kert, I just want to get it
18:35:04 straight in my head.
18:35:05 We are untangling one piece, and then the
18:35:11 gentlemen that were standing up a moment ago,
18:35:13 those two separate parcels that are now untangled,
18:35:16 because there's a contractual relationship between
18:35:18 the applicant and them, would be my guess, because
18:35:21 then rear zoning all of it, to repurchase their
18:35:24 land, so we have to untangle this for them to have
18:35:27 a right back to be being able to resolve their
18:35:31 RS-50 lot to something else.
18:35:33 Is that correct?
18:35:34 >> Yes.
18:35:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm glad we got that out.
18:35:38 I just want to be sure because trying to do this
18:35:40 here now doesn't make a lot of sense because it
18:35:43 hasn't arrived yet.
18:35:45 Is that correct?
18:35:45 >> Yes.
18:35:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
18:35:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone else from the public like
18:35:48 to speak on item number 1 or 2?
18:35:50 >> Fernando Buen, live at the property in
18:35:58 question, and I would like to rebut what was said
18:36:00 a little earlier.
18:36:01 We were here 12 months ago and they were very
18:36:04 active communicating with us by phone to come and
18:36:07 support the rezoning 12 months ago, and then this
18:36:10 go around, for them to tell me they were rezoning
18:36:15 my property, so at no point was I involved with be
18:36:18 this application asking me what my opinion was
18:36:20 with my property.
18:36:21 So I object to this.
18:36:23 And I believe that it should be amended and that
18:36:27 we should be able to rezone to the zone that we
18:36:30 would like.
18:36:31 >> My name is Craig denson, 4712 west Pearl.
18:36:41 I never received any letter.
18:36:43 I found out less than a week ago, my rental
18:36:48 property speaking to my neighbor of the rezoning.
18:36:50 I did not know anything at all about this.
18:36:52 And actually, he actually gave me my letter that
18:36:56 was supposed to be sent to me, was actually sent
18:36:58 to him in the same envelope.
18:37:00 And to me, how this is being handled over the last
18:37:06 six, seven months.
18:37:10 Very happy to contact me last year when they
18:37:12 wanted the property but when they decided they
18:37:14 didn't want the property, it was a disgrace how
18:37:16 was handled.
18:37:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Grandoff, if I could ask you a
18:37:20 quick question.
18:37:21 Was there a contract contingent?
18:37:26 Unless you have something else to say.
18:37:28 Thank you, sir.
18:37:29 Mr. Grandoff, I want to make sure I have this in
18:37:32 my head.
18:37:33 There was a contractual relationship contingent on
18:37:35 the rezoning of the property and maybe some other
18:37:38 contingencies I don't know about.
18:37:40 Is that correct?
18:37:41 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Correct.
18:37:42 These two properties were under contract last
18:37:43 year.
18:37:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Now that you want to revert back,
18:37:47 meaning that you don't need those two pieces of
18:37:50 property, it reverts back directly to them in
18:37:54 terms of ownership and the same zoning that was
18:37:57 therefore prior to your PD application from about
18:38:00 a year ago.
18:38:00 >> One thing.
18:38:01 We never closed.
18:38:03 They have always owned it.
18:38:04 >> Okay.
18:38:05 My point is the contingency -- we are going to get
18:38:08 this zoning and there probably was another
18:38:10 contingency based on other factors.
18:38:12 I don't know --
18:38:15 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: It would have to be zoned and my
18:38:17 client has the discretion not to buy the property.
18:38:20 These gentlemen were aware of that when they
18:38:21 signed the contract.
18:38:22 They also signed an affidavit for us to handle
18:38:25 this last summer.
18:38:26 They can file an application tomorrow morning to
18:38:29 rezone it from RS-50 -- well, not tomorrow
18:38:32 morning.
18:38:32 It would have to be approved.
18:38:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I understand that.
18:38:36 There comes a force now on something that's a
18:38:39 contractual obligation that was not met for a
18:38:44 different reasons and different conditions, has
18:38:45 nothing to do with the zoning itself.
18:38:47 >> Correct.
18:38:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ: That's all I wanted to get out
18:38:50 because we can get all confused in this.
18:38:52 They had a relationship with the applicant.
18:38:54 It did not work out because and now they are not
18:39:00 going to buy the property.
18:39:01 They are not happy about it because now they have
18:39:03 an RS-50 zoning as opposed to the PD after the
18:39:08 sale.
18:39:11 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: And may I say one other thing?
18:39:12 In the event of a catastrophic event, they have a
18:39:15 parking lot.
18:39:18 They don't have a house.
18:39:19 I want to show you one other thing.
18:39:21 A letter sent to Mr. Denson August 7th at his
18:39:25 address according to the property appraiser.
18:39:27 And that's what the property appraiser has.
18:39:33 I tried to reach him.
18:39:34 It was returned to me.
18:39:35 Here is the letter I sent Mr. Buen, August
18:39:40 7th.
18:39:42 Called me yesterday.
18:39:43 We request approval.
18:39:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone else wishing to speak on
18:39:48 this item, item 1 and 2?
18:39:51 >> My name is Ralph --
18:39:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: You have to be sworn. Anyone
18:39:56 else that came in and has not been sworn at this
18:39:58 time?
18:40:01 Please stand.
18:40:01 (Oath administered by Clerk)
18:40:04 >> I own the property --
18:40:11 >> State your full name for the record.
18:40:13 >> Ralph Marcadis. I own property at 5104 south
18:40:15 Westshore right down the street from this
18:40:17 property.
18:40:18 And I am very much in favor of the complex that's
18:40:23 proposed.
18:40:24 I take clients up and down the street all the
18:40:26 time.
18:40:28 And I think it would be a major improvement to the
18:40:30 area to see something built on that property
18:40:33 rather than an empty lot and what's there now.
18:40:36 And I think it would be very good for the property
18:40:38 values.
18:40:39 So I'm very much in favor of it.
18:40:41 And I thank you for your time.
18:40:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
18:40:44 All right.
18:40:44 Anyone else to speak on item 1 or 2?
18:40:52 >> My name is Carrie Humeston and I represent the
18:40:57 homeowners association for the townhomes.
18:40:58 We are the townhomes that were shown before.
18:41:01 The 30 individual townhomes on the corner of
18:41:05 Westshore Boulevard and Pearl Avenue.
18:41:07 They are two to three stories and you might have
18:41:10 seen them.
18:41:11 The units on the south side of the property
18:41:13 overlook the proposed development and also the
18:41:15 proposed rezoning.
18:41:19 We support the proposed project in our
18:41:23 neighborhood.
18:41:23 The townhomes were built in 2004.
18:41:26 This is after the Westshore Yacht Club and the
18:41:30 land for New Port Tampa.
18:41:33 At the time the development had several condo
18:41:36 developments, mixed use and increased traffic.
18:41:39 Our community was completed before the real estate
18:41:43 market crash.
18:41:44 However many of the projects around were canceled.
18:41:47 The vacant land, that is ATHENA, in the area which
18:41:55 is upsetting and dangerous to our owners.
18:41:58 It's been a long wait to see the development
18:42:00 initiative come back and we would like to see it
18:42:03 not held up.
18:42:03 We believe the proposed project will help
18:42:05 stabilize the area between our neighborhood and
18:42:07 Westshore Yacht Club.
18:42:09 We support the height and size of the proposed
18:42:11 project because it will help create a cohesive
18:42:14 theme on Westshore Boulevard south of Gandy as a
18:42:17 mixed use residential area.
18:42:18 We are grateful for the developers for taking
18:42:21 their time to share their plans with our board and
18:42:23 for City Council's time for us tonight.
18:42:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
18:42:28 All right.
18:42:30 No, sir, you have had your chance do speak.
18:42:33 We don't let you come back and forth.
18:42:36 Mr. Grandoff, do you have any time remaining on
18:42:39 rebuttal on anything?
18:42:42 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman,
18:42:43 members of council.
18:42:44 I do ask you to do review Mr. Heys report from the
18:42:48 Planning Commission which makes very good findings
18:42:50 and recommending approval based on consistency
18:42:52 with the comprehensive plan.
18:42:55 Thank you very much.
18:42:56 >>FRANK REDDICK: Need a motion to close.
18:42:57 >> So moved.
18:42:58 >> Second.
18:42:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Mrs. Montelione Lon.
18:43:00 Second by Mr. Miranda.
18:43:01 All in favor of the motion say aye.
18:43:03 Opposed?
18:43:04 Mr. Miranda, would you like to take item number 1?
18:43:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance presented
18:43:10 for first reading, an ordinance of the city of
18:43:12 Tampa, Florida relating to an area rezoning the
18:43:14 general location of which is 4714 west Pearl
18:43:17 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida from zoning
18:43:19 district classifications PD, planned development,
18:43:23 multifamily residential, to zoning classification
18:43:26 RS-50, residential single-family, providing for
18:43:30 notice, providing an effective date, with all the
18:43:33 revisions that were given to us this evening.
18:43:34 >> Second.
18:43:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have got a motion from Mr.
18:43:38 Miranda.
18:43:38 Second by Mr. Suarez.
18:43:39 Any further questions on the motion?
18:43:41 All those in favor say aye.
18:43:42 Opposed?
18:43:43 All right.
18:43:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Cohen being
18:43:46 absent at vote.
18:43:47 Second reading and adoption will be on October
18:43:49 1st at 9:30 a.m.
18:43:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, a correction for
18:43:54 the clerk.
18:43:54 Mr. Cohen has abstained from that vote.
18:43:56 >> Correction.
18:43:59 Cohen abstaining.
18:44:00 Thank you.
18:44:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez, item 2.
18:44:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move an ordinance for first
18:44:05 reading consideration, an ordinance of the city of
18:44:08 Tampa, Florida relating to an area rezoning, the
18:44:10 general location of which is 4712 west Pearl
18:44:13 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida from zoning
18:44:15 district classification PD planned development,
18:44:18 multifamily residential, to zoning classification
18:44:21 RS-50 residential single-family providing for
18:44:25 notice, providing an effective date.
18:44:25 >> Second.
18:44:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Mr. Suarez.
18:44:29 Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
18:44:30 Any discussion on the motion?
18:44:31 All those in favor of the motion say aye.
18:44:33 Opposed?
18:44:33 All right.
18:44:34 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Cohen
18:44:36 abstaining.
18:44:37 Second reading and adoption will be on October
18:44:39 1st at 9:30 a.m.
18:44:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item number 4.
18:44:44 Item number 4.
18:44:52 Is this part of this?
18:44:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item number 4 --
18:45:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Oh, okay.
18:45:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Public hearing is closed.
18:45:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: Oh, okay.
18:45:08 All right.
18:45:08 Mrs. Capin, would you read item number 4?
18:45:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
18:45:14 I will.
18:45:17 Ordinance being presented for first reading
18:45:19 consideration.
18:45:19 An ordinance rezoning property in the general
18:45:21 vicinity of 5320 South Westshore Boulevard in the
18:45:25 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
18:45:27 described in section 1 from zoning district
18:45:29 classifications PD planned development,
18:45:32 residential multifamily, to PD, planned
18:45:36 development, residential multifamily, providing an
18:45:38 effective date, and need a note that per Abbye
18:45:51 Feeley, transportation note, with the addition of
18:45:54 the transportation note on the site plan.
18:45:57 >> Including the original revision sheet, correct?
18:46:06 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And Tampa revision sheet.
18:46:07 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Including the commitment by Mr.
18:46:10 Grandoff to put an 8-foot high PVC fence along the
18:46:13 north property.
18:46:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
18:46:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: An 8-foot fence on the north part
18:46:20 of the notched-out area.
18:46:28 Oh, along the entire north side.
18:46:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion from Mrs. Capin.
18:46:33 Second by Mr. Miranda.
18:46:34 Discussion on that motion?
18:46:36 All those in favor of the motion say aye.
18:46:38 Opposed?
18:46:39 All right.
18:46:39 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Cohen
18:46:41 abstaining.
18:46:42 Second reading and adoption will be on October
18:46:44 1st at 9:30 a.m.
18:46:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
18:46:48 Item 6.
18:46:48 MARY SAMANIEGO: Item 6 is REZ 15-48, properties
18:46:58 located at 3015 West Azeele Street, 309, 311, 315
18:47:01 South New Jersey Avenue and 310 and 312 South
18:47:05 MacDill Avenue from planned development to planned
18:47:08 development.
18:47:09 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
18:47:17 I have been sworn.
18:47:21 The next case we move up to the central Tampa
18:47:23 planning district.
18:47:29 Proposed mixed use is in the vicinity of west
18:47:32 MacDill and South MacDill Avenue,
18:47:34 approximately .6-acre subject site is located
18:47:36 within the Palma Ceia neighborhood.
18:47:40 Transit is provided within the area by Hart route
18:47:44 19 connecting the subject site to downtown and
18:47:46 parts of South Tampa.
18:47:47 And the subject site is also located within a
18:47:49 level D evacuation zone.
18:47:52 And the central Tampa planning district is one of
18:47:54 the three targeted growth areas for the City of
18:47:58 Tampa.
18:47:59 The other being the university in the Westshore
18:48:03 planning district.
18:48:07 Onto the aerial.
18:48:08 The subject site is right here in the middle.
18:48:10 We have South MacDill Avenue running north-south.
18:48:13 West Azeele.
18:48:15 There's some medical office uses along this
18:48:17 portion of South MacDill.
18:48:20 There's some light commercial and some office uses
18:48:25 to the south of Azeele.
18:48:27 We have a lawyer's office directly to the east.
18:48:31 There's residential uses located up New Jersey.
18:48:35 And this is the new north star bank.
18:48:38 And then we have the light path building to the
18:48:42 south.
18:48:45 Onto the future land use map.
18:48:47 The subject site has 2001 future land use
18:48:51 designations along the South MacDill portion.
18:48:54 At this time community mixed use 35.
18:48:56 And in the back along south New Jersey Avenue, we
18:48:59 have the residential 20.
18:49:02 The CMU 35, mixed use 35, continues down along
18:49:07 South MacDill.
18:49:09 The properties to the east are all in the
18:49:12 residential 20.
18:49:14 We have to the south is the residential 35.
18:49:20 That brown color.
18:49:21 Planning Commission staff found the proposed
18:49:23 development would be in keeping with the style of
18:49:24 commercial development already along this portion
18:49:27 of South MacDill Avenue, additional residential in
18:49:31 a mixed use fashion along west Azeele street.
18:49:34 The proposed development brings both new
18:49:36 residences and employment opportunity to the
18:49:39 central Tampa planning district to accommodate
18:49:44 significant increase in both job opportunities and
18:49:46 res opportunities during the arrival of the comp
18:49:49 plan.
18:49:50 The proposed development would be comparable and
18:49:52 compatible to the existing development patterns in
18:49:56 this portion of the City of Tampa.
18:49:57 Therefore, based on the findings and the goals and
18:50:00 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
18:50:03 Planning Commission staff finds the rezoning
18:50:05 request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
18:50:06 plan.
18:50:07 >>MARY SAMANIEGO: Thank you, David.
18:50:17 Land Development Coordination.
18:50:20 Here is another aerial of the property.
18:50:23 I won't go through it since Dave just did.
18:50:25 This is the subject property.
18:50:26 New Jersey, Azeele, MacDill.
18:50:32 Here is the subject property zoning map.
18:50:36 This is the existing planned development that's
18:50:39 really being amended tonight.
18:50:40 This is a separate planned development that was
18:50:42 approved several years ago for medical office.
18:50:46 This area is being added to the original planned
18:50:49 development that was approved last year.
18:50:53 Up and down MacDill is PD zoning.
18:50:58 Over here RO 1.
18:51:01 Another office to the east.
18:51:02 And then the single-family residential along New
18:51:05 Jersey to the north.
18:51:11 Here is a shot of the subject property from
18:51:13 Azeele.
18:51:14 You can see the original development was for a
18:51:16 medical office which is almost complete
18:51:18 construction as well as detached single-family
18:51:22 residence which they are just finishing up now.
18:51:25 Here is a shot on the other end of the property
18:51:27 from MacDill looking in.
18:51:29 Again here is a medical office which is almost
18:51:31 complete.
18:51:31 This will be the driveway and the new addition and
18:51:34 the new building will be in this area.
18:51:38 Here is the medical office under construction.
18:51:41 The subject property again.
18:51:42 The vacant area which will house the residential
18:51:47 building.
18:51:48 This is our Pearl Avenue, the attached
18:51:50 single-family house that was part of the original
18:51:52 PD, been under construction.
18:51:56 This is directly to the west on Azeele.
18:51:59 This is the property right here.
18:52:03 Small office.
18:52:05 Going up around the corner going north on
18:52:08 MacDill now, a small retail use.
18:52:10 A second small retail use continuing north.
18:52:17 I'll back up.
18:52:19 One retail use.
18:52:20 Another car repair use on MacDill.
18:52:23 When you cross MacDill from more retail
18:52:27 commercial uses, a bank.
18:52:28 Another bank.
18:52:29 This is on the corner of MacDill and Azeele.
18:52:33 Here is a gas station that's catty-corner.
18:52:38 Right here.
18:52:40 Now going along the south side of Azeele.
18:52:44 This is north star bank.
18:52:46 It was recently approved by this City Council.
18:52:50 The medical offices.
18:52:51 Another office.
18:52:53 Here are some detached single-family residences on
18:52:58 New Jersey across the street from the existing
18:53:00 house under construction.
18:53:01 And then two more single-family houses on New
18:53:04 Jersey.
18:53:16 Here is the proposed site plan.
18:53:22 This is part of the original previously-approved
18:53:24 rezoning REZ 14-57.
18:53:27 Only this area is being added to the overall PD.
18:53:33 The proposal is to allow storefront residential.
18:53:38 What that means is there will be one on the first
18:53:41 floor, there will be retail uses, and then a
18:53:44 second and third floor there will be residential
18:53:46 uses for a total of four residential.
18:53:52 On the than that the majority of the site, there
18:53:56 will be driveway access off of Azeele and the two
18:53:58 parking lots will be connected for the driveways.
18:54:07 Previously approved REZ 14-57 was carried forward
18:54:10 with this new planned development.
18:54:12 There are 2014 new waivers for consideration with
18:54:15 the new building.
18:54:16 There is RM 27-285 to reduce the required
18:54:20 multifamily space from 1400 square feet to 1,046
18:54:25 square feet subject to in lieu permit at time of
18:54:29 permitting as well as the reduction in reduced
18:54:33 space to 16% of those subjects through landscaping
18:54:37 in lieu of pavement.
18:54:38 This proposal was reviewed before the Development
18:54:39 Review Committee.
18:54:42 Only Land Development Coordination has a couple of
18:54:44 modifications requested between first and second
18:54:47 reading.
18:54:47 One is just to clean up the waivers to add some
18:54:51 dimensions on the site plan, and to also slightly
18:54:55 one of the parking spaces.
18:54:56 So if those changes are made between first and
18:54:58 second reading the planning staff found it
18:55:02 consistent with the City of Tampa Land Development
18:55:03 Code.
18:55:05 Do you have any questions for me at this time?
18:55:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: Questions by council?
18:55:13 Petitioner?
18:55:15 Have you been sworn in?
18:55:18 >> I have not.
18:55:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone who came in and has not
18:55:24 been sworn in, please stand to be sworn in.
18:55:26 (Oath administered by Clerk)
18:55:32 I do.
18:55:34 Good morning.
18:55:36 Excuse me, good evening.
18:55:37 Jeremy couch with Tampa Civil Design.
18:55:40 I'm joined tonight by Mr. Ron Scaglione of South
18:55:44 Tampa RE 1-2-3 and his father Basil Scaglione who
18:55:51 is working his way up the elevator.
18:55:53 I just want to give you a quick history of this
18:55:56 application, where we are, and what we are asking
18:55:59 for tonight.
18:56:13 We were here last year to take this older
18:56:21 commercial property and redevelop it into the
18:56:23 two-story medical office building that you saw in
18:56:26 the picture that's almost completed, and the
18:56:30 single-family town structure that we have over
18:56:35 here.
18:56:36 Tonight's request is to incorporate this parcel,
18:56:39 which is southeast of the project that will be
18:56:40 connected to the project, shared parking with the
18:56:46 project and hopefully be a good addition to Azeele
18:56:49 street.
18:56:49 Elevations of the proposed structure will look as
18:57:01 such.
18:57:01 This will be the east elevation that will be seen
18:57:04 from New Jersey.
18:57:06 West elevation that will be seen from MacDill
18:57:09 and approaching New Jersey along Azeele.
18:57:12 And the south elevation that you can see from
18:57:15 Azeele.
18:57:16 As Ms. Samaniego said there will be a storefront.
18:57:23 The request is storefront residential.
18:57:34 Some nice retail space below, office 2100 square
18:57:39 feet along with two sets of two apartments on the
18:57:42 second and third floor.
18:57:48 We have worked with staff.
18:57:52 Staff has conditionally approved our request.
18:57:56 And I'm here if you have any questions about the
18:57:58 next phase of our project.
18:58:00 Thank you.
18:58:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from council?
18:58:02 Mr. Suarez.
18:58:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sir, that outparcel, why was that
18:58:09 not originally rezoned with the original PD?
18:58:13 >> It was not acquired at that time, yes, sir.
18:58:16 It was previously zoned -- it was previously zoned
18:58:20 PD.
18:58:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I can see that on the staff
18:58:24 report.
18:58:25 So was the plan to try to get that parcel?
18:58:29 >> That was the plan.
18:58:30 We initially tried that.
18:58:31 It didn't work out till after we started
18:58:33 construction.
18:58:34 Then it was able to be acquired.
18:58:36 That's why we came back.
18:58:39 I also have letters of support from a lot of the
18:58:42 surrounding neighbors.
18:58:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If you could give that to our
18:58:46 attorney.
18:58:47 Thank you, that was the only question I had.
18:58:48 Thank you, chair.
18:58:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any other questions by council?
18:58:51 Anyone in the public wish to be speak on item
18:58:53 number 6?
18:58:54 Anyone in the public to wishes to speak on item
18:58:56 number 6?
18:58:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
18:58:58 >> Second.
18:59:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
18:59:01 Seconded by Ms. Capin to close the public hearing.
18:59:05 All in favor say aye.
18:59:07 Opposed?
18:59:07 Mr. Cohen, would you read number 6?
18:59:10 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.
18:59:11 I move an ordinance being presented for first
18:59:13 reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning
18:59:15 property in the general vicinity of 3015 west
18:59:18 Azeele street, 310 and 312 South MacDill Avenue
18:59:22 and 309, 311 and 315 south New Jersey Avenue in
18:59:26 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
18:59:28 described in section 1 from zoning district
18:59:31 classifications PD, planned development, office,
18:59:34 medical, commercial general uses, residential,
18:59:37 single-family detached, to PD, planned
18:59:39 development, office, medical, commercial general
18:59:42 uses, residential, single-family detached, and
18:59:46 storefront residential, providing an effective
18:59:47 date.
18:59:47 >> Second.
18:59:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have a motion from Mr. Cohen,
18:59:51 seconded by Mr. Suarez.
18:59:52 Discussion on the motion?
18:59:53 All those in favor of the motion say aye.
18:59:55 Opposed?
18:59:56 All right.
18:59:56 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Montelione being
18:59:59 absent at vote.
19:00:00 Second reading and adoption will be on October
19:00:01 1st at 9:30 a.m.
19:00:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
19:00:04 Item number 7.
19:00:05 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:00:14 Item number 7 on your agenda this evening is REZ
19:00:17 15-4 located at 3801 west Obispo street, and the
19:00:23 request before you tonight is from an RS-60
19:00:25 residential single-family to PD planned
19:00:28 development, office, business and professional,
19:00:31 specialty retail, and/or storefront residential
19:00:34 with specialty retail and office, business and
19:00:37 professional.
19:00:37 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
19:00:43 I have been sworn.
19:00:45 We move down to the South Tampa planning district
19:00:48 for this next case.
19:00:53 It's a .18-acre subject at the northwest corner of
19:00:57 South Dale Mabry Highway and west Obispo street,
19:01:03 E.it is located within the Virginia park
19:01:05 neighborhood.
19:01:05 It located adjacent to South Dale Mabry Highway,
19:01:08 so it's a transit emphasis corridor.
19:01:14 There's three transit routes on that portion of
19:01:16 Dale Mabry, and it's also within the South Tampa
19:01:26 flex service area.
19:01:28 Onto the aerial.
19:01:30 The subject site is right here.
19:01:31 We have south Dale Mabry running north-south.
19:01:35 West Obispo street to the south.
19:01:38 There are a strip shopping plaza directly to the
19:01:41 south.
19:01:43 And then this portion of Dale Mabry is mostly
19:01:47 office uses, with the more intensive commercial
19:01:51 uses located further south on Dale Mabry.
19:01:53 Again, this is part of the Virginia park
19:01:56 neighborhood.
19:01:57 So mostly all, if not all, the residential that
19:02:00 you see is also single-family detached
19:02:03 residential.
19:02:06 Onto the future land use map.
19:02:07 You can see that pattern better.
19:02:09 The residential 20 is this brown color right along
19:02:13 this portion of Dale Mabry.
19:02:15 We have some CMU 35 further to the south where the
19:02:21 more intensive commercial typically is found.
19:02:23 And then we have the residential 10 for the
19:02:27 single-family detached.
19:02:30 This portion of south Dale Mabry highway, due to
19:02:33 the shallow lot depth and other reasons,
19:02:37 developing more than a traditional office corridor
19:02:40 with some very limited retail opportunity.
19:02:42 The conversion of an existing residential unit for
19:02:45 business professional office is specialty retail
19:02:48 use in keeping with that development trend.
19:02:51 The residential 20 land use category does allow
19:02:55 for consideration of nonresidential uses in
19:02:58 compliance with the commercial location criteria
19:03:01 as called for under the criteria the subject site
19:03:03 is located adjacent to an arterial which is South
19:03:06 Dale Mabry Highway.
19:03:09 Vehicular access proposed along west Obispo
19:03:13 street.
19:03:13 The access is directly across from the planned
19:03:16 development strip shopping center directly to the
19:03:19 south.
19:03:20 That does contain retail, office and medical
19:03:23 office uses.
19:03:24 Planning Commission staff finds the request is
19:03:26 consistent with the principles outlined within the
19:03:28 commercial locational criteria, and with the
19:03:31 overall development pattern envisioned under that
19:03:33 residential 20 future land use category.
19:03:37 Therefore, based on those findings and the goals,
19:03:39 objectives and policy of the comprehensive plan,
19:03:41 Planning Commission staff finds the rezoning
19:03:43 request consistent with the Tampa comprehensive
19:03:45 plan.
19:03:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
19:03:51 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thanks, David.
19:03:53 The request before you tonight is from an RS-60
19:03:56 residential single-family to PD planned
19:03:58 development, office, business, professional,
19:04:00 specialty retail, and/or storefront residential.
19:04:10 Council, this would be a very familiar segment of
19:04:14 south Dale Mabry for you.
19:04:15 Over the past three months you have had a number
19:04:17 of rezonings including the property directly to
19:04:19 the east across the street and the property
19:04:22 directly to the north of that.
19:04:26 I'm sorry, to the northeast one lot and then the
19:04:29 one to the north of that.
19:04:30 So those two are now PDs as reflected on the
19:04:35 zoning atlas.
19:04:37 The property we are talking about this evening is
19:04:40 Obispo to the south, Dale Mabry to the east.
19:04:45 As David pointed out to you, there is some mixed
19:04:48 strip commercial just to the south, and
19:04:53 sprinklings of business professional offices, both
19:04:56 converted single-family residential to those
19:05:00 offices, as well as new construction, which I
19:05:03 believe you have heard most recently last month
19:05:06 was a one-story over parking right up at the next
19:05:17 intersection.
19:05:20 What's being requested of you tonight is a 3,000
19:05:22 square foot structure.
19:05:25 This is the subject property from Obispo looking
19:05:28 north.
19:05:28 This is another picture of the subject, two-strip
19:05:33 commercial directly to the south of the property.
19:05:36 This is the vacant RO 1.
19:05:38 That's to the north.
19:05:39 So this would be a residential office zoning
19:05:41 category that would allow for lower intensity
19:05:45 office development.
19:05:46 This is RO 1 also and is currently an office.
19:05:54 That was a single-family residential conversion
19:05:58 years ago.
19:06:00 On the east side of Dale Mabry.
19:06:02 Some of these are a little bit dark.
19:06:04 This is directly across from residential.
19:06:06 This is a PD to the southeast.
19:06:12 Most recently, I remember there was a bridal store
19:06:17 there, I think, wedding gowns.
19:06:19 This property here is one of the PDs you did two
19:06:23 months ago.
19:06:24 This was going to get an addition and become an
19:06:27 office.
19:06:29 With ingress on San Pedro and egress on Dale
19:06:31 Mabry.
19:06:32 This is the one that was recently done last month.
19:06:38 I think that is 3110 south Dale Mabry.
19:06:41 That was for a 35-foot maximizing the F.A.R.
19:06:46 office over structured parking.
19:06:49 On the south side of Obispo now headed west to
19:07:00 Church, it's all single-family residential.
19:07:02 This is directly behind the strip commercial.
19:07:06 From the south side all the way to Church and then
19:07:09 come back.
19:07:09 This is all the south side.
19:07:13 Of Obispo headed west towards Church.
19:07:23 Now the north side of Obispo, because this is
19:07:25 directly to the west of the subject, now headed
19:07:28 west towards Church.
19:07:32 One of the main issues that you have been facing
19:07:38 in each of the rezonings that you have seen before
19:07:40 is the access that FDOT allows onto Dale Mabry
19:07:43 Highway.
19:07:44 This project before you tonight, same thing.
19:07:49 This is directly south.
19:07:51 It's that strip commercial.
19:07:52 The property before you tonight also was denied
19:07:55 access onto Dale Mabry.
19:07:58 D.O.T. indicated they needed 125 feet from the
19:08:01 intersection to the driveway in order for them to
19:08:03 be allowed to have an access, and that could not
19:08:06 be achieved.
19:08:07 So the access being requested tonight is on
19:08:10 Obispo.
19:08:12 It is a full access.
19:08:15 The project being proposed has 3,000 square feet.
19:08:19 It is residential in character.
19:08:22 It does have the transparency along south Dale
19:08:24 Mabry for the mixed use corridor.
19:08:29 The setbacks proposed tonight are north 5-foot
19:08:33 adjacent to the vacant RO, south 40 feet, west 3
19:08:38 feet, and east 4 feet along south Dale Mabry.
19:08:42 That eastern setback does require a special
19:08:44 setback reduction that is one of the waivers.
19:08:48 There are two waivers before you tonight with this
19:08:50 application.
19:08:51 The first is to reduce the required use to use
19:08:55 buffer along the north from 15-foot with the
19:08:58 current 6-foot concrete masonry wall to 6-foot
19:09:01 with a 6-foot PVC fence.
19:09:04 There is a large tree you will see on your site
19:09:06 plan being preserved in that area, so that is part
19:09:10 of the reason for the utilization of the 6-foot
19:09:14 PVC fence, a 32-inch oak that's located there and
19:09:18 being preserved.
19:09:20 The second part of that waiver request is on the
19:09:22 west from 15-foot with a 6-foot PVC fence to
19:09:28 2-foot with a 6-foot PVC fence.
19:09:36 The maximum building height is proposed at 35
19:09:38 feet.
19:09:39 Based on potential occupancy of the 3,000, the
19:09:42 maximum number of parking spaces required would be
19:09:46 nine, and nine parking spaces are being provided.
19:09:49 The site plan shows an optional 4-foot high
19:09:52 transparent decorative fence along south Dale
19:09:54 Mabry and west Obispo.
19:10:00 What they are asking for is to be able to
19:10:02 potentially change out the uses.
19:10:04 Specialty retail by definition does not allow for
19:10:07 more than 2,000 square feet.
19:10:09 So if specialty retail goes into this space the
19:10:13 remaining 1,000 square feet would either have to
19:10:15 be office or could potentially be a residential
19:10:18 unit above the retail on the ground floor.
19:10:23 So no matter what the configuration within the
19:10:26 3,000, the maximum number of spaces required are
19:10:29 nine, and nine are being provided, so no parking
19:10:32 waiver is being requested.
19:10:40 There are a few corrections being requested.
19:10:41 The first is to correct the site plan to
19:10:43 accurately show those uses and the potential
19:10:46 configuration for those uses as I just described,
19:10:48 and also to correct the maximum building height to
19:10:51 be 35 feet.
19:10:56 The second correction from natural resources is
19:10:58 that the proposed trees should have a minimum of
19:11:01 6-foot pervious radius.
19:11:05 The one palm tree that's shown on the site plan,
19:11:07 12-inch palm in the front, that either needs to be
19:11:13 relocated or it needs to be removed and then taken
19:11:22 into account in the replacement.
19:11:24 I did speak to the applicant.
19:11:25 They were going to transplant that palm.
19:11:27 They are easy to transplant.
19:11:29 And then the last thing was that they needed
19:11:31 pervious material in the parking spaces on the
19:11:33 south and west for the proposed trees.
19:11:38 So they just need to label that as pervious, and
19:11:41 then take care of the tree.
19:11:43 All the modifications have been provided in the
19:11:45 revision sheet.
19:11:46 And if those changes are made, staff did find the
19:11:51 request consistent.
19:11:52 Thank you.
19:11:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from council?
19:11:54 >>HARRY COHEN: A few years ago, Ms. Feeley, we
19:11:59 did a rezoning on Santiago of a similar type of
19:12:03 parcel.
19:12:05 And if I remember correctly, there was also the
19:12:08 issue of not being able to get any ingress or
19:12:11 egress on Dale Mabry.
19:12:14 Is that correct?
19:12:15 At that time, and it was a pretty lengthy hearing.
19:12:22 We restricted the entire use of the PD to
19:12:26 specialty retail, and we were very specific about
19:12:29 what the uses were able to be.
19:12:31 What's being asked for here is a much broader
19:12:35 range of uses than what we approved on that one,
19:12:38 isn't it?
19:12:39 >> No, the specialty retail is the same.
19:12:43 And business professional office is the only other
19:12:46 allowable use.
19:12:47 >>HARRY COHEN: So all of the same restrictions
19:12:52 that we went through the litany of discovering
19:12:54 when we did the Santiago one applied to this one
19:12:58 as well.
19:12:59 The type of retail that can go there.
19:13:02 Here you have an additional 1,000 feet that can be
19:13:05 professional office space or residential.
19:13:07 You didn't have that on the last one.
19:13:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Correct.
19:13:10 Correct.
19:13:11 >>HARRY COHEN: It seems to me the one we did up
19:13:15 on Santiago was more than 2,000 feet.
19:13:19 >> It was two tenant spaces and they could be
19:13:22 2,000 square feet apiece.
19:13:24 So it was a total of 4,000.
19:13:26 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.
19:13:28 That's all.
19:13:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: Questions by council?
19:13:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Do you think the maximum restricts
19:13:36 what it could be used for in the future?
19:13:38 Did we not list --
19:13:44 >>ABBYE FEELEY: We had numerous discussions and
19:13:45 they ranged from things such as a sub shop or head
19:13:49 shop to a lot of things, and what exactly
19:13:53 specialty retail was.
19:13:54 That was a very long hearing.
19:13:58 (Laughter).
19:14:01 And specialty retail is restricted in itself by
19:14:06 definition.
19:14:07 I can read you that definition, but at that time,
19:14:11 Julie Mandell was the rezoning attorney and she
19:14:14 was very hesitant as to putting, you know,
19:14:18 excluding head shop, excluding -- she was
19:14:22 confident that the specialty retail definition
19:14:24 took care of that.
19:14:25 This could not be a convenience store.
19:14:27 It could not be shoppers goods, regular things.
19:14:30 It does have to be specialty retail.
19:14:33 The other option that could play out is a
19:14:36 specialty retail was not executed, this could be
19:14:39 2,000 of professional office which it would still
19:14:42 meet all the parking.
19:14:43 We run the different scenarios, and they cannot
19:14:45 trip any sort of parking waivers.
19:14:47 They are not asking you for that waiver tonight.
19:14:51 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.
19:14:51 I just wanted to hear it put on the record.
19:14:54 Thank you.
19:14:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You know, Ms. Feeley, I think this
19:14:57 is probably the fifth one that we have done in
19:14:59 this area in the last four years.
19:15:02 I may be wrong.
19:15:04 Maybe six, five or six.
19:15:06 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I think it's five.
19:15:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: It's number five.
19:15:11 And I ask the same question which you brought up
19:15:13 anyway about the ingress and E agrees from Dale
19:15:17 Mabry now I ask another question because I asked
19:15:20 this at each one of these hearings.
19:15:23 Do you know why D.O.T. stopped allowing any kind
19:15:26 of ingress and egress off of Dale Mabry?
19:15:29 Because obviously at some point they used to allow
19:15:32 that on a lot of these strip malls that are down.
19:15:35 There was there a rule change at any time in the
19:15:37 past? Is there something different?
19:15:40 I see Mr. Scott and he might know.
19:15:42 And I apologize, Mr. Scott.
19:15:44 I didn't see you before.
19:15:47 If you don't mind, maybe you have a little bit of
19:15:50 history.
19:15:50 This is the letter that they sent now, right?
19:15:54 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Well, this is in relation to this
19:15:56 one, and I just wanted to -- I don't have site 17
19:16:02 because Mary Samaniego -- I adore her.
19:16:08 The property is only 100 deep, and why FDOT was
19:16:12 saying was from the intersection here you needed
19:16:15 125 per their standards to qualify for that
19:16:18 driveway.
19:16:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I understand.
19:16:21 But the question I have, because we have had
19:16:24 various sizes of lots and rezoning those five
19:16:27 lots.
19:16:27 So, you know, to me I'm not sure that FDOT has any
19:16:31 other concern that we just don't want to do this
19:16:35 anymore.
19:16:35 And I think that's the essence of it, that at some
19:16:39 point they used to allow that for relatively
19:16:41 smaller -- not smaller, but about the same size,
19:16:45 to allow ingress and egress before.
19:16:48 Now, years ago, probably 60, 370, maybe early
19:16:52 80s.
19:16:52 And I just wonder why that has changed.
19:16:55 Maybe Mr. Scott knows the answer to that.
19:16:57 >> Jonathan Scott, transportation planning.
19:17:04 I don't know about the past but I know now they
19:17:07 are kind of stricter.
19:17:11 It might have been so far back where the traffic
19:17:13 volumes were less and so forth.
19:17:15 They might have had different numbers.
19:17:16 They might note have the restrictions they have
19:17:22 today.
19:17:22 That's all I can think of.
19:17:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I find it very interesting the
19:17:25 cars got smaller but the restrictions got worse,
19:17:28 you know, now, because -- I'm not sure why the
19:17:31 purpose behind this, the restriction to begin
19:17:33 with, that he would don't allow some folks to be
19:17:35 able to do this.
19:17:36 And it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense
19:17:39 especially on that stretch of road from Dale
19:17:43 Mabry, because there's plenty of other places that
19:17:47 has stops.
19:17:48 It's not going to create too much of a flow issue
19:17:50 in my mind.
19:17:51 But again I only play a civil engineer on TV.
19:17:54 I'm not a professional like you are.
19:17:57 Thank you, Mr. Scott.
19:17:58 Thank you, chair.
19:17:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: Petitioner?
19:18:00 >> Dick La Rosa, La Rosa Civil Design representing
19:18:07 petitioner.
19:18:07 I have been sworn.
19:18:08 I do have copies of the handouts that I was going
19:18:10 to present.
19:18:12 I will gladly pass them out.
19:18:28 We have worked with staff and Mr. Cohen.
19:18:31 The Santiago project is very similar.
19:18:34 We did in fact have specialty retail and office in
19:18:37 that request.
19:18:38 The only addition here is perhaps a single-family
19:18:40 component storefront, which may or may not go
19:18:42 upstairs.
19:18:43 Really what we learned in the initial one is once
19:18:45 we lose the entitlement for single-family it goes
19:18:47 away.
19:18:48 That's the only difference here.
19:18:49 Specialty retail is still the same.
19:18:52 Initially, on the Santiago project our intent was
19:18:56 to have David Alexander store and smarty pants
19:18:58 which was a specialty retail component.
19:19:01 That project tended to one story.
19:19:02 Now we need to find a home for smarty pants.
19:19:05 So this is the retail component here.
19:19:08 I will go through the site plan itself.
19:19:11 The site is currently developed as single-family.
19:19:15 Let me go ahead and go to the Elmo here.
19:19:25 We do meet the parking requirements.
19:19:27 Nine parking spaces.
19:19:28 We are asking for a waiver to the setback and
19:19:31 buffer to the side.
19:19:33 There is a large oak tree here which the building
19:19:35 has been adjusted to accommodate that.
19:19:37 So we have taken a notch of the building here.
19:19:40 We do have a little bit of encroachment on the
19:19:42 west.
19:19:42 That's the setback and buffer waiver.
19:19:44 Granted, there currently is single-family
19:19:46 residence possibly in the middle.
19:19:48 There's a detached garage write lies about 6 feet
19:19:50 off the west property line.
19:19:52 So we are coming a little closer to the west
19:19:53 property line.
19:19:54 A couple feet with our request.
19:19:58 Single-family residence like I say is in the
19:20:00 middle here.
19:20:01 That will be demolished.
19:20:02 This is the site plan itself from Obispo because
19:20:05 of the D.O.T. denial.
19:20:07 And I agree with you, Mr. Suarez, I would love to
19:20:09 have access to Dale Mabry.
19:20:10 But D.O.T. would not permit.
19:20:13 We designed the building, if you go to the second
19:20:15 sheet that I provided you, this is the north
19:20:17 elevation.
19:20:17 This is what you will see from Obispo.
19:20:20 We designed the building to be residential in
19:20:21 nature.
19:20:25 We have trade to keep it pleasing to match the
19:20:28 neighborhood itself.
19:20:30 The third page here, the east elevation is what
19:20:32 you will see from Dale Mabry.
19:20:34 Again, residential in nature.
19:20:35 We do have access to sidewalks.
19:20:41 They are preserving the tree.
19:20:42 And than sheet is the west elevation.
19:20:46 This elevation here, the west elevation, we will
19:20:48 have a fence in front of that, but we don't
19:20:52 propose any windows on the second floor right now
19:20:54 for privacy to the neighbor.
19:20:56 If it pleases council, we would put faux windows
19:21:00 to keep it residential in nature.
19:21:01 We definitely want to work with the neighbor in
19:21:04 this particular aspect.
19:21:08 That's the west elevation looking from the
19:21:09 adjacent property.
19:21:11 And the final elevation here would be looking from
19:21:14 the north which I believe is commercially zoned
19:21:18 parcel itself.
19:21:19 Again, all residential in nature.
19:21:20 We meet the parking requirement.
19:21:22 We have worked with staff on this project.
19:21:24 It's going to be very similar right now that's a
19:21:34 fabulous project.
19:21:34 We request your approval.
19:21:36 If you have any questions.
19:21:38 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Cohen.
19:21:38 >>HARRY COHEN: One of the waivers you are asking
19:21:40 for is to the west, which I guess means you are
19:21:44 going to be getting closer to the residential
19:21:47 property that's immediately adjacent.
19:21:48 >> Correct.
19:21:49 >>HARRY COHEN: Why are you asking for that
19:21:51 waiver?
19:21:53 >> Well, the main reason, there's a 32-inch oak.
19:21:56 We had to carve a niche out of the tree.
19:21:58 There is an attached garage which is 6 feet from
19:22:00 the property line.
19:22:01 Than the waiver says 3 feet.
19:22:02 The building is actually placed four feet.
19:22:05 Granted we put a little -- we are coming -- it's
19:22:09 to preserve that one tree and also give us the
19:22:12 distance from D.O.T.
19:22:13 We are trying to balance the two because we do
19:22:15 have a requirement for separation from the center
19:22:18 line of Dale Mabry.
19:22:21 We are asking for a waiver from that as well so we
19:22:23 are kind of caught in the middle here.
19:22:25 >>HARRY COHEN: Well, you could make it a little
19:22:27 smaller and not have to ask for the waiver from
19:22:30 the residential immediately to the west.
19:22:32 >> If waiver to residential, if you read
19:22:37 commercial, 15 feet would be.
19:22:39 So we are going to have to request a waiver unless
19:22:41 the building -- because we are commercial, the
19:22:44 residential is a 15-foot buffer.
19:22:49 And granted right now, one of the waivers for the
19:22:52 overhang which is going to be 20 feet up in the
19:22:55 air or even more up in the air.
19:22:56 So the building itself is a couple feet closers
19:22:58 than the garage right now but it's two feet closer
19:23:01 than what's currently existing.
19:23:03 There is a dilapidated garage which I think is
19:23:06 partially constructed.
19:23:12 I don't know if I answered your question or not.
19:23:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any other comments from council?
19:23:22 All right.
19:23:25 Anything else?
19:23:27 Petitioner?
19:23:28 Anything?
19:23:29 >> No.
19:23:30 If you have any questions I will be happy to.
19:23:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm sorry.
19:23:35 So the 6.14 I think is what's on the site plan, on
19:23:41 the north.
19:23:44 >> Yes, the north is --
19:23:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And that's where the 15-foot
19:23:48 would be required?
19:23:52 6.14 for only maybe half, and then 10 feet for the
19:24:00 rest of the property.
19:24:02 >> Correct, that's on the north.
19:24:06 For the oak tree.
19:24:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So the 15-foot setback is the
19:24:12 10-foot for most of it and then 6-foot for the
19:24:16 rest.
19:24:16 >> Correct, a long the north.
19:24:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You are saying that it's the
19:24:19 overhang that creates that 6.14?
19:24:22 >> No, the 4.14 is to the face of the building.
19:24:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And then there's an
19:24:29 addition --
19:24:31 >> There is an overhang, correct.
19:24:33 That's closer but again would be 20, you know, 20
19:24:36 or so feet in the air.
19:24:38 And then things of that nature took --
19:24:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because when you said that, it
19:24:43 was a little bit --
19:24:45 >> Yeah, definitely -- no, we'll definitely
19:24:48 collect gutters and downspouts.
19:24:50 We won't have any adverse impacts, you know, from
19:24:53 the encroach empties.
19:24:54 We are proposing a fence.
19:24:55 Whatever buffer we need to do, we'll gladly do.
19:24:58 We definitely want to buffer to the adjacent
19:25:00 property.
19:25:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, the buffer would be 15
19:25:02 feet.
19:25:03 >> Part of the -- screens.
19:25:10 Yes.
19:25:10 >>ABBYE FEELEY: All of our setbacks include and
19:25:14 allow 37-foot for the projections of the eaves and
19:25:17 gutters.
19:25:18 Every setback in the city allows for that.
19:25:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But 15 feet, if they were
19:25:22 meeting the 15-foot setback and has the 3-foot
19:25:25 overhang, it wouldn't be a big deal but they are
19:25:28 not meeting the 15 feet.
19:25:30 >>ABBYE FEELEY: If I may on the north they are
19:25:31 buffering to a vacant property.
19:25:33 I always do worst case scenario.
19:25:35 If an office went in there under the RL they
19:25:38 wouldn't be required the 15-foot buffer.
19:25:40 I think what Mr. Cohen was speaking to was the
19:25:42 buffer on the west, adjacent to the single-family
19:25:44 residential, not the one on the north.
19:25:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's only 46 feet.
19:25:54 >> Yeah, we are kind of caught between two buffer
19:25:57 requirements.
19:25:57 There's one for the residential, one for Dale
19:25:59 Mabry Highway.
19:26:00 We have to ask waivers from both.
19:26:02 The property would narrow down to about -- I don't
19:26:06 know the math in my head right now but about
19:26:08 20-foot buildable area we applied those buffers so
19:26:10 we are here to ask relief for those.
19:26:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: 4 feet is a little close.
19:26:15 >> If we need to shift the building east and
19:26:19 increase the waiver from Dale Mabry, I think we
19:26:21 could certainly accommodate that.
19:26:23 >>HARRY COHEN: After what Abbye said now, you are
19:26:27 really a foot from there, from their property,
19:26:30 theoretically, on the west.
19:26:33 Excuse me, from their property on the west.
19:26:35 And I think in fairness, these have been very
19:26:40 difficult hearings when we are dealing with Dale
19:26:43 Mabry, as you know, and there's been a lot of
19:26:46 discussion about sort of what it is that we are
19:26:49 going to allow.
19:26:50 But I think that also to ask for relief from the
19:26:56 setbacks to the west side -- I mean, I could care
19:26:59 less how close you are to Dale Mabry, as opposed
19:27:02 to a house to the west.
19:27:04 To me, that to me is a real sticking point.
19:27:09 But I'm sure everyone wants to hear from the
19:27:12 public.
19:27:12 >> Well, certainly.
19:27:13 And I would propose this, and I would ask Abbye
19:27:16 this.
19:27:16 We could certainly shift the building east.
19:27:18 We could take the gutter, the overhang off that
19:27:21 side, but the setback at 6-foot where it currently
19:27:24 is for the garage and putting -- and we would be
19:27:27 able to work -- that would work perfectly.
19:27:30 We would have to increase the setbacks to Dale
19:27:32 Mabry.
19:27:33 The waiver to that.
19:27:34 But we could certainly move our building to where
19:27:37 the existing garage is, remove the gutter
19:27:40 downspouts.
19:27:41 We have no more encroachments.
19:27:43 >>HARRY COHEN: Well, is the existing garage
19:27:45 encroaching into what would be a reasonable
19:27:47 setback, on residential?
19:27:52 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Residential, detached accessory to
19:27:53 the garage can be at 3-foot and it can be 15 feet
19:27:57 in height.
19:27:58 I evaluated part of this application based on that
19:28:00 buffer waiver because there were a number of
19:28:02 things going on.
19:28:03 It was -- there was going to be runoff.
19:28:07 I would rather have the eve and the gutter and
19:28:08 avoid any sort of stormwater runoff into the
19:28:11 residential property by allowing for the eaves to
19:28:16 do that.
19:28:16 It was more of a balancing act getting all of
19:28:18 these things together, and also making sure we met
19:28:21 all the parking.
19:28:22 They didn't want to come -- they would rather come
19:28:25 with a little bit of a setback waiver instead of
19:28:27 parking waiver because of everything going on, and
19:28:29 it being so active on the -- proactive on the
19:28:34 residential street.
19:28:35 If we could hear from be the public, we can talk
19:28:37 about adjustments, and more than happy to -- but I
19:28:39 would hate to see that eaves go because of all the
19:28:43 stormwater issues.
19:28:44 We have been trying to be very sensitive to that
19:28:46 and making sure that there's adequate ability to
19:28:48 provide that and for them to take care of what
19:28:50 they need to on their property.
19:28:52 >>HARRY COHEN: My view is let's hear from the
19:28:54 public and then --
19:28:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Before we hear from the
19:28:58 public, and maybe the public wants to take this
19:29:00 into consideration.
19:29:01 Are you willing to shift the building closer to
19:29:04 Dale Mabry, increase the waiver request to Dale
19:29:08 Mabry, but I also would like to see the eaves and
19:29:12 gutters remain.
19:29:13 And if you shift the building closer to Dale
19:29:15 Mabry, the eaves and gutters may not be such a
19:29:19 problem or such an encroachment now on the west,
19:29:27 all things moving forward.
19:29:27 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Part of what we already
19:29:31 considered from a staff perspective is it requires
19:29:33 a 6-foot masonry wall at zero.
19:29:35 That elevation of the building behind the PVC
19:29:40 fence is providing a buffer and protection that
19:29:43 the 6-foot wall as required by code would have
19:29:46 been providing.
19:29:47 So it was a little bit of give and take on both of
19:29:51 those to get to that.
19:29:52 Yes, I know it's in the 15-foot buffer, but what
19:29:54 code would require is a 6 foot wall at zero and
19:29:57 then the 15-foot buffer.
19:29:58 So you are getting opacity.
19:30:01 You are getting a buffer to the residential.
19:30:02 So it's a little bit of both.
19:30:06 We have some wiggle room.
19:30:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right, anyone from the public
19:30:10 like to speak on item number 7?
19:30:12 Anyone from the public like to speak on item
19:30:14 number 7?
19:30:15 >> My name is Janine Dorsey.
19:30:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I live directly west of this
19:30:22 property.
19:30:24 I do not want them four feet right on top of me.
19:30:29 There has been unprecedented flooding at that
19:30:32 intersection recently.
19:30:34 We had flood damage to our home because of
19:30:38 standing water in the immediate area.
19:30:40 We have lived there 13 years, and we have never
19:30:43 had flood damage in our home.
19:30:45 I think that adding a paved parking area and the
19:30:50 larger building on that lot is only going to
19:30:52 increase this problem to my property.
19:30:59 Since that house has been purchased, several large
19:31:01 trees have been removed.
19:31:03 I don't understand why now there is concern over
19:31:07 preserving one.
19:31:09 There was an oak tree immediately on the property
19:31:12 line between that house and our house, which is
19:31:16 now gone.
19:31:18 So I'm not sure why all of a sudden we have
19:31:21 concern about those trees.
19:31:24 And regarding the waiver on the wall, I want the
19:31:29 full wall, if this project is approved, I don't
19:31:33 want any vinyl fencing.
19:31:35 As a matter of fact, the applicant drafted a
19:31:37 letter addressed to the land development office on
19:31:41 my behalf.
19:31:43 He wrote this letter and filled it out as if it
19:31:46 was me and said, we don't object to the land use
19:31:50 change and we are okay with a 6-foot vinyl fence,
19:31:55 and he instructed me to sign this letter and
19:31:58 submit it.
19:32:00 Waiving my right to a masonry wall.
19:32:03 Why was that done, I have no idea.
19:32:05 I mean, this whole project really rubs me the
19:32:09 wrong way.
19:32:09 I have to live next door there.
19:32:11 And I don't want a property four feet from my
19:32:15 home.
19:32:17 Regarding the ingress and egress, the plaza that
19:32:21 is on south Dale Mabry, they have access to Dale
19:32:25 Mabry, and we still have high traffic and
19:32:29 parking -- people park in front of my home, even
19:32:32 though they have parking for the project.
19:32:36 They have access to Dale Mabry.
19:32:37 So you're saying this property wants, you know, to
19:32:42 be coming in and out on Obispo?
19:32:46 That's going to be even more parking in front of
19:32:48 my home, and people coming back and forth past
19:32:53 little children who live on that street.
19:32:57 So whether it's planned development or not, it
19:33:00 can't be that close to my house.
19:33:02 And I hope that you consider flooding with regards
19:33:06 to parking.
19:33:07 Thank you.
19:33:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Let me ask you a question,
19:33:12 Mrs. Dorsey.
19:33:15 We had this question about PVC and concrete block
19:33:19 wall all the time.
19:33:20 Can you tell me why you prefer concrete block over
19:33:22 PVC?
19:33:23 >> Well, for the sound buffer, for one thing.
19:33:29 I think it's a more substantial buffer for my
19:33:35 home.
19:33:35 I mean, we have so much noise from Dale Mabry as
19:33:37 it is: Because as my experience -- I shouldn't
19:33:43 say my experience.
19:33:45 Generally speaking, concrete block is harder to
19:33:51 keep, it's painted, the paint wears off, and it's
19:33:54 just more unsightly over time than PVC, just is a
19:34:00 cleaner look.
19:34:00 So I was just wondering why it was your preference
19:34:05 of concrete block and not PVC.
19:34:07 >> Well, I would want it down as far as it will go
19:34:12 whatever the law allows.
19:34:13 The full length of the property.
19:34:16 What he was proposing was what the existing fence
19:34:18 is, which is a more neighborly placement of the
19:34:22 fence.
19:34:23 And I'm not -- it's not neighborly.
19:34:28 It's not a neighborhood home anymore.
19:34:31 I'm done with that.
19:34:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You do understand about Dale
19:34:34 Mabry and the entrance there.
19:34:36 We can't do anything --
19:34:37 >> I understand that.
19:34:38 And I'm following that discussion.
19:34:39 But what I'm saying is the plaza has that access
19:34:42 on Dale Mabry and still we have people parked on
19:34:46 the residential street and go back and forth.
19:34:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you very much.
19:34:51 Are? Anyone else?
19:34:52 >> Terri Rock, 3910 west Obispo street.
19:35:01 I have been there 40 years.
19:35:03 And I was going to say, one of the major problems
19:35:06 that we already have is the people that are in the
19:35:10 plaza that's on the south side.
19:35:15 We have had to deal with the side of the complex.
19:35:21 The garbage cans are knocked over by whatever.
19:35:24 Who knows?
19:35:24 But it's not over so we are dealing with the trash
19:35:27 as we are driving in and out of our neighborhoods.
19:35:30 The flooding has become a very serious issue, as
19:35:34 bigger houses are allowed to be built in the area.
19:35:38 You know, this is going to be a huge monstrosity
19:35:42 that's going to be at the end of the street.
19:35:43 So now you are asking a lot more water to be able
19:35:47 to come onto the streets.
19:35:48 During the recent rains, we had for the first time
19:35:51 in 40 years the water actually went over our
19:35:54 sidewalk, and I'm a block down.
19:35:58 So, you know, there's a problem that's coming down
19:36:01 the road with all this overgrowth that's
19:36:04 happening.
19:36:06 Getting into our neighborhood.
19:36:07 The people don't park in the plaza.
19:36:11 They park on Obispo.
19:36:13 I couldn't figure out -- I saw the people getting
19:36:17 out of their cars, and walking over to the plaza
19:36:21 or whatever it is because they don't want to fight
19:36:24 Dale Mabry to come in and out.
19:36:26 So, you know, all these things added up.
19:36:29 It's not something that the neighborhood really
19:36:31 wants to have happen.
19:36:33 And if it continues to encroach into our
19:36:35 neighborhood, the businesses are coming into our
19:36:38 neighborhood.
19:36:39 You know, we lose that neighborhood feel that we
19:36:42 have, and in the blocks that we are talking about,
19:36:48 there is probably nine children in that one block,
19:36:53 you know.
19:36:54 So we have already increased traffic flow, just
19:36:58 because of so many cars that people have nowadays,
19:37:01 but now we also are going to have, you know, where
19:37:05 cars are trying to either come in or go out of
19:37:08 this plaza.
19:37:09 It just doesn't make sense, you know.
19:37:12 So we are not for it.
19:37:16 Thank you.
19:37:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone else?
19:37:17 >> Ryan Watts.
19:37:23 I actually just built --
19:37:25 >> Have you been sworn?
19:37:28 >> I have not, sir.
19:37:29 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone else planning on speaking,
19:37:31 have you been sworn?
19:37:36 (Oath administered by Clerk)
19:37:44 >> Ryan Watts, one block southeast of there, just
19:37:50 constructed and moved in a few months ago.
19:37:52 When we purchased that lot in December, most of
19:37:54 that area just north, south of Bay to Bay and
19:37:59 Jetton, which is where I live, 3723, was RO.
19:38:03 Between plant high school nine blocks north of
19:38:05 there and us, 59% were zoned residential.
19:38:12 Knowing that it was still a good chunk of
19:38:14 residential for resell down the road, but as
19:38:17 stated you could buy, I think, in the last six
19:38:20 months rezone to PD, and the more it gets rezoned
19:38:23 the more it comes to commercial taking down the
19:38:26 residents property values.
19:38:27 On Bay to Bay, I live at the intersection of Dale
19:38:31 Mabry and Jetton.
19:38:32 The water, because my concrete wall had been built
19:38:35 along Dale Mabry, stopped the water flow coming to
19:38:38 the side of my house but there was enough of the
19:38:40 water driving down to be go over the wall into my
19:38:44 backyard.
19:38:45 The water in front of the house actually went from
19:38:47 the corner of the intersection beyond the
19:38:50 sidewalks around the wall, and that's how much
19:38:56 water is coming from the parking lot there, nine
19:38:59 feet or nine parking spots, more concrete doesn't
19:39:04 absorb.
19:39:05 You already have flooding issues, I guess.
19:39:07 Obviously soil, concrete doesn't.
19:39:11 The more they build the more water it floods.
19:39:14 The more it affects the property values.
19:39:18 I am opposed to it building more and more
19:39:20 encroachment in our neighborhood.
19:39:23 Thank you.
19:39:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
19:39:26 Next person.
19:39:27 >> Fred Rock, president at 3910 west Obispo.
19:39:37 The I need to first compliment the planners on
19:39:42 this particular project, because the building,
19:39:44 it's a fantastic looking piece of art.
19:39:47 However, everything that's golden, everything that
19:39:50 appears to be golden, everything that glitters is
19:39:53 not golden.
19:39:54 And when we look at how narrow this street called
19:39:58 Obispo street is.
19:40:00 And we are trying to egress into Dale Mabry
19:40:03 ourselves.
19:40:04 We are about to make this even worse of a
19:40:07 challenge, not just to Obispo going onto Dale
19:40:10 Mabry but now people off of Dale Mabry having to
19:40:12 slow down to allow the traffic to pull into
19:40:16 Obispo, to turn into this proposed building.
19:40:20 When you talk about putting a two-foot wall, you
19:40:23 start having to pull your car out in order to look
19:40:26 around to be see if it's safe to enter into the
19:40:28 road, that's another whole issue.
19:40:35 I have lived in this home for approximately 15
19:40:38 years or so.
19:40:39 And I just read the nine or ten children that live
19:40:43 in our neighborhood that one of may be hit by one
19:40:49 of our drivers who isn't paying attention because
19:40:51 the roads have been cluttered with automobiles,
19:40:54 and we are at the point right now where we can fix
19:40:56 that by not allowing something that's just so
19:41:00 dense with a population of more automobile
19:41:03 traffic.
19:41:06 Obviously, I have not in favor of this.
19:41:08 And I appreciate your time this evening.
19:41:10 Thank you.
19:41:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
19:41:12 Anyone else wish to speak on item number 7?
19:41:17 All right, petitioner.
19:41:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Before he speaks, can I ask
19:41:25 Mary Daniel Bryson all the way there in the back
19:41:27 if I could ask her about the tree issue that was
19:41:30 brought up by one of the residents?
19:41:40 There are trees, while she's making her way up
19:41:42 there, on the site plan.
19:41:44 I do see the protected one the petitioner talked
19:41:47 about on the north side, but it appears that there
19:41:51 was some tree removal already possibly on the west
19:41:53 side?
19:41:57 So I'm wondering about that.
19:41:58 And I'm also wondering -- this may not come into
19:42:06 play, with the concrete block versus the PVC
19:42:10 fence.
19:42:10 Sometimes we change from block to PVC because of
19:42:13 the trees.
19:42:16 The tree roots, and that the PVC can be lifted up
19:42:21 a little bit higher and not affect the trees.
19:42:25 >> Correct.
19:42:26 Mary Daniel Bryson, natural resources.
19:42:29 I have been sworn.
19:42:31 I did not do the initial site inspection on this.
19:42:33 However, in looking at the aerial photo and in
19:42:36 looking at the site plan, the survey that was
19:42:39 provided that did correspond, I am not privy to
19:42:43 whether or not there were permits pulled for the
19:42:45 other trees.
19:42:47 But the survey that was provided that shows the
19:42:57 trees on-site, over here is a 32-inch.
19:43:10 Here this is a 32-inch.
19:43:15 I would have to research the records to find out
19:43:20 if any additional tree removal other than what was
19:43:23 shown.
19:43:24 >> So I guess if this goes forward between first
19:43:26 and second reading I would like to know if there
19:43:30 was any tree removal that was done, and if there
19:43:33 were permits pulled or not.
19:43:34 >> Sure.
19:43:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And the concrete block versus
19:43:37 PVC?
19:43:40 >> It's preferable that PVC is used because you
19:43:43 can manipulate that around the roots a lot easier
19:43:46 than a block wall.
19:43:48 Block wall you have to have a footer, and then the
19:43:53 Lentil to carry the load and it's a lot more
19:43:55 difficult to work that around the tree as opposed
19:43:57 to PVC fence.
19:43:59 So PVC is preferred.
19:44:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
19:44:02 The only other observation -- I don't think this
19:44:06 is in your bailiwick, but as far as the runoff and
19:44:10 the flooding from the parking lot and impervious
19:44:13 surface, is it possible to use a material that the
19:44:18 water would still be able to permeate?
19:44:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:44:26 Stormwater typically only gives a 30% credit for
19:44:29 the use of pervious concrete or pavers.
19:44:35 So code requires that they are going to retain
19:44:38 anything that they are offsetting on their
19:44:40 property.
19:44:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Understood, but anytime that
19:44:44 we can have pervious surface instead of impervious
19:44:49 surface on a lot I am going to encourage our
19:44:51 buildings to go to the new materials that are
19:44:54 available on the market.
19:44:54 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Given that there is not a solid
19:44:57 waste truck that is going to be on this property
19:45:01 and that they are going to use carts just like
19:45:04 residential in nature, I would say that they could
19:45:06 elect to use a pervious.
19:45:08 They'll get 30%.
19:45:09 But in addition to that, they are going to have to
19:45:12 retain on-site everything that --
19:45:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Understood.
19:45:16 All right.
19:45:17 Thank you very much.
19:45:17 >>HARRY COHEN: So in that line of questioning, I
19:45:21 see stormwater that's consistent.
19:45:26 I am looking at the site plan.
19:45:27 Can you show me what it is they are planning to do
19:45:30 to capture the water on the site plan?
19:45:34 >> At this point they are committing to meet code.
19:45:37 They can speak to that.
19:45:38 They are either going to use under the parking
19:45:40 area, they are going to use chambers or some sort
19:45:43 of retention, or swales of some sort on the
19:45:45 property.
19:45:48 So they can speak to that.
19:45:49 And they have commitments to have to meet code at
19:45:54 the time that they permit for construction.
19:45:55 >> I would just like to add that they are required
19:46:01 to plant trees.
19:46:02 And trees intercept water and help with
19:46:09 stormwater, and the infiltration of the roots in
19:46:13 the soil also provide stormwater relief.
19:46:15 >> Thank you, Mary.
19:46:20 >> Dick La Rosa, La Rosa civil design.
19:46:27 To address your concerns, we did have an arborist
19:46:30 go out and see the site prior to the development.
19:46:32 Mr. Reilly was out there.
19:46:34 Did inspect the trees.
19:46:35 Any trees that were removed were removed with
19:46:38 permits.
19:46:39 Just to address that.
19:46:41 We will agree to do a wall, along the west
19:46:44 property line, if that is the preference.
19:46:46 We wanted to keep the PVC to be more residential
19:46:49 in nature.
19:46:50 However, we want to be neighborly.
19:46:51 We want to be neighborly in this particular case
19:46:53 of the.
19:46:55 We will agree to the wall.
19:46:56 If the setback is an issue, right now we have it
19:46:59 set at 4 for the structure itself.
19:47:02 We will gladly increase that to 6.
19:47:06 As it relates to stormwater, we are going to meet
19:47:08 code as required.
19:47:10 We definitely agree tonight to do pervious
19:47:12 concrete which will help exacerbate any additional
19:47:16 situations.
19:47:17 We definitely want this project to move forward.
19:47:19 We want to be do it in a neighborly manner.
19:47:21 As for the parking issue, I think we should
19:47:23 recognize there are is professional office,
19:47:25 specialty retail.
19:47:27 Specialty retail parking is 1.1 per thousand.
19:47:29 It's not like the retail across the street which
19:47:31 is your general retail coffee shop.
19:47:34 Specialty retail is very limited.
19:47:38 On Santiago, I have been there several times.
19:47:40 I have not been there once when the parking lot
19:47:42 has been full.
19:47:43 The peak hours for this type of use is very
19:47:46 limited.
19:47:47 You are not going to see the traffic here the same
19:47:50 as the traffic on the highway itself.
19:47:52 So I think actually with the Santiago project,
19:47:57 traffic is not an issue.
19:47:58 We'll do what we can with stormwater, with the
19:48:02 pervious concrete.
19:48:03 We'll do the wall.
19:48:05 Increase the setback.
19:48:06 We'll do have what we can.
19:48:07 We think this is a great project.
19:48:09 We want to develop it residential in nature and we
19:48:12 want to be a good neighbor.
19:48:13 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from council?
19:48:14 All right.
19:48:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire whether this will
19:48:22 require a continuance for the site plan,
19:48:25 alterations?
19:48:29 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
19:48:30 I think it all depends on the direction by
19:48:32 council.
19:48:33 If the 6-foot on the west with a 6-foot wall is
19:48:36 adequate, we could direct that change in between
19:48:39 first and second reading.
19:48:40 The pervious concrete between first and second
19:48:43 reading.
19:48:44 That's not -- the other changes that I was
19:48:48 requesting were very, very minor in nature.
19:48:50 So we would adjust the eastern setback to take
19:48:57 care of that western setback adjustment as well,
19:48:59 still retaining the eaves and gutters as shown.
19:49:02 >> Move to close.
19:49:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have a motion from Mrs.
19:49:06 Montelione Lon, second by Mr. Miranda.
19:49:09 All in favor of the motion?
19:49:10 Opposed?
19:49:13 All right.
19:49:16 Mr. Maniscalco?
19:49:18 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I have an ordinance being
19:49:20 presented for first reading consideration, an
19:49:23 ordinance rezoning property in the general
19:49:24 vicinity of 3801 west Obispo street in the city of
19:49:28 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
19:49:30 section 1 from zoning district classifications
19:49:33 RS-60 residential single-family to PD planned
19:49:36 development, office, business and professional,
19:49:38 specialty retail and/or storefront residential,
19:49:42 providing an effective date.
19:49:46 With changes to the site plan.
19:49:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think we want to name it.
19:49:51 Concrete, wall.
19:49:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I would add the revision sheet
19:49:59 as submitted by Ms. Feeley and increase setback on
19:50:03 the west side and adjustment on the setback on the
19:50:07 eastern side of the property with I believe a
19:50:12 waiver is going to have to be requested to the
19:50:14 proximity to Dale Mabry.
19:50:17 The change from a PVC fence to a concrete block
19:50:24 6-foot wall and pervious concrete to be used as a
19:50:29 parking surface.
19:50:37 >>ABBYE FEELEY: But that waiver, I'm assuming, we
19:50:39 are making the two-foot adjustment.
19:50:41 So that waiver is going to be for the setback of
19:50:45 29 feet instead of the 31.
19:50:48 Any other adjustments that have to be made they
19:50:51 are going to have to shrink the building a little
19:50:53 bit because the waiver needs to be stated.
19:50:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We'll let that gone between
19:50:56 first and second.
19:51:00 >>ABBYE FEELEY: And utilization --
19:51:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I think you can make it work.
19:51:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have a motion from Mr.
19:51:06 Maniscalco, with an amendment by Mrs. Montelione
19:51:08 Lon, seconded by Mr. Miranda.
19:51:10 All in favor of the motion say aye.
19:51:12 Opposed?
19:51:15 All right.
19:51:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Suarez voting.
19:51:18 No second reading and adoption will be on October
19:51:20 1st at 9:30 a.m.
19:51:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
19:51:25 The last item of the night.
19:51:26 Number 8.
19:51:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chair, may I ask some house
19:51:36 keeping, please?
19:51:37 With regard to item number 8 and all items this
19:51:40 evening, I ask that all written communications
19:51:43 relative to tonight's hearing which has been
19:51:45 available for public inspection in City Council
19:51:47 office be received and filed into the record at
19:51:49 this time by motion.
19:51:50 >> So moved.
19:51:52 >> Second.
19:51:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
19:51:54 Second by Mrs. Capin.
19:51:57 All in favor of the motion say aye.
19:51:59 Opposed?
19:52:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
19:52:02 Further, council with, regard to hearing number 8,
19:52:04 if any members of City Council have had any verbal
19:52:06 communication with any petitioner, his or her
19:52:09 representative, or any member of the public in
19:52:11 connection with any of today's hearings,
19:52:13 particularly now we are talking about number 8,
19:52:15 that member of council should prior to action
19:52:18 disclose the following -- the person or persons,
19:52:21 group or entity with whom the verbal communication
19:52:23 occurred and the substance of that verbal
19:52:25 communication.
19:52:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes, sir, I have advised Mr.
19:52:32 Shelby prior to this hearing that I was contacted
19:52:36 by Mr. Casper via text message to make an
19:52:40 appointment with me.
19:52:41 I did not know what he wanted at that point in
19:52:44 time.
19:52:44 I did not ask what he wanted at that point in time
19:52:47 and did not find oh out until he was seated in my
19:52:50 office during that appointment.
19:52:53 As the conversation developed, he had discussed
19:52:58 this project, this upcoming project, and like the
19:53:02 rest of us, I never know if an applicant has filed
19:53:06 an application until it appears on our agenda.
19:53:10 So I didn't know at the time when I made the
19:53:12 appointment that the applicant had already filed.
19:53:14 I asked him if he knew, and he said, yes, they
19:53:17 had.
19:53:18 So at that point I said, well, then we can't talk
19:53:21 about this because it would be ex parte
19:53:24 communication that I would have to disclose.
19:53:27 Unfortunately, it was after I found out part way
19:53:32 through the conversation that I found that out.
19:53:34 And also there were several articles written about
19:53:37 this, one that appeared in the business journal
19:53:40 and people honor had commented on that business
19:53:42 journal article that I had seen.
19:53:44 I didn't read the whole article.
19:53:47 I just saw it.
19:53:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then let me ask you, can you be
19:53:51 fair and impartial and base your decision on the
19:53:53 evidence you will hear at this hearing?
19:53:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes, sir.
19:53:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
19:53:57 Any other?
19:53:57 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I had coffee a few weeks ago
19:54:00 at the Oxford Exchange.
19:54:02 Mr. Casper said good morning, said they would be
19:54:05 at council in a few weeks, and that was it.
19:54:08 Very limited conversation.
19:54:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
19:54:11 And as a result, or putting that aside, can you be
19:54:15 fair and impartial and base your decision on the
19:54:17 evidence you hear at this hearing?
19:54:19 >> Yes.
19:54:20 >>HARRY COHEN: I have been contacted.
19:54:22 I had very similar experiences to them.
19:54:24 I have been contacted by people on different sides
19:54:26 of this issue and advised all of them that I was
19:54:28 not able to talk about this matter because it was
19:54:30 quasi-judicial.
19:54:33 And I am capable of being fully impartial on the
19:54:38 matter.
19:54:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
19:54:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez?
19:54:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Shelby, I have spoken to be
19:54:44 Mr. Casper, had a meeting with him prior to --
19:54:48 first similar to Mrs. Montelione Lon's situation,
19:54:55 and when that came up, I actually had coffee and
19:54:58 talked to him, not about this issue.
19:55:00 I reiterated that this would have been an ex parte
19:55:04 communication, and that the only thing we talked
19:55:07 about primarily was the nature of zoning and what
19:55:10 it means when you come before council.
19:55:12 In a very general way.
19:55:13 Not about this particular project.
19:55:15 Nothing about this the specifics of this project
19:55:17 because at the time I knew nothing about the
19:55:20 project.
19:55:21 And so for me it was just, you know, this is what
19:55:25 it means to zone.
19:55:25 This is what we do on council.
19:55:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And, sir, you can be fair and
19:55:30 impartial than and base your decision on the
19:55:31 evidence at the hearing?
19:55:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Absolutely.
19:55:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And I will say I was contacted by
19:55:37 Mr. Casper but never met.
19:55:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, I did meet with Mr. Casper
19:55:46 in the office, ended up talking about
19:55:50 McDonald's.
19:55:52 (Laughter).
19:55:55 That's all we talked about.
19:55:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again, both Councilwoman Capin
19:56:00 and Mr. Reddick, the question is can you be fair
19:56:03 and impartial and base your decision on the
19:56:05 evidence at this hearing?
19:56:07 >> Yes.
19:56:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: In a problem.
19:56:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
19:56:15 >>FRANK REDDICK: Item number 8.
19:56:16 And before we start, would someone give me a check
19:56:24 on how many more people are outside?
19:56:28 The last time I heard it was 30.
19:56:32 And I want to make sure.
19:56:38 >> [Off microphone.]
19:56:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay, we can get a count.
19:56:42 Let me get a hand.
19:56:43 How many people in here are planning to speak?
19:56:46 All right.
19:56:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, just to let you
19:56:54 know, behind those doors are at least another
19:56:57 dozen or more people.
19:56:58 And at least downstairs there's probably another
19:57:02 20 at least, perhaps more.
19:57:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
19:57:07 Council, because of the volume who want to speak,
19:57:15 are we going to limit it from three to two
19:57:17 minutes?
19:57:22 Based on the number that raised and the number we
19:57:24 have out there, do we want to do that?
19:57:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: May I ask a question, Mr.
19:57:32 Shelby?
19:57:33 Do we have any individuals who have submitted
19:57:37 forms to increase their amount of time?
19:57:41 So everybody who raised their hand may not be
19:57:43 speaking.
19:57:44 They may have given their time to someone else?
19:57:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My anticipation is you will find
19:57:48 speaker waiver forms being offered, which raises
19:57:50 another issue that the people whose names I called
19:57:54 should ideally be in this room because if they are
19:57:56 not present, it's problematic and if they are
19:58:00 downstairs or outside and they yield their time.
19:58:03 I won't know that they are here when they are
19:58:05 outside.
19:58:06 So that's an issue.
19:58:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Why don't we do this, if I may
19:58:10 make a suggestion.
19:58:11 Why don't you read off all the names now, and
19:58:13 anybody who is outside or downstairs has the
19:58:16 opportunity --
19:58:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't have any speaker waiver
19:58:22 forms.
19:58:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, if we could get the
19:58:24 speaker waiver forms.
19:58:25 And in that way anybody who is downstairs or out
19:58:27 in the hallway can come into chambers now and be
19:58:29 sworn, because I have a feeling none of them are
19:58:31 sworn in and we are going to have to do the
19:58:33 swearing in, stop six or seven times to get
19:58:36 everybody sworn in.
19:58:44 I think that would save a little bit of time.
19:58:54 This is one of the suggestions I was going to make
19:58:56 at a workshop session, because with the county,
19:58:59 what they do is you have to turn everything in
19:59:01 prior to the hearing starting.
19:59:03 And they have all of the names before you start
19:59:06 and it makes the meeting go a lot more smoothly.
19:59:13 So if we make an announcement to that effect.
19:59:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That's a decision that we have to
19:59:21 make now, because if we start in three minutes it
19:59:24 would not be fair to the others to change it to
19:59:27 two.
19:59:28 It has to be decided, I think, now.
19:59:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council, also your
19:59:33 rules with regard to the speaker waiver form does
19:59:35 allow that the person designated speaker gets the
19:59:42 time that's allotted and each waiver, it says they
19:59:45 relinquish their three minutes and are given an
19:59:48 additional one minute.
19:59:49 That's the rule with regard to it.
19:59:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: If I may, I would say we
19:59:55 change this right now from three minutes to two
19:59:57 minutes.
19:59:58 That would change the speaker waiver form as well.
20:00:01 They are not waiving the ever three minutes.
20:00:04 They are wavering the 2001.
20:00:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's correct.
20:00:07 And with regard to the additional speaker would
20:00:08 they get an additional minute?
20:00:14 Three two, three --
20:00:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That's my motion and I accept the
20:00:18 amendment.
20:00:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I second the motion to
20:00:23 only allow two minutes per person and two minutes
20:00:26 on the waiver form.
20:00:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: All in favor of the motion say
20:00:35 aye.
20:00:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And just to inform council, I
20:00:38 have in my possession eight speaker waiver forms,
20:00:41 so you know that.
20:00:42 And I will do my best to keep track.
20:00:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Now let's have the speakers come
20:00:46 in so those who came in and have not been sworn
20:00:48 in, please stand to be sworn in.
20:00:52 Raise your hand to be sworn in.
20:00:54 Those who wish to speak and you came in need to be
20:00:58 sworn in.
20:01:02 (Oath administered by Clerk)
20:01:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
20:01:09 Okay.
20:01:10 Let's get this show rolling.
20:01:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My understanding is an
20:01:23 announcement was going to be made that everybody
20:01:26 attending would have their name on the speaker
20:01:28 waiver form, if you have your name on a speaker
20:01:30 waiver form, even though you are not speaking, you
20:01:32 need to be present so when I call your name that
20:01:34 we can acknowledge that you are here.
20:01:35 So if you are downstairs or outside, please come
20:01:37 in.
20:01:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
20:01:43 Staff.
20:01:43 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
20:01:45 The last item on your agenda this evening is REZ
20:01:48 15-41.
20:01:50 Located at 109, 111, 115 and 117 Cedar Avenue,
20:01:56 507, 509, 511 West Cleveland Street, 502, 504, 506
20:02:04 West Grand Avenue, 100, 110, 112, 114 and 116
20:02:09 South Magnolia Avenue. The request before you
20:02:11 tonight is from a CG commercial general and OP
20:02:14 office professional to PD planned development,
20:02:17 residential, multifamily, principle parking, and
20:02:20 all CG uses.
20:02:22 There are five waivers with this request.
20:02:25 Let me go ahead and run through those waivers and
20:02:27 then I'll defer to David for his report on the
20:02:30 comp plan.
20:02:31 The waiver is to remove two nonhazardous great
20:02:35 trees, the second to reduce the required tree
20:02:38 retention from 50% to zero percent, all trees
20:02:43 on-site are being requested to be removed.
20:02:45 The third is to allow for payment into the tree
20:02:48 trust fund prayer to mitigation, planting being
20:02:51 achieved on-site.
20:02:52 Total mitigation required for the project is 154
20:02:56 two-inch trees or 308 inches of tree planting.
20:03:00 The developer commits to plant 160 inches of trees
20:03:04 on-site or within the contiguous right-of-way.
20:03:07 The remainder of the trees, both mitigation and
20:03:11 new planting, could be achieved through payment
20:03:13 into the tree trust fund at a rate of $150 per
20:03:17 inch.
20:03:17 The fourth is to allow loading to occur in more
20:03:21 than one continuous maneuver and to allow
20:03:23 maneuvering into the right-of-way, and the last to
20:03:25 reduce the number of loading berths from 3 to 2.
20:03:29 One loading berth is required for every 100,000
20:03:31 square feet of development.
20:03:32 >>DAVID HAY: Planning Commission staff.
20:03:45 I have been sworn.
20:03:45 The subject site is located within the central
20:03:48 planning district.
20:03:57 The central, Westshore and university.
20:04:01 The subject site is located south of Grand Central
20:04:05 Boulevard and north of West Cleveland Street
20:04:08 between South Magnolia and South Cedar Avenue.
20:04:15 It is not located within the boundaries of an
20:04:17 identified neighborhood association. North Hyde
20:04:20 Park is directly to the south of the subject site,
20:04:26 south of West Cleveland Street.
20:04:28 It is a 2.51-acre subject site.
20:04:32 It is located within proximity to West Kennedy
20:04:39 Boulevard which is identified 80s a transit
20:04:42 corridor.
20:04:43 There are a number of transit routes within
20:04:45 proximity to the subject site connecting into a
20:04:47 number of activity centers throughout the city and
20:04:51 unincorporated county.
20:04:54 Plant Park, the closest open space, is located
20:04:57 approximately 700 feet to the northeast of the
20:05:00 subject site, and the subject site is also located
20:05:03 within a level C evacuation zone.
20:05:10 Onto the future land use map.
20:05:11 The subject site and all the properties within
20:05:14 this kind of reddish color is all the RMU 100, the
20:05:20 regional mixed use 100 future land use category.
20:05:23 That's the same category within the Channel
20:05:25 District.
20:05:26 It is one of the most intensive future land use
20:05:29 categories outside of downtown.
20:05:33 North in the blue, we have University of Tampa.
20:05:36 That's the public quasi public future land use
20:05:39 category.
20:05:40 We have the Crosstown expressway immediately to
20:05:42 the south and West Cleveland Street, that's all
20:05:46 right-of-way.
20:05:46 And then further south on West Platt, we go down
20:05:50 to the community mixed use 35 future land use
20:05:54 category.
20:05:56 This right here is residential 50 allowing up to
20:06:00 50 dwelling units per acre.
20:06:02 The dark brown along Bayshore is the residential
20:06:07 83, and that allows 83 dwelling units per acre.
20:06:12 And then than the lighter brown color to the
20:06:16 southwest is the residential 35 allowing up to 35
20:06:21 dwelling units per acre.
20:06:26 Back to the aerial.
20:06:30 Here again is the subject site.
20:06:32 We have the University of Tampa.
20:06:34 There's the Hillsborough River.
20:06:36 We have the TGH property immediately to the west.
20:06:40 We have got also to the north the theater and the
20:06:45 Oxford Exchange directly to the north, and then to
20:06:48 the east we have more of some surface parking lot
20:06:53 and also a religious establishment and then
20:06:59 further we have the parking garage and properties
20:07:03 associated with Tampa Tribune.
20:07:08 South, you can see the Crosstown.
20:07:11 There's a demarcation.
20:07:13 There's less intense development to the south.
20:07:19 Again, this is community mixed use 35.
20:07:22 So there's office and commercial uses further to
20:07:26 the south.
20:07:27 Kennedy Boulevard again is that transit emphasis
20:07:30 corridor.
20:07:32 Back to the future land use map, the approximately
20:07:38 2.51-acre subject site is designated regional
20:07:42 mixed use 100.
20:07:43 The primary purpose of that regional mixed use 100
20:07:46 land use category is to encourage and maintain
20:07:49 areas for high-rise residential development, major
20:07:52 office and regional-serving commercial
20:07:55 developments, that because of their need for
20:07:58 space, significant vehicular access or intensity
20:08:01 of use, require locations related to major
20:08:06 transportation facilities, to encourage a true
20:08:09 mixture of uses, residential development can be
20:08:11 guided by either density or floor area ratio, and
20:08:15 building Heights typically range from 5 to 24
20:08:19 stories within that regional mixed use 100 future
20:08:22 land use category.
20:08:24 With that category the subject site and adjacent
20:08:27 parcels are expected to develop into a more urban
20:08:30 character within the horizon of the comprehensive
20:08:33 plan.
20:08:34 This would be the fifth proposed development would
20:08:37 be the first significant mixed use development
20:08:39 within the general area.
20:08:41 The proposed density is 296 residential units
20:08:45 within a 308, approximately, 308,000 square foot
20:08:49 structure would provide for development with a
20:08:51 floor area ratio of 2.82.
20:08:55 That's below the maximum of 3.5 floor area ratio
20:08:59 that can be considered under that regional mixed
20:09:01 use 100 future land use category.
20:09:05 The proposed development is urban in character
20:09:07 with uses oriented toward adjacent right-of-way.
20:09:11 Parking is also provided within a structured
20:09:13 parking garage, and no surface parking is being
20:09:16 proposed under the proposed planned development.
20:09:21 Future residents would also have easy access to a
20:09:23 number of transit routes within the surrounding
20:09:26 area.
20:09:29 Though the overall use is consistent with the
20:09:31 regional mixed use 100 future land use category
20:09:35 and the associated policies of the comp plan,
20:09:37 Planning Commission staff has identified a number
20:09:39 of opportunities to further provide consistency
20:09:42 with the overall comprehensive plan.
20:09:45 The removal of the proposed vehicular drop-off
20:09:48 area along Grand Central Avenue would provide
20:09:50 additional space for pedestrian oriented
20:09:54 activities, also eliminating conflict points
20:09:57 between vehicles and pedestrians.
20:10:01 Also, the seven buildings seem to lack a be highly
20:10:04 visible pedestrian oriented lobby similar to the
20:10:08 one provided in the Morgan building.
20:10:10 Similar design techniques to distinguish the
20:10:11 pedestrian lobby proposed along Cedar, south Cedar
20:10:15 Avenue, would be encouraged under the mixed use
20:10:17 corridor policies of the comp plan.
20:10:20 One other note, and Planning Commission staff
20:10:26 supports the city's note to remove the note
20:10:33 transportation regarding removal of the
20:10:35 nonresidential uses, if they are not deemed viable
20:10:43 by the applicant.
20:10:44 Planning Commission staff would agree with city
20:10:46 staff that that would be more appropriately be
20:10:48 removed.
20:10:49 Based on all those findings and the goals,
20:10:51 objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan,
20:10:53 Planning Commission staff does find the proposed
20:10:55 planned development consistent with the Tampa
20:10:58 comprehensive plan.
20:11:00 Thank you.
20:11:08 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thank you, David.
20:11:10 Land Development Coordination.
20:11:17 Just a little housekeeping first.
20:11:18 I did provide you -- I had the printer on extra
20:11:22 large when but I did provide copies of this for
20:11:25 you.
20:11:25 This is the documentation from the state in
20:11:30 relation to the structures that are on the
20:11:32 property.
20:11:33 When I submitted my report to you, which was a
20:11:36 week ago, the property was set for public hearing
20:11:41 before the HPC on Tuesday to discuss the three
20:11:45 structures that are on the property and were
20:11:49 designated as contributing structures.
20:11:51 This documentation I provided to you says that
20:11:54 they have been deemed by the national register of
20:11:57 historic places as considered noncontributing.
20:12:02 So they would not need a hearing before the HPC.
20:12:07 Dennis Fernandez is here this evening to answer
20:12:09 questions directly related to that.
20:12:11 I think there was concern as to if the application
20:12:14 could actually seek entitlement if there were
20:12:17 contributing structures still determined to be on
20:12:19 the property.
20:12:20 So those structures are no longer contributing,
20:12:27 and that information was provided to you.
20:12:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Feeley, in terms of the
20:12:37 recommendation, it was inconsistent by virtue of
20:12:40 the HPC not having done their hearing yet.
20:12:45 And now this essentially eliminated what would
20:12:47 have been a hearing back on September 8th.
20:12:49 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Correct.
20:12:52 It was also found inconsistent related to the
20:12:54 waivers for the tree removal.
20:12:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Right.
20:12:57 But this is one portion of the distance site.
20:13:00 That's what I wanted to find out.
20:13:02 Thank you, chair.
20:13:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Thank you.
20:13:05 The subject property that we are talking about
20:13:07 tonight, and I think you are all familiar with
20:13:10 what David just showed you, is the block that's
20:13:12 bounded by Grand Central to the north, Magnolia to
20:13:15 the west, Cedar to the east, and Cleveland to the
20:13:18 south.
20:13:26 It is 2.51 acres.
20:13:29 It is RMU 100.
20:13:30 RMU 100 allows for an F.A.R. up to three without
20:13:34 bonus.
20:13:35 What is being proposed before you tonight is 2.82.
20:13:39 There's been questions of me as to where be the
20:13:40 bonus is.
20:13:41 There's no bonus.
20:13:43 They are below the allowable F.A.R.
20:13:46 What is being proposed is the construction of 296
20:13:51 multifamily residential units and 5,203 square
20:13:54 feet of nonresidential entitlement.
20:13:57 I call them nonresidential entitlements because,
20:14:01 as we experienced at Post and SoHo, Post and SoHo
20:14:07 did all of theirs retail.
20:14:09 Once they were constructed they saw other things
20:14:11 wanted to go in besides retail.
20:14:13 They had to come back and re-PD with you just to
20:14:16 get other uses so what we have done from that
20:14:18 point forward is treated these as nonresidential,
20:14:22 strip commercial definition which the code has to
20:14:25 allow for multiple tenants to be in those spaces,
20:14:28 and allow for the interchanging of those with the
20:14:31 exception of -- and those are typically posted at
20:14:35 4 per thousand with the exception of restaurant,
20:14:37 that would have to be part of the regular rate and
20:14:43 medical office which would have to be parked at
20:14:44 the regular rate but it allows for things like a
20:14:47 hair salon or a dry cleaner or a regular retail
20:14:50 space to be able to interchange in those spaces
20:14:53 based on market demands versus saying it's all
20:14:56 going to be retail and then nothing gets leased up
20:14:59 and they come back before you.
20:15:00 That's something we have been incorporating now in
20:15:03 a couple of projects after that is how this
20:15:06 application is also taken care of.
20:15:08 The building is designed with two buildings
20:15:10 separated by a structured garage.
20:15:13 The north building is going to be six stories with
20:15:15 a maximum height of 80 feet 6 inches.
20:15:18 The southern building is proposed at 5 stories
20:15:20 with a maximum height of 69 feet 6 inches.
20:15:24 The garage is proposed at 9 stories with a maximum
20:15:27 height of 110 fate 2 inches.
20:15:30 There are rooftop amenities proposed on the ninth
20:15:33 level of the garage including a pool, a sky
20:15:35 lounge, two-lane bowling alley and a club room.
20:15:38 The proposed nonresidential uses are oriented
20:15:41 along west and central in relation to the historic
20:15:46 commercial property to the north.
20:15:47 The PD setbacks are as follows:
20:15:50 North 5-foot.
20:15:51 East 5-foot.
20:15:52 South zero foot.
20:15:55 West 5 foot.
20:15:56 The proposed development requires 528 parking
20:15:59 spaces and 627 are being provided.
20:16:03 The application is requesting principal parking as
20:16:07 allowable use to commit for additional parking
20:16:10 spaces to be utilized by the surrounding
20:16:13 businesses in the area.
20:16:15 The property contains structures I already
20:16:18 addressed, which have been deemed contributing,
20:16:20 and that issue was taken care of.
20:16:24 Let me go ahead and shop you in relation to this
20:16:28 application being able to move forward in those
20:16:30 structures that issue has been resolved.
20:16:36 One other item I did want to show you tonight in
20:16:39 relation to the zoning atlas, the zoning atlas has
20:16:42 a PD to the west, which many people say that's
20:16:46 TGH, their administrative building as it is.
20:16:49 That PD also had an option for two six-story mixed
20:16:55 use buildings, and I believe approximately
20:16:58 26067-some residential units, and a ten-story
20:17:03 garage.
20:17:03 So I wanted to show you that, because as part of
20:17:06 my application, my review of this application in
20:17:10 determining compatibility with surrounding
20:17:13 properties, the property directly to the west is
20:17:18 entitled the two of six-story, three levels of
20:17:25 parking, 240 spaces, 240 spaces and then
20:17:29 approximately 200,000 square feet above it, and
20:17:35 the front building, a ten-story parking garage
20:17:38 along Cleveland, with retail at the bottom.
20:17:43 The bottom has nine levels of parking,
20:17:46 approximately 2500 parking spaces entitle for that
20:17:51 property.
20:17:51 When you look around and saying what's being
20:17:53 proposed is out of character you have to look at
20:17:56 what's entitled on the ground, and that's part of
20:17:58 our review for this application as well under the
20:18:01 RMU and how it relates to the surrounding
20:18:04 property.
20:18:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can you give us a time frame
20:18:09 it was rezoned?
20:18:11 >> 2011.
20:18:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right.
20:18:15 Thank you.
20:18:15 >> On the other side of this, at the other corner,
20:18:23 which people say that's a surface parking lot now,
20:18:26 that is part of a 1997 zoning, and that too is
20:18:30 entitled 135-foot garage.
20:18:38 It's part of the Rivergate tower before me H.it
20:18:44 has two pieces at Kennedy and Parker.
20:18:46 And this was the third piece.
20:18:48 It's 135 feet, eleven levels, plus roof, garage,
20:18:52 with potentially 50,000 square feet of retail.
20:18:57 So in my report to you when I look around and say
20:19:01 what is compatible when I go through the nine PD
20:19:04 criteria I have to take into account what can go
20:19:07 under construction tomorrow on the adjacent
20:19:09 properties.
20:19:10 That's part of what is ingrained in the report
20:19:14 that's before you tonight in finding the
20:19:15 application consistent as far as mass, scale and
20:19:20 development potential.
20:19:24 Let me go ahead and show you what's out there.
20:19:31 I am going to start on Grand Central and move east
20:19:36 towards downtown.
20:19:38 So this is Grand Central.
20:19:40 And Magnolia.
20:19:43 There is the sign there.
20:19:43 The TGH administrative building.
20:19:46 I am going to move east towards downtown.
20:19:54 This is the corner of Cedar and Grand Central
20:19:56 looking back west.
20:20:01 This is the subject at Cedar and Grand Central.
20:20:05 This is moving down Cedar looking back west across
20:20:09 the subject property.
20:20:13 This is on the Magnolia side.
20:20:17 Back east.
20:20:22 Here are the trees.
20:20:26 This is the northern facade of the structures off
20:20:28 of Magnolia.
20:20:30 Southern.
20:20:30 This is looking back north.
20:20:32 This is from the southern boundary of the property
20:20:34 looking north toward Grand Central.
20:20:37 The southern looking to the south of the
20:20:39 Crosstown.
20:20:42 East of the Cedar.
20:20:45 Place of religious assembly.
20:20:47 This is moving east.
20:20:52 This is the church from Cedar.
20:20:54 This is directly east of the property on Cedar.
20:21:00 That is also from the property looking east on
20:21:02 Cedar.
20:21:07 That is at the corner of Cedar and Grand Central
20:21:09 back on Magnolia.
20:21:12 I think a lot of you are familiar with of this.
20:21:14 Directly north along Grand Central.
20:21:17 Headed west.
20:21:32 Land Development Coordination, David mentioned
20:21:44 there was a notation on the plan right now that
20:21:47 discusses the possibility of removing the
20:21:49 non-residential and making it residential.
20:21:52 I'm asking that that note be removed, the portion
20:21:55 that is proposed is nonresidential should remain
20:21:58 as nonresidential.
20:22:01 The proposed height needs to be corrected on the
20:22:03 site plan.
20:22:04 The plan currently states that the garage is
20:22:06 82-foot 8 inches and the residential building is
20:22:09 110.
20:22:10 Those are inverted.
20:22:11 They need to be reversed.
20:22:14 Finally, I did speak to the Aviation Authority.
20:22:16 110 feet is the highest crane they are going to be
20:22:19 able to get on the property.
20:22:22 If so they are asking that final building
20:22:24 height -- add a notation that final building
20:22:27 height is subject to FAA approval.
20:22:29 The proposed height does require a height permit
20:22:35 from the Aviation Authority.
20:22:36 Staff does recognize that there was a discrepency
20:22:39 between -- there's a notation on the tree table
20:22:43 right now underneath that talks about the
20:22:45 commitment for tree planting, but the waiver on
20:22:46 the plan that's before you tonight asks that
20:22:50 everything be able to be paid into the tree trust.
20:22:53 The way the waiver is written on the front page of
20:22:55 the report is the way it should be written.
20:22:58 They are committing to planting 160 inches.
20:23:01 So it will either be planted on their property or
20:23:04 immediately in the right-of-way adjacent which
20:23:06 code does allow for.
20:23:09 But the difference here is that code requires that
20:23:14 you plant your mitigation trees on your property
20:23:17 first, and that mitigation is taken care of before
20:23:21 you are eligible to pay into the tree trust fund.
20:23:24 They will not be able to take care of all
20:23:26 mitigation trees on-site or on the adjacent
20:23:29 right-of-way.
20:23:30 The waiver is asking to be allowed to utilize that
20:23:34 prior to meeting mitigation.
20:23:37 Transportation has site plan modifications.
20:23:40 They meet need the loading berth reduction waiver
20:23:43 to reference the correct citation.
20:23:45 I do have that correct on the front page.
20:23:49 And secondly, they need a notation added that the
20:23:51 developer shall comply with section 22-305 and
20:23:55 will be required to have a City Council hearing
20:23:58 prior to any brick street modification.
20:24:01 Given that the PD doesn't touch the brick streets,
20:24:05 at that time they are going to construct on-street
20:24:07 parking or anything related to those brick
20:24:11 streets, they would need to come back before you
20:24:13 to comply with 22-305 and have the brick street
20:24:17 hearing.
20:24:18 Natural resources had a finding of inconsistency
20:24:22 related to the tree removal.
20:24:24 I know you guys saw Mary here.
20:24:26 She's still here.
20:24:27 The site is 2.51 acres.
20:24:29 It's requesting to remove 35 protected trees and
20:24:32 three grand, two nonhazardous and one hazardous.
20:24:38 That's 100% tree removal.
20:24:41 They do not support the waiver to remove the
20:24:43 trees.
20:24:44 If council finds that reasonable use of the
20:24:46 property has been denied pursuant to 13-45-G, that
20:24:50 would be your finding, then the waiver would be
20:24:55 consistent.
20:24:56 I did provide those reasonable use criteria for
20:24:59 you.
20:25:00 Page 5 of your report.
20:25:02 Lastly, on page 6 of your report, solid waste does
20:25:06 require that some notations are added to the plan
20:25:10 in between first and second reading to be replace
20:25:13 the existing policy notes that are on the plan.
20:25:21 As I mentioned to you, my findings in relation to
20:25:24 the PD criteria are pages 7, 8, 9 and 10 of your
20:25:30 report as well as the waiver criteria for
20:25:32 consideration of waivers on page 10.
20:25:37 In context to the surrounding area, I showed you
20:25:40 entitlements that have not been constructed yet.
20:25:43 However, in this area, the most recently
20:25:49 constructed was the UT dormitory at the corner of
20:25:53 Kennedy.
20:25:54 That is eleven stories and 120 feet in height.
20:26:00 Before that, the Baptist tower was 40 years prior
20:26:04 to that.
20:26:05 I think it was '73.
20:26:08 I did reference that as well.
20:26:12 The rest of my findings are found on those pages.
20:26:15 And I am available for any questions.
20:26:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez.
20:26:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Now here is the difference between
20:26:25 some of the entitlements that I mentioned, first
20:26:27 Tampa General building that's nearest to the
20:26:29 proposed project.
20:26:30 Then secondly the project you just mentioned which
20:26:33 was the UT building on the corner of Kennedy and
20:26:41 that right there.
20:26:43 >> Hyde Park.
20:26:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Hyde Park.
20:26:46 The difference for me, the only difference I can
20:26:48 see primarily, is the way you have -- the way you
20:26:51 get in and out of those particular properties.
20:26:53 Maybe you are on two major corridors, Kennedy and
20:26:57 Cleveland on both of those -- excuse me, on the
20:27:05 Tampa General site, and you also have I think it's
20:27:10 Boulevard to Kennedy was that the one you are
20:27:12 talking about, the other proposed --
20:27:16 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, it's right --
20:27:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You are talking about the --
20:27:22 >> I pulled it up on my Google earth.
20:27:25 It's over to the east.
20:27:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Got it.
20:27:27 So for me the difference is that Kennedy and the
20:27:31 major thoroughfare has a little bit of a different
20:27:33 connotation to what we are talking about here, and
20:27:36 when you go and look at these entitlements, in
20:27:39 relation to your PD requirements, do you look at
20:27:42 that in terms of some of the traffic issues that
20:27:48 are part of the proposed development?
20:27:51 And the reason I am asking you is because it's a
20:27:53 little bit unique because you have got Kennedy
20:27:56 that swerves off.
20:27:57 You have got Grand Central.
20:27:58 And I won't say landlocked but you are in a
20:28:02 different kind of situation than you are for the
20:28:04 Tampa General site.
20:28:07 That's a large site, and it's right off of
20:28:09 Kennedy.
20:28:09 It does have some access I think off one of the
20:28:12 site streets in addition.
20:28:13 But to meet Kennedy approval that's the main thing
20:28:17 because you are talking about a thoroughfare as
20:28:19 opposed to be maybe putting something in a
20:28:21 different context
20:28:23 I guess my point is when you do this, do you put
20:28:25 that in context with everything else that's going
20:28:31 in place?
20:28:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, the Kennedy actually had all
20:28:36 of its access on fielding and on Magnolia.
20:28:40 It didn't have, because of the Kennedy overlay, it
20:28:43 didn't have access onto there.
20:28:45 So its impacts were also being put onto the
20:28:48 smaller local streets, as this is as well.
20:28:53 Unlike typical application that comes before you
20:28:55 for local street access, there's no local street
20:28:58 waiver here because there is no single-family
20:28:59 residential that is on any of these segments
20:29:03 either.
20:29:04 So they would be permitted accesses by code.
20:29:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Because most next to it was
20:29:09 probably already commercial or something else,
20:29:12 correct?
20:29:13 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes, sir.
20:29:14 >>HARRY COHEN: I wanted to ask you, would you
20:29:18 show us again very briefly what is already
20:29:20 entitled contiguous?
20:29:23 Just things that you already showed us.
20:29:25 Thank you.
20:29:27 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This was the PD to the west.
20:29:32 This was done in 2011.
20:29:35 So it has two options.
20:29:39 Option one was the administrative building the way
20:29:42 you partly see it constructing and operating
20:29:46 today.
20:29:46 And option two is to construct this property, and
20:29:55 it was 100 land use, and I had the number written
20:30:04 down.
20:30:05 200 ... 277, I believe.
20:30:14 The other side, so that was this whole block to
20:30:28 the west of the subject.
20:30:29 The other one I showed you was a portion of a
20:30:33 multi-partial PD.
20:30:34 The two other pieces are Parker and Kennedy.
20:30:38 And the third piece is here.
20:30:41 And that's 135-foot, 11-story garage.
20:30:47 >>HARRY COHEN: The first one they ended up
20:30:49 building something else.
20:30:49 >> That building was there.
20:30:51 That was existing.
20:30:52 There was an adaptive reuse and they retained the
20:30:55 right to build this.
20:30:57 >> They had the right to build this in addition if
20:30:58 they choose to.
20:31:00 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.
20:31:01 Yes.
20:31:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Maniscalco?
20:31:04 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I was just curious regarding
20:31:06 the three properties, the three older structures
20:31:11 that are on the property now, 110, 112, and 502
20:31:16 Grand Central.
20:31:17 They were registered historic up until the other
20:31:20 day, and now are deemed noncontributing because
20:31:26 they are isolated.
20:31:29 And the feeling an association has been broken and
20:31:29 none of these three demonstrates significance of
20:31:34 individual buildings.
20:31:35 It's interesting how easy it is to remove that
20:31:38 historic designation from these properties.
20:31:41 [ Applause ]
20:31:48 [Sounding gavel]
20:31:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me make an announcement that
20:31:51 we are not going to tolerate the outbursts.
20:31:54 And if you continue to do this you are going to be
20:31:56 removed from the chambers.
20:31:59 Mr. Maniscalco.
20:32:00 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: So my question is look at
20:32:02 downtown Tampa which this is considered part of
20:32:04 downtown by border on this side of Boulevard.
20:32:09 I mean, this structure is isolated. We have had
20:32:10 demolition all around and new construction whereas
20:32:10 this is the only building on the block.
20:32:17 The same can be said throughout downtown with
20:32:19 other structures, the courthouse, Tampa Theatre
20:32:23 would be -- could be considered isolated.
20:32:26 Buildings have been demolished around the area.
20:32:28 How is it so simple that something can be
20:32:30 historically designated and then just like that
20:32:33 taken right off?
20:32:36 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Architectural review
20:32:38 preservation manager.
20:32:40 To address your question, it involves different
20:32:43 components of historic designation.
20:32:45 These particular properties located on the subject
20:32:48 parcel are located in the national register
20:32:51 historic district, which is a district that is
20:32:55 developed, there's the National Park Service in
20:32:58 coordination with the state historic preservation
20:33:01 office that brings identification and recognition
20:33:04 to areas that are considered to be historic
20:33:08 criteria.
20:33:09 The other buildings that you referred to, they
20:33:12 qualify at a higher level of historic significance
20:33:15 because they are considered to be individually
20:33:17 significant in and of themselves.
20:33:20 They are not necessarily dependent on grouping for
20:33:23 their significance or relationships to areas, to
20:33:26 boundaries.
20:33:27 Also, the buildings that you mentioned are also
20:33:32 locally designated structures, which under our
20:33:35 code, under chapter 27, my office pursues local
20:33:39 designation as a means of bringing adequate
20:33:43 protection to historic buildings.
20:33:45 So in the case of, for example, this particular
20:33:49 building, if someone were to pursue or suggest
20:33:52 delisting it from the national register of
20:33:56 historic places for some particular reason, if
20:33:59 that were successful, which I highly doubt it
20:34:01 would be, we would still have a local level of
20:34:04 protection that would require the preservation of
20:34:06 property.
20:34:08 In this particular case, the applicant agent
20:34:12 initiated a dialogue with the state historic
20:34:14 preservation office, and at some point there was a
20:34:19 reevaluation of the historic significance of these
20:34:22 particular properties, 110 and 112 south Magnolia,
20:34:28 as they contribute to the Hyde Park national
20:34:31 register of historic district.
20:34:33 That is a process that is driven through
20:34:36 coordination of the state and federal level,
20:34:39 without much coordination through the local level.
20:34:42 And in than particular situation, the National
20:34:46 Park Service agreed with the state historic
20:34:48 preservation office that the environment in which
20:34:50 the structures are situated in had changed since
20:34:54 it was originally inventoried in the 80s, and
20:34:59 you see there were repercussions of that in the
20:35:01 letter.
20:35:03 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: So somebody that's not
20:35:06 familiar with the area or from Tampa, whether it
20:35:08 be at the state level or wherever, signs off on
20:35:11 something without really seeing a property first
20:35:13 hand, something that's over 100 years old, they
20:35:17 can just move to have delist it and then therefore
20:35:20 go to demolition?
20:35:24 >> Under their regulations they can do that.
20:35:28 They notify the local government, but as you can
20:35:32 see, our process was governed towards dealing with
20:35:35 these structures as being contributing structures
20:35:38 to the national register of historic district.
20:35:41 We are moving towards a local hearing at the
20:35:45 historic commission based on my objection to these
20:35:48 structures' demolition.
20:35:52 Once the National Park Service delisted these
20:35:55 structures as noncontributing, it essentially
20:35:57 undermined the criteria that we have within our
20:36:01 code under 27-260 for potential emergency
20:36:06 designation that's not locally designated historic
20:36:11 structures.
20:36:11 >> So you have objected to the demolition of these
20:36:13 structures, but the state moved quicker than we
20:36:16 did?
20:36:18 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I objected to the demolition
20:36:20 of those structures at that time, and I don't
20:36:22 believe it's the right thing to do at this time.
20:36:24 But the ordinance allows for the applicant to move
20:36:28 forward with demolition requests based on these
20:36:32 being noncontributing structures within a historic
20:36:34 district at this time.
20:36:35 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: So these structures have
20:36:37 survived over 100 years, and it's not your fault,
20:36:40 but because this state or whomever said we can
20:36:43 move quicker than you can, these places get wiped
20:36:47 out just like that?
20:36:49 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Well, there's other caveats to
20:36:52 that statement, I believe.
20:36:56 We were never able to successfully extend the
20:36:58 local historic district boundaries to encompass
20:37:00 this area, which obviously leads to these
20:37:03 buildings not having adequate protections at this
20:37:07 particular time.
20:37:07 But more disturbing, I think the National Park
20:37:09 Service essentially questioning the validity of
20:37:13 the entire national register district to the north
20:37:16 of the Crosstown expressway, brings in a whole
20:37:19 other element that goes beyond this site and
20:37:21 causes potential jeopardy to all structures north
20:37:25 of the Crosstown that are really within the
20:37:29 national historic district.
20:37:30 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
20:37:32 This is a very, very important conversation, but I
20:37:36 do need to refocus you that you are here for a
20:37:39 specific request on a rezoning tonight, and
20:37:42 whether or not you agree or don't disagree with
20:37:44 the National Park Service and their decision, they
20:37:48 have rendered that decision, they have made these
20:37:50 buildings noncontributing.
20:37:51 That is the status that we are at today.
20:37:53 I certainly think if council would like to
20:37:55 continue this discussion looking at ways that we
20:37:58 can perhaps evaluate our codes and the power we
20:38:03 have locally, I think that's an important
20:38:05 discussion but perhaps could be scheduled at a
20:38:07 different time for a work shown.
20:38:08 But tonight, I mean, we are where we are with the
20:38:11 facts we are, whether we like them or not.
20:38:13 And we need to focus on the compatibility of the
20:38:16 rezoning whether or not the applicant is able to
20:38:19 meet their burden and all the other competent
20:38:22 substantial evidence that's presented to you
20:38:24 tonight.
20:38:25 Thank you.
20:38:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Miranda?
20:38:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20:38:31 If I remember what was said here, there's no
20:38:34 ingress or egress on the TGH building at Brevard
20:38:39 and Magnolia and Kennedy, correct?
20:38:42 There's no ingress or egress?
20:38:44 >> None.
20:38:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In fact about that time there
20:38:47 was another rezoning by TGH, southern cures,
20:38:57 certified by the state, if I remember.
20:38:59 One on Rome and Kennedy.
20:39:01 Close proximity.
20:39:04 That was a much larger, much, much larger.
20:39:08 In fact, both of them, the one at Brevard and
20:39:12 Magnolia, if I remember back in the 60s, was
20:39:16 Hawk Plymouth.
20:39:18 Long time ago.
20:39:19 Some of you may or may not remember.
20:39:21 Hawk Plymouth had an automobile dealership there.
20:39:24 And on Rome was the Ferman Oldsmobile Chevrolet
20:39:29 dealership.
20:39:30 So what we are looking at now is cars and cars.
20:39:35 Both come from lots and both -- cars everywhere.
20:39:40 But from what I'm looking at, this parcel of
20:39:45 property has in a different benefit or no
20:39:48 different determination than the property that TGH
20:39:51 has right next to it.
20:39:53 Am I correct, oat record?
20:39:56 Ms. Feeley?
20:39:59 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The ingress and egress?
20:40:01 There is no ingress or egress on Kennedy
20:40:02 Boulevard.
20:40:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: On either one of the two
20:40:05 properties.
20:40:06 The one that TGH has, and the one where we are
20:40:10 dealing tonight.
20:40:11 >> The one we are dealing tonight does not have
20:40:14 frontage on Kennedy but it does not have access on
20:40:17 the north either.
20:40:18 The access is on the east and the west.
20:40:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right.
20:40:22 Thank you very much.
20:40:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
20:40:26 Petitioner?
20:40:34 >> I provided each of you with copies of these.
20:40:36 I would like to admit one into the record of the
20:40:40 evidence we would like to submit for the record.
20:40:45 Also, I believe passed outs somebody information
20:40:56 for you about the Altman companies.
20:40:57 I hope you will take a look and I hope you won't
20:41:00 take a look at now because I have a lot to talk
20:41:02 about.
20:41:03 Before we get started, I did send you a letter
20:41:05 asking for an additional ten minutes.
20:41:08 We have a lot of information to go over, and I
20:41:12 really think that to afford my clients procedural
20:41:15 due process I need that additional time.
20:41:18 In addition, you saw how many people are going to
20:41:19 speak here tonight.
20:41:21 I am given 15 minutes.
20:41:25 If seven people speak for -- or eight people speak
20:41:28 for two minutes apiece, they have already exceeded
20:41:30 my time.
20:41:31 Obviously a lot more than that are going to be
20:41:33 speaking.
20:41:34 So I really think it's only fair to my client that
20:41:36 I be given the additional time.
20:41:38 And I respectfully request it.
20:41:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: You have got 15 minutes.
20:41:48 You start the 15 minutes.
20:41:49 If you need additional time we'll take it up at
20:41:51 that time.
20:41:53 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Okay.
20:41:54 Thank you.
20:41:54 Good evening.
20:41:54 I'm Andrea Zellman with the law firm of Buchanan
20:41:57 Ingersoll, 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, and I'm
20:42:01 very happy tonight to be able to tell you about
20:42:03 this project.
20:42:04 I want to first introduce the Altman team.
20:42:08 I have with me Nat Baganier, Jeff Roberts from
20:42:11 Altman. Tim Price from Price Design, land
20:42:14 planners and engineers, Randy Coen, our traffic
20:42:16 consultant, and also a certified planner; Scott
20:42:19 Andreas and Kevin Steele, landscape architects;
20:42:19 Joe Stanwick, our arborist; Joe Hafner, our
20:42:19 historic preservation architect, and Beatrice
20:42:19 Hernandez, the architects of the building.
20:42:32 I want to thank city staff for their time.
20:42:34 I want to note that we did agree to all the
20:42:36 changes to the conditions that Abbye mentioned so
20:42:39 we don't need to discuss that any further.
20:42:42 Before we talk about this project I wanted to take
20:42:44 a brief moment to tell you a little bit about
20:42:46 Altman itself.
20:42:48 They are a Florida-based multifamily developer.
20:42:51 They are not new to this area.
20:42:53 They have been developing in the Tampa Bay area
20:42:55 since the 1970s, and they recently built
20:42:58 apartments in the neotraditional Highland Park
20:43:01 neighborhood at Westchase and also in Pasco
20:43:03 County.
20:43:05 In the booklet we gave you they have been
20:43:07 recognized by municipalities throughout the state
20:43:10 and the national for their commitment to good
20:43:13 design and exceptional quality.
20:43:15 Also, Jeff Roberts, the president and chef
20:43:17 operating officer of Altman grew up here in the
20:43:20 Tampa Bay area, and is a USF graduate.
20:43:24 The other thing I want to make sure everyone
20:43:26 understands is that they do not build
20:43:29 production-line apartment buildings.
20:43:32 With each project they hire an architect to
20:43:35 individually design that project, and they charge
20:43:37 them with the responsibility to make it compatible
20:43:41 and sensitive to and to enhance the particular
20:43:43 community that it's being built in.
20:43:46 They also, as you have heard, have a lot of high
20:43:49 quality amenities in order to attract quality
20:43:51 tenants.
20:43:52 Now, there's been a lot of misinformation going
20:43:54 around about this project.
20:43:56 So I want to tell you very clearly what it is and
20:44:00 why it is good for Tampa and why it's actually the
20:44:04 missing piece for this neighborhood in particular.
20:44:07 And let me start by saying that in all my years of
20:44:09 doing this kind of works, I have never seen any
20:44:13 developer work as hard as Altman has to reach out
20:44:17 to its neighbors to be try to start a conversation
20:44:20 about the planning of this project.
20:44:22 They have been doing that for months.
20:44:25 They reached out to and have met with Blake Casper
20:44:28 of Oxford exchange, with Mary, with Dr. Vaughan
20:44:32 and others from UT, from Wells Fargo bank, with
20:44:36 Cheryl Eagan and Steve short from Tampa General,
20:44:38 with the representative of the First Baptist
20:44:40 Church and the Christian science church, and also
20:44:43 with the tenants of the Grand Central place
20:44:46 building across the street.
20:44:48 And as a result of those meetings, this has been a
20:44:52 work in progress.
20:44:52 They have taken the plan to many, many revisions
20:44:56 as they met with each of these neighbors and heard
20:44:59 their concerns, and said the plan that you are
20:45:01 seeing before you today really does reflect a lot
20:45:03 of community input from those that will be most
20:45:06 impacted.
20:45:07 So let me just show you real quickly.
20:45:23 That rendering, I think, is a little better view.
20:45:28 As Abbye told you, this has 296 F.A.R. units, more
20:45:34 than 5,000 square feet of commercial uses.
20:45:36 We did lose five parking spaces to design issues
20:45:41 so there's 622 parking spaces, but that's still 94
20:45:47 more spaces than is required by code.
20:45:49 One thing we forgot to include on the site plan
20:45:51 and we would also like to add this as a condition,
20:45:54 is that the building will be LEED certified and we
20:45:57 are happy to add that as a condition.
20:46:00 You can see the architecture review Altman added
20:46:05 after talking to their neighbors about what they
20:46:07 could do to make it look better.
20:46:09 They had their architect tweak the plan several
20:46:11 times and they asked to incorporate features of
20:46:15 Oxford, of the Grand Central building across the
20:46:18 street, and at UT they use brick, arched windows,
20:46:23 awnings, landscaping.
20:46:24 They also asked the architect to look at some old
20:46:27 historical photos.
20:46:33 This is a building that was across from the
20:46:39 apartment hotel and the family actually lived in
20:46:39 it, and some of the features I am going to point
20:46:42 to you here -- this is the back of that building.
20:46:50 Here you can see where the architect picked up
20:46:53 some of those features, some of the arches.
20:46:56 And then we have the awnings down here like an
20:46:59 Oxford and Grand Central.
20:47:03 The molding.
20:47:05 All of these features were picked up from the
20:47:07 architecture around them, and because they do want
20:47:11 to blend in with the neighborhood, and they do
20:47:13 actually care about the history of the
20:47:15 neighborhood.
20:47:18 And again you can see here on Grand Central, this
20:47:21 is the commercial space.
20:47:23 Originally the project didn't have commercial
20:47:26 spaces.
20:47:27 They were very worried about being able to provide
20:47:29 enough parking.
20:47:30 But when the neighbors said, no, they want to see
20:47:33 commercial, they added it on the ground floor.
20:47:35 We don't know yet who the tenants will be. At
20:47:39 Altman's Highland park complex there's a co-op
20:47:42 coffee, maybe we'll get one of those, maybe Misen
20:47:47 Place, maybe Oxford will have the Oxford market
20:47:51 again.
20:47:51 Let me show you one more rendering.
20:47:57 This is the theater side of the building and you
20:48:03 can see what a nice job they have done.
20:48:04 This is the parking garage there and you can see
20:48:06 how they break up the wall.
20:48:08 They don't have the ugly white slab that you see
20:48:11 on many of the parking garages in downtown Tampa.
20:48:14 Altman was also asked to make the project more
20:48:17 pedestrian friendly.
20:48:18 So they added a number of features to do that.
20:48:22 They widened sidewalks, added fences, going to
20:48:24 have bike repair stations for public use.
20:48:27 They have ground level apartments that for true
20:48:31 pedestrian integration into the project.
20:48:33 They have also committed to a very lush
20:48:37 landscaping plan.
20:48:38 The most significant aspect is that your code
20:48:41 requires two-inch caliper trees.
20:48:45 Altman has committed to wherever possible and as
20:48:47 much as possible, use larger trees up to eight
20:48:51 inches in caliper, and they have done this at
20:48:54 their other developments.
20:48:55 What that means is be that from day one you
20:48:58 actually have a tree canopy.
20:49:01 So this whole concept of the plan is not just to
20:49:05 plant the minimum number of trees to meet code but
20:49:07 is to plant the right trees in the right places so
20:49:10 that they will thrive, not just survive.
20:49:13 Also, I would note the Grand Central building to
20:49:16 the north is not part of this project.
20:49:18 However, Altman has already begun talking with
20:49:22 your city staff about adding some landscaping
20:49:24 along there.
20:49:26 You can see some of the pictures that Abbye showed
20:49:28 you.
20:49:29 The street is pretty bare there.
20:49:32 Adding some nice landscaping and even approving a
20:49:37 park.
20:49:37 That's an example of how Altman is committed to
20:49:41 improving this area and improving the community.
20:49:43 Now some have criticized us for including a large
20:49:45 parking garage between the two apartment
20:49:48 buildings.
20:49:50 Today is surface parking lot.
20:49:54 That's what it looks like now.
20:49:57 Let me just say, one of the things that Altman
20:50:07 took into account was we are not required by your
20:50:11 code, and we are not legally obligated, to provide
20:50:15 parking for Misen Place, Oxford Exchange and the
20:50:18 Grand Central tenants.
20:50:21 All of them you can see are using the parking lot
20:50:23 now.
20:50:24 However, again from when Altman first began
20:50:27 designing this project, they said it would not be
20:50:29 right to take away that parking.
20:50:32 And also they want those businesses to be a
20:50:34 successful part of the attraction of this site was
20:50:37 that their tenants would be able to walk across
20:50:39 the street to some of the better restaurants in
20:50:41 town.
20:50:42 So it was the right thing to do.
20:50:44 They oversized their parking garage so that they
20:50:47 could continue to provide parking for Oxford and
20:50:53 Mise en Place.
20:50:54 They also did not want ask you for the waivers
20:50:58 that in South Tampa they do to lead to the
20:51:01 situation we have on South Howard.
20:51:02 Again, they are providing more parking than your
20:51:04 code requires, not less.
20:51:07 Now let me talk for a minute about why this
20:51:09 project is so good for this particular location in
20:51:12 Tampa.
20:51:13 Again, right now it's just a surface parking lot.
20:51:16 We have got again Mise en Place, Oxford Exchange,
20:51:20 other retail to the north.
20:51:22 To the east, the First Baptist Church and the
20:51:25 Christian science church.
20:51:27 As was explained to you, to the immediate west,
20:51:33 the 2011 Tampa General PD, but ultimately it's
20:51:37 going to allow for a ten-story parking garage, six
20:51:41 stories of office, two six story buildings above
20:51:46 three level parking.
20:51:47 By the way they have a trade-off matrix that
20:51:49 allows them to have, I believe, about 250
20:51:53 apartments on the TGH site.
20:51:54 Again to the east as Abbye mentioned is the 1997
20:51:58 PD that allows an 11-story parking garage so Abbye
20:52:02 made a very important point, when you look at the
20:52:04 scale of our nine-story garage, compared to be
20:52:07 what's there today, it may seem large, but you
20:52:09 have to look at it in the context of what is
20:52:12 ultimately going to go on the parcels to the east
20:52:14 and to the west.
20:52:17 We believe that Altman has added to the mix of
20:52:23 uses that's already there and entitled will create
20:52:25 a true walkable environment.
20:52:28 Tenants will be able to work next door at the TGH
20:52:31 offices.
20:52:32 They will be able to walk across the street to
20:52:35 Mise en Place and Oxford for dinner or lunch.
20:52:39 They could live and ride the shuttle buses that
20:52:43 TGH runs to the hospital and Davis Island.
20:52:46 And of course they will also be walking,
20:52:48 bicycling, scootering distance to University of
20:52:50 Tampa, which always needs housing alternatives for
20:52:54 students, faculty and staff.
20:52:56 Even with all that, some are questioning whether
20:53:01 residential is appropriate for this site.
20:53:02 First of all for those of you interested in the
20:53:04 historical perspective, this site was always first
20:53:08 and foremost residential.
20:53:10 It originally contained 11 homes, eight of which
20:53:15 were demolished over time.
20:53:16 The three remaining are being used as small
20:53:18 businesses right now, but it was always primarily
20:53:21 residential.
20:53:22 But more significantly it's basically planning 101
20:53:26 that tells you that in order for any commercial
20:53:29 district to be successful, you have to have
20:53:32 housing.
20:53:34 I included in your notebook experts from walkable
20:53:40 city and also a book by Andres Duany called The
20:53:47 Smart Growth Manual, and I want to actually read
20:53:49 from Andres Duany's and Jeff Speck's book.
20:53:52 The key to active streetwise is to create a 24
20:53:55 hour city which implies an area so diverse in use
20:53:58 that it is inhabited around the clock.
20:54:01 Living, working, shopping, schooling and
20:54:04 socializing must coexist in close proximity.
20:54:08 No one such activity can really flourish in the
20:54:10 absence of another as they are all mutually
20:54:13 reinforcing.
20:54:15 In most downtowns, housing is underrepresented,
20:54:18 but cities should make special effort to bring
20:54:21 more apartments into their urban core.
20:54:27 Council, this area already has the working.
20:54:29 You have got the offices of TGH and in Grand
20:54:32 Central.
20:54:32 You have got the shopping.
20:54:33 You have the shops at Oxford Exchange and the
20:54:36 other small retail there.
20:54:37 You have the beautiful art gallery.
20:54:39 You have got the schooling.
20:54:40 You have got UT.
20:54:41 You have got the socializing.
20:54:43 Mise en Place and Oxford.
20:54:45 What's the missing piece?
20:54:46 The piece that's missing is a place for people to
20:54:49 live.
20:54:49 Step two out of the ten steps in Jeff Beck's
20:54:53 Walkable City book.
20:54:54 That's what Altman brings.
20:54:56 That's exactly how you create a walkable city.
20:54:58 And that's why included in our packet is a letter
20:55:01 from the Tampa Downtown Partnership saying that
20:55:04 they support this mix of uses.
20:55:06 This is what we have been trying to do in our
20:55:08 urban core for years.
20:55:10 Now, there's someone I would like to bring very
20:55:13 briefly, Randy Coen up to talk a little bit as a
20:55:16 certified planner.
20:55:18 >> Randy Coen, 4121 West Cypress street.
20:55:24 I have been sworn.
20:55:24 And I am a certified planner.
20:55:27 I have been asked to talk a little bit about land
20:55:29 use.
20:55:30 It's an indication in some correspondence, I
20:55:34 believe, to you that this particular project is
20:55:36 not consistent with the RMU 100 comp plan
20:55:40 designation, that's regional mixed use 100.
20:55:44 First thing they wanted to say -- and I will put
20:55:46 something on the Elmo about that -- is that this
20:55:49 particular building really isn't mixed use.
20:55:53 It only has 5,000 square feet of retail or
20:55:55 commercial uses within it.
20:55:56 That's absolutely correct.
20:55:57 But it doesn't need to be mixed use.
20:55:59 As a matter of fact are if you look at your
20:56:01 particular code, it talks about individual
20:56:03 buildings with various types especially
20:56:06 residential.
20:56:06 It's the area that needs to be mixed use and
20:56:09 that's the requirement of the comp plan, not an
20:56:11 individual building.
20:56:12 This provides a new use in this area that provides
20:56:15 for additional mix of uses.
20:56:17 Residential in an area that currently has no
20:56:20 residential.
20:56:22 The second item is talking about the height of
20:56:24 parking structure within this particular building.
20:56:28 Bottom line is we just heard that to the west we
20:56:30 have a project that is a nine-story building,
20:56:33 three stories of parking, six stories of building
20:56:35 above it, and a parking structure over there is
20:56:37 actually 30 feet hair than what's proposed by
20:56:41 Altman.
20:56:42 If you look to the immediate east you heard
20:56:44 there's an eleven story parking garage.
20:56:45 It's actually 35 feet higher than we'll have.
20:56:49 Therefore, it is not inconsistent with office
20:56:54 projects, is very consistent with the trends in
20:56:56 the area, what has been approved on both sides of
20:56:59 it.
20:56:59 Going on to the next item.
20:57:01 (Bell sounds).
20:57:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me -- that red light means
20:57:06 stop.
20:57:09 So I am going to grant you an additional ten
20:57:12 minutes that you requested.
20:57:14 >> Thank you.
20:57:16 And I will be very quick.
20:57:18 We talked about the building lacking historical
20:57:20 items in it and blending with the architects.
20:57:22 I think Andrea did a wonderful job of showing how
20:57:25 this building is taking various elements from all
20:57:29 the buildings around it.
20:57:30 The third item was historic structures on the
20:57:32 property.
20:57:33 We found out they are not historic.
20:57:34 They are not contributing structures today.
20:57:36 They may have been in the 80s, but a lot of
20:57:38 things have changed between if 80s and today.
20:57:42 Both at the state level and the federal level they
20:57:44 made the determining decision that these are not
20:57:47 contributing structures at this particular point
20:57:49 in time.
20:57:49 Fourth item is the grand trees and I'm sure
20:57:52 there's going to be a lot of discussion on those.
20:57:54 I'm not an expert when it comes to grand trees,
20:57:56 but in fact I know that everything that has been
20:57:59 proposed here is in a matter consistent with city
20:58:02 code and to your deliberations.
20:58:03 Those are the four items that have been brought
20:58:05 out, I think potentially inconsistent with RMU 100
20:58:11 and you should approve it.
20:58:13 Thank you.
20:58:13 >> Thank you for the additional time. I'll try to
20:58:17 be quick.
20:58:20 I get a lot of e-mails and a lot of objections
20:58:22 saying that this site should remain zoned as it
20:58:24 is, commercial general.
20:58:26 In fact, "Tampa Deserves Better," the group that
20:58:28 has launched a vigorous campaign against this,
20:58:31 wrote on their Facebook page, and I quote, Our
20:58:34 ideal outcome is for the zoning to remain
20:58:37 commercial general.
20:58:38 Let me point out first, commercial general allows
20:58:42 residential uses, including multifamily.
20:58:48 If this site remains commercial general, this
20:58:51 developer or another could build apartments
20:58:53 without having to come before City Council for
20:58:56 rezoning.
20:58:58 Also, if this site remains commercial general,
20:59:01 there are a lot of other uses someone could build
20:59:04 there without ever having to come before this
20:59:06 council.
20:59:08 A fast food restaurant, a fraternity or sorority
20:59:11 house, a gasoline station, a convenience store, an
20:59:15 oil change place, a car wash, a rooming house, a
20:59:19 nursing home, a motel, a free standing parking
20:59:24 garage.
20:59:25 Even a funeral home complete with a crematorium.
20:59:28 Is that really the right vision for the area?
20:59:31 Is that really the ideal outcome?
20:59:33 Is that really the hashtag better that Tampa
20:59:37 deserves? I don't think so.
20:59:39 As you know over the last several years, this city
20:59:42 has engaged in a lot of planning effort with the
20:59:47 InVision plan with ULI and tabs 5 and 6 in your
20:59:50 book I have included certain excerpts of Pinellas
20:59:53 from a study of downtown Tampa and the InVision
20:59:56 plan, and again that reinforces, you need a mix of
20:59:59 uses and it's goat to include residential for the
21:00:02 area to thrive.
21:00:04 For the sake of time, I'll try to address the
21:00:06 waivers.
21:00:07 I am going to point to tab 9 in your notebooks
21:00:10 where I think there's eight pages addressing the
21:00:12 waivers including the tree and landscape code.
21:00:15 I want to make sure to be clear your natural
21:00:17 resources staff has advised you that under your
21:00:20 code, the waiver that would allow us to remove the
21:00:23 tree grand trees is consistent with code if you
21:00:26 find that reasonable use of the property as
21:00:29 defined by your code would be denied if we cannot
21:00:32 remove them.
21:00:33 And Abbye listed the factors, and in our waiver
21:00:37 justification, we went through them, and explained
21:00:39 why reasonable use would be precluded if we can't
21:00:43 remove the trees.
21:00:44 I won't go through them all now, but they include
21:00:46 the fact that one of the two trees is already in
21:00:49 decline.
21:00:50 The location of the trees, unfortunately, they are
21:00:54 right necessary the center of the site, and given
21:00:56 the size of the site and their location, you
21:01:00 couldn't develop anything consistent with the RMU
21:01:04 100 comprehensive plan category without having to
21:01:07 remove them.
21:01:08 One of the other factors you are supposed to
21:01:09 consider is the fair market value of the site
21:01:12 versus the value of the trees.
21:01:14 Clearly, the value of the site far exceeds the
21:01:17 value of the two trees as our arborist measured
21:01:20 those values, and in addition the difference
21:01:22 between the value of the property as is versus the
21:01:25 value of the property as developed is many, many,
21:01:28 many millions of dollars.
21:01:29 And that is one of the factors you are to consider
21:01:31 in determining whether reasonable use would be
21:01:34 precluded if we couldn't remove them.
21:01:37 We have also submitted arborist reports behind tab
21:01:41 10 and 11 in your packet, and they established
21:01:45 that it would not be feasible, very carefully
21:01:48 addressed with your staff, that it would not be
21:01:50 feasible to relocate the trees, and your natural
21:01:53 resources staff, Cathy Beck and Mary agreed with
21:01:56 that determination, and again if you want to hear
21:01:58 more about this, we do have our arborist here, and
21:02:03 also Scott Andreas and our landscape architect.
21:02:06 Also behind page 9 we included documentation
21:02:09 establishing, and I think Abbye went through this
21:02:12 as well, in the staff report, that the project
21:02:14 meets the purpose and intent of the PD zoning.
21:02:18 And I will quote wherever your code which is to
21:02:19 recognize unique conditions allow for design
21:02:22 flexibility, and promote planned diversification
21:02:26 and integration of uses of structure.
21:02:29 Now again, I know you have gotten a lot of e-mails
21:02:31 about this, the one saying that it should remain
21:02:35 commercial general.
21:02:36 I don't know whether they are saying to keep it as
21:02:38 is, and I really don't think that a surface
21:02:41 parking lot within three small structures on it is
21:02:45 really what we want to preserve in the RMU 100
21:02:48 district, or they just don't understand as I just
21:02:51 explained to you that commercial general one allow
21:02:55 apartments and would also allow a lot of uses I
21:02:58 don't think anyone really wants to see there.
21:03:01 The other common theme I keep is seeing in these
21:03:04 e-mails, this is in a walkable community, but as I
21:03:06 have explained, the missing piece that all the
21:03:09 experts tell you you have to have to create a walk
21:03:12 being community is residential.
21:03:17 The concept is people come home, park their car
21:03:19 and then they can walk to the shops, they can walk
21:03:22 to the restaurants, they can walk to the
21:03:24 entertainment.
21:03:25 People point to say, well, the advantage St. Pete
21:03:28 has for years was that they have residents living
21:03:33 downtown before Tampa did.
21:03:34 That's why Tampa has had a push to have residents
21:03:38 downtown.
21:03:39 Now a lot of the e-mails accuse this project of
21:03:42 being just apartments wrapping around a big
21:03:45 parking garage.
21:03:46 And that's just so ironic to me.
21:03:48 As I said before, the garage was oversized,
21:03:52 designed with more spaces than your code requires,
21:03:55 because Altman wanted to make sure that the people
21:03:59 using this parking lot now, and to go to Mise en
21:04:02 Place, to go to the oxford, to go to the Grand
21:04:06 Central offices would still have a place to park.
21:04:08 Why is that a bad thing?
21:04:10 And as for hiding the garage behind the
21:04:12 apartments, would they really prefer to see a
21:04:14 parking garage as a stand-alone building instead?
21:04:18 Now again, a number of the e-mails called Altman
21:04:21 greedy.
21:04:22 As I have explained they have a lot of ties to the
21:04:24 area.
21:04:25 They have been building in this area for years.
21:04:27 That's just not fair.
21:04:28 And they have also again worked very hard to
21:04:30 engage the community in the design of this
21:04:32 project.
21:04:33 So if I can conclude, you have before you
21:04:38 competent, substantial evidence establishing the
21:04:40 following:
21:04:41 The project is consistent with the City of Tampa
21:04:43 code, is consistent with the overall intent of the
21:04:47 PD site controlled plan district as described in
21:04:49 your code, it's consistent, you have heard from
21:04:53 Randy, you heard from David Hay, it's consistent
21:04:55 with the comprehensive plan and the goals,
21:04:57 objectives and policies of the original mixed use
21:05:00 100 planned category, consistent with the ULI
21:05:05 study, the InVision study, the study that city
21:05:07 engaged in to consider how this part of Tampa
21:05:09 should develop, and then it also advances the
21:05:12 planning and smart growth concept advocated by
21:05:15 people such as Andres Duany and Jeff Speck and
21:05:20 countless others and is the type of project that
21:05:23 helps create the true walkable city that this part
21:05:25 of Tampa deserves to be.
21:05:27 So for all these reasons we are asking that you
21:05:29 approve this rezoning, and I'm very happy to
21:05:32 answer any questions.
21:05:33 Thank you.
21:05:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any questions from council?
21:05:36 Mr. Suarez.
21:05:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.
21:05:39 Mrs. Zellman, I am trying to figure something out
21:05:41 here about you talked about some of the ideas.
21:05:48 I'm curious about something.
21:05:49 The project that you are proposing has 627 spaces.
21:05:55 Isn't that right?
21:05:57 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: It's actually down to 622.
21:05:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We'll go with that.
21:06:02 So those 625, and part of what they are talking
21:06:05 about in the excerpts that you have given us is
21:06:09 that walkable city talks very little about parking
21:06:13 per se except for one portion which is under the
21:06:15 walkable city, page 108 of the walkable city
21:06:19 portion, and saying, and to give you an example of
21:06:24 permitting and about stringent parking
21:06:26 requirements.
21:06:27 Why would we build 625 parking spaces if we wanted
21:06:30 to make it more walkable?
21:06:33 And the reason I am asking this is that to me it
21:06:36 seems a little disingenuous --
21:06:40 >> I would like to answer that.
21:06:42 >> Yeah, because, you know, the walkability
21:06:44 portion of it, to my understanding -- and I am by
21:06:47 no means any expert at all in terms of planning --
21:06:50 is that we get more dense communities, and those
21:06:56 dense communities produce more walkable areas,
21:07:00 which means that we have more use for transit
21:07:03 which makes a more vibrant cityscape and city
21:07:06 community.
21:07:07 Okay.
21:07:08 We never talk about parking per se.
21:07:12 In these studies, they are always talking about a
21:07:14 lot of things.
21:07:15 A lot of design issues.
21:07:16 A lot of very esoteric things.
21:07:18 And we really don't get to the nitty gritty which
21:07:21 is most people have at least one car, some
21:07:24 families have two cars or more.
21:07:26 Even when they want to live within the city.
21:07:29 And that's an issue.
21:07:30 And I know that that's part of the problem.
21:07:33 I know that Lowell, Massachusetts, and there's
21:07:37 some areas in Massachusetts that talk about
21:07:40 providing a vehicle with townhouses that are part
21:07:43 of the purchase of the townhouse meaning you don't
21:07:46 have to buy a car, you are going to have a car in
21:07:49 the townhouse.
21:07:49 But when we talk about walkability, why provide so
21:07:52 many spaces in an apartment that is about 290
21:07:59 units?
21:08:00 That's what I am curious about.
21:08:03 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: The very simple answer is because
21:08:04 they are building on the parking lot that is now
21:08:07 providing parking for Mise en Place and the Grand
21:08:11 Central place tenants, and again although we are
21:08:13 not obligated to do it, we thought it was the
21:08:16 right thing to do, to oversize the garage, so
21:08:20 those people would still have a place to park.
21:08:23 You are right, Jeff Speck advocates for less
21:08:25 parking than what's required by code.
21:08:27 And as I said most apartment developers I have
21:08:30 represented, we always ask for parking waivers.
21:08:33 Most apartment developers think your city code
21:08:36 requires too many spaces for apartments.
21:08:38 The simple reason, we overparked this garage was
21:08:43 because we thought it was the right thing to do
21:08:45 because we are building on the parking lot that
21:08:48 today serves those uses.
21:08:50 >> Now, how many spaces are you using if this
21:08:55 proposed project goes through?
21:08:57 How many -- what number of parking spaces are you
21:09:01 replacing if the project goes through?
21:09:04 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I don't remember the exact
21:09:05 number.
21:09:06 And Randy can explain that in more detail.
21:09:08 I believe it's about 170.
21:09:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I didn't think it was 300 or
21:09:15 anything like that.
21:09:16 I was just curious about it.
21:09:18 Because, you know, it seems cross pursuance for
21:09:21 each other when you talk about walkability and
21:09:23 then having a very large garage.
21:09:25 And I agree with you.
21:09:26 Anteriorly, it is better than having it on the
21:09:29 outside.
21:09:30 And I don't think there's anybody that would
21:09:32 disagree with that.
21:09:34 I am just wondering, it is such a large structure,
21:09:36 and there's so much parking, and I know that you
21:09:38 try to accommodate other folks.
21:09:40 But it still kind of goes -- kind of flies in the
21:09:43 face of the walkability issue.
21:09:45 And I'm really curious.
21:09:47 You made this a centerpiece of your presentation.
21:09:49 I wanted to make sure I understood where you are
21:09:51 going.
21:09:51 Thank you, chair.
21:09:52 That's it.
21:09:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
21:09:54 Mrs. Montelione Lon.
21:09:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Along those same lines, Mrs.
21:09:57 Zelman, does that many that getting any parking
21:10:01 for those businesses within the anticipation of
21:10:05 some kind of agreement with the businesses across
21:10:07 the street so that they have legal permission to
21:10:12 have dedicated parking within your building?
21:10:15 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: My client has met with both Mise
21:10:17 en Place and the tenants and Oxford Exchange.
21:10:21 Oxford Exchange wouldn't talk to them about the
21:10:23 number of spaces.
21:10:24 My client made an offer.
21:10:27 I believe it's 65 dedicated spaces and Oxford
21:10:30 Exchange wouldn't continue the discussion.
21:10:32 I believe they worked it out with Mise en Place
21:10:35 and the Grand Central place.
21:10:38 They are going to dedicated the spaces.
21:10:41 Is that correct?
21:10:41 Or still talking?
21:10:43 I think they are still talking.
21:10:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And the other commercial that
21:10:51 would be interior to the building, did I hear you
21:10:55 say in the beginning that you agree to all of the
21:10:57 conditions that are proposed by staff?
21:11:01 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Correct.
21:11:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So the first condition
21:11:04 regarding --
21:11:07 >> It can no longer be changed.
21:11:09 We would have to go back and amend the PD to
21:11:10 change it.
21:11:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And included in the parking
21:11:13 calculation, the parking --
21:11:15 >> Right.
21:11:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I am the one up here
21:11:19 saying I hate parking, I do not want any more
21:11:22 parking built, and, you know, this is a lot of
21:11:25 parking.
21:11:26 But I also sit and hear residents from other
21:11:29 areas of our city who say -- who blame City
21:11:34 Council, whether it's this City Council sitting
21:11:35 here or the City Councils who have come before us,
21:11:39 and yell and scream and jump up and down --
21:11:43 >> Oh, I heard them.
21:11:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We allowed this to happen.
21:11:46 >> Right.
21:11:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And that we didn't make
21:11:48 developers accommodate the parking that was going
21:11:51 to be required.
21:11:53 And, you know, I want it to be walkable.
21:11:56 But, I mean, I can tell you when I go to Oxford
21:12:00 Exchange or to Mise en Place, I do not walk from
21:12:03 this building to those locations.
21:12:08 In address and heel.
21:12:10 I do not take a bike to those locations, I drive
21:12:12 my car.
21:12:13 And I need a place to park.
21:12:15 >> We have one.
21:12:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Unfortunately, that's still
21:12:23 the norm here.
21:12:24 There's no trolley for me to take.
21:12:26 There's no little hop on the bus that I can take
21:12:29 over there.
21:12:30 So I get the juxtaposition between, yes, walkable
21:12:36 city, and yes, we still need parking.
21:12:39 And I anticipate in the area the other entitled
21:12:45 projects are going to require parking as well.
21:12:50 In fact, did you factor any of that into the
21:12:53 number of spaces that you are planning on?
21:12:57 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: You many the TGH?
21:13:00 I mean, they have a massive parking garage planned
21:13:03 but I believe that's for their employees.
21:13:05 Because they park there, and shuttle to Davis
21:13:08 Island, and then they are also planning I
21:13:12 understand to do medical office which requires a
21:13:14 lot of parking.
21:13:16 I don't think there's necessarily --
21:13:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Additional buildings were
21:13:22 going to be with parking if there's going to be
21:13:26 any more retail and that tape of thing.
21:13:31 Thank you.
21:13:31 That's all I have for now.
21:13:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:13:35 Now we go to the audience participation.
21:13:43 Plaintiff Shelby.
21:13:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When you do come up, if you do
21:13:46 have a speaker waiver form that you handed in,
21:13:48 please do let me know so I can pull your name and
21:13:51 ask that the people who are on the list
21:13:53 acknowledge that they are here.
21:13:55 Thank you.
21:13:55 >> Truett Gardner, a couple of housekeeping issues
21:14:03 on this end.
21:14:04 We have got a group that would like to give case
21:14:08 of a case in chief in opposition to this.
21:14:10 The time has been aggravated.
21:14:12 I talked to Marty about it.
21:14:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Griff me but I don't know how
21:14:18 the time has been added.
21:14:19 I see you have a speaker waiver form that has two
21:14:22 names with your name on the top.
21:14:23 >> Correct.
21:14:24 I'll get to the speakers right now.
21:14:26 It's myself.
21:14:26 I have got two additional minutes.
21:14:30 We have Dell accost a, our planner, Stephanie
21:14:34 Ferrell, our architect, George Deakin, our traffic
21:14:37 engineer, and Blake Casper, and we would all like
21:14:42 to group those together.
21:14:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't have Mr. Deacons.
21:14:47 >> No need for additional time with him.
21:14:49 My point is we would all like to go together for
21:14:52 continuity reasons.
21:14:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, Mr. Chairman.
21:14:54 What you are saying, I see your name, Dell Acosta,
21:14:57 Stephanie Ferrell, what other name?
21:15:00 >> George Deakin and Blake Casper.
21:15:03 George Deakin requires no additional time.
21:15:05 And I'm not sure whether Blake --
21:15:08 >> I see Casper has two sheets for a total of 12
21:15:12 names soap that's more than he's entitled, to
21:15:15 which he's entitled.
21:15:16 >> Your rules which is a maximum of ten minutes.
21:15:21 >> And Mary Lou Bailey and Gina Grimes, Seth
21:15:26 Austin, and Tolitto are not on your list, is that
21:15:31 correct?
21:15:32 >> Correct.
21:15:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You will put those aside.
21:15:37 Okay, if I can.
21:15:39 I might need some help.
21:15:43 Let's start with you, Mr. Gardner.
21:15:46 Now, council, is it council's rules that you are
21:15:48 giving this spokesperson two minutes with each
21:15:52 additional minute?
21:15:53 So Mr. Gardner, you have two minutes.
21:15:55 Is Michelle Brooks here?
21:15:57 Please acknowledge your presence.
21:15:58 That's one additional minute.
21:15:59 Tracy Bailey.
21:16:01 Okay.
21:16:02 That's four minutes so far for you, Mr. Gardner.
21:16:06 Mr. Acosta is here.
21:16:08 He gets two minutes.
21:16:11 Bianca benadetto, an additional minute.
21:16:16 Vance Kerry, one minute.
21:16:20 Albert Cruz, one minute.
21:16:22 Sergio MARTEZ, that's two, three, four, that's
21:16:28 six.
21:16:30 Minutes.
21:16:30 And that's a total of ten so far.
21:16:35 Is that correct?
21:16:36 Do I have that correct?
21:16:41 This is rather unusual.
21:16:50 Basically, you are having all these speakers
21:16:59 asking to be aggregated.
21:17:06 Each one of them has their own speaker waiver form
21:17:09 and they will speak for that amount of time.
21:17:11 Okay.
21:17:11 I misunderstood.
21:17:12 Okay.
21:17:14 Then Stephanie Ferrell is here.
21:17:18 That's two minutes.
21:17:21 Jeff English.
21:17:22 That's one minute.
21:17:26 Tyler Siegel.
21:17:29 Thank you.
21:17:30 One minute.
21:17:34 Debby Zolloman?
21:17:36 One minute.
21:17:36 And Janet, is that Davis?
21:17:39 Okay.
21:17:42 That would be six minutes total.
21:17:55 And Mr. Casper.
21:17:58 Mr. Casper is Jake Wyatt.
21:18:04 Jack, I'm sorry.
21:18:05 Richard Price.
21:18:08 Is Richard Price here?
21:18:10 I don't see Richard Price.
21:18:11 Wanda Hill.
21:18:14 Is Wanda Hill here?
21:18:18 Okay, wanda Hill is here.
21:18:22 Shavon Young Lindsay.
21:18:25 Renitia Baker.
21:18:29 Okay.
21:18:31 Marisol Bavilla.
21:18:37 Did I say that correctly?
21:18:39 I apologize.
21:18:41 Marisol?
21:18:43 Thank you.
21:18:46 Iliana Hernandez.
21:18:51 Thank you.
21:18:52 And Santene Charlie?
21:18:57 Did I say that correctly?
21:18:59 Four, five, six, seven, eight, nine minutes there
21:19:03 for Mr. Casper.
21:19:04 And then I can add an additional name.
21:19:07 Kevin Newsome.
21:19:08 Okay.
21:19:08 That's ten minutes for Mr. Casper.
21:19:13 Okay.
21:19:13 So if I have this correctly, Mr. Gardner, Del
21:19:20 Acosta, Stephanie Ferrell and Blake Casper are
21:19:25 your speakers speaking consecutively.
21:19:27 These what you are asking for.
21:19:30 I'm sorry?
21:19:32 And Mr. Deakins.
21:19:37 Okay, I'll write that down.
21:19:39 >> GINA GRIMES: I have a procedural question.
21:19:42 I'm not sure why they are entitled to special
21:19:45 privilege to come up the line ahead of everybody
21:19:49 else.
21:19:49 We all got here early so we could get to the
21:19:52 beginning of the line.
21:19:54 We didn't have any special priorities.
21:19:56 And I object to the fact that they are able to
21:19:59 take over this hearing, have their speakers appear
21:20:03 in the order that they are requesting that they
21:20:04 appear when the rest of us who attended this
21:20:08 hearing early stood in line, and just want to get
21:20:11 up and make our presentation as we are entitled to
21:20:14 when it's our turn.
21:20:15 I have never seen anything like this occur at City
21:20:18 Council.
21:20:19 And that doesn't even address the issue of all the
21:20:22 additional time that they are requesting.
21:20:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your objection is noted.
21:20:27 I am going to --
21:20:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Maybe I missed something but
21:20:34 Mr. Gardner asked that his speakers be in order
21:20:39 consecutively.
21:20:40 I don't, and --
21:20:47 >>GINA GRIMES: These are all individual speakers.
21:20:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, I get that.
21:20:51 >>GINA GRIMES: He's entitled to ten minutes.
21:20:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mrs. Grimes, let me finish.
21:20:54 What I am suggesting is that we take the folks who
21:20:57 are in line, and like you say, people got here
21:21:03 early, they have been standing up for quite a long
21:21:05 time.
21:21:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay, here is the problem.
21:21:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And then Mr. Gardner wherever
21:21:11 they fall in line --
21:21:14 This is one of the problems, calling out the names
21:21:19 of some of the people on the list standing in
21:21:22 line, you are going to have that problem.
21:21:27 I don't have no problem if people stand in line
21:21:32 and allowing them to go first if they want to
21:21:35 speak.
21:21:36 I don't have a problem with that.
21:21:40 But those whose names appear on the list, I guess
21:21:44 if they stand in line, if their name is on that
21:21:46 list -- okay, so you made that clear.
21:21:53 So we are ready to get started?
21:21:56 >> The only thing I would like to adjust as Ms.
21:21:58 Zellman stated that her client is entitled to
21:22:01 procedural due process, my client is, too, and
21:22:03 they were able to give a full speech with 15
21:22:08 minutes plus the additional 10, and all I'm asking
21:22:10 for is we be able to give a speech, and with
21:22:14 individual speakers that have continuity to it.
21:22:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And Mr. Chair, I wasn't
21:22:21 suggesting otherwise.
21:22:22 I was just suggesting we take the people who are
21:22:24 not part of your group first.
21:22:26 And then everybody in your group can speak after
21:22:29 the individuals who have come so they can speak.
21:22:34 I'm not sure if a lot of them wanted to stay for
21:22:37 the entire hearing, but maybe some of them, the
21:22:40 individuals can speak, and then go home and watch
21:22:44 the rest on TV if you are so inclined.
21:22:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
21:22:46 Those standing in line, let me first ask, those
21:22:49 who plan on speaking have to get sworn in.
21:22:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Anybody here who has not been
21:22:58 sworn in who plans on speaking?
21:23:03 >> Yes.
21:23:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: If you plan on speaking, you need
21:23:09 to be sworn in.
21:23:14 (Oath administered by Clerk)
21:23:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire?
21:23:22 [Sounding gavel]
21:23:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire of the chairman?
21:23:29 Sir, with regards to the people who are now
21:23:31 present whose names have been called and don't
21:23:33 have seats, do you wish them to remain in the room
21:23:37 at this point?
21:23:38 Because they have acknowledged --
21:23:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: No.
21:23:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So if your name has been called
21:23:43 as being on the speaker waiver list and you are
21:23:45 not a speaker, please remember you are not
21:23:48 entitled to speak.
21:23:49 You have waived your time.
21:23:51 And additionally, you do not have to -- for the
21:23:55 council, you do not have to remain in the room
21:23:58 particularly if you don't have a seat.
21:23:59 You can have seats elsewhere.
21:24:07 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21:24:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
21:24:09 All right.
21:24:14 Any speakers we agreed to two minutes, right?
21:24:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Two minutes.
21:24:18 And if your name is on a speaker, if you are a
21:24:21 speaker who has filled out a speaker waiver form,
21:24:25 that is not with Mr. Gardner's group, just please
21:24:29 when you announce your name remained me and make
21:24:31 sure we do give you the time you are entitled.
21:24:34 Thank you.
21:24:34 >> Any name is Cecille Parido. I have a list.
21:24:40 >> There are three names.
21:24:45 Landon Parido.
21:24:48 Anna Hoffstetter.
21:24:53 Annette Reed.
21:24:54 That is two plus three, a total of five minutes.
21:24:58 >>FRANK REDDICK: You have five minutes.
21:24:59 >> My name is Cecille Parago. I am the daughter
21:25:02 of and Bill and Maderas Stoeltzing, and I own
21:25:07 Grand Central building immediately north to the
21:25:09 site which has offices, art gallery and
21:25:15 restaurant.
21:25:15 I am speaking as the adjacent property owner.
21:25:18 My family has been true pioneers of the block and
21:25:22 surrounding area.
21:25:23 61 years ago in 1954 my parents took -- because of
21:25:29 the great location, only a short walk to the
21:25:31 downtown business Bryn Allen Studios.
21:25:36 And the walkability was extremely important to us.
21:25:40 In 1972 my parents purchased the two buildings
21:25:43 shown in the blue which now houses Oxford
21:25:46 Exchange.
21:25:47 >> [Off microphone.]
21:25:57 >> We can't hear.
21:25:58 >> Sorry.
21:26:00 Can you hear me now?
21:26:02 Get closer?
21:26:16 >> Is the clock still going?
21:26:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: No.
21:26:25 All right.
21:26:55 >> Are you ready?
21:26:57 In 1972 my parents purchased the two buildings
21:26:59 shown in blue which now houses Oxford Exchange
21:27:04 where they moved their home office studio to the
21:27:06 Bryn Allen studios.
21:27:07 In 1974, construction of the Crosstown expressway
21:27:11 created a large barrier separating our
21:27:14 neighborhood from the rest of Hyde Park.
21:27:18 The depression began, and my parents in an attempt
21:27:21 to clean up the neighborhood began to purchase
21:27:23 neighboring properties when they became available.
21:27:26 My father decided that the business stream and
21:27:29 passion to redevelop our neighborhood and become
21:27:31 actively involved in the creation of downtown,
21:27:35 redevelopment association, and the Kennedy
21:27:37 Boulevard council and received the gold medallion
21:27:41 award in recognition of his commitment to the
21:27:43 improvement of Kennedy Boulevard.
21:27:44 Our redevelopment efforts for the entire area were
21:27:47 as follows: In 1985 we purchased the building
21:27:50 shown in red.
21:27:52 Originally known as Lafayette arcade, a mixed use
21:27:55 building designed by architect Leo Elliott who
21:27:59 also designed City Hall.
21:28:01 After being converted to student housing, the
21:28:06 photographs helped to restore the building back to
21:28:09 its original beauty and intended use and is now
21:28:12 Grand Central Place, home to Mise en Place
21:28:15 restaurant since 1972, the center gallery and many
21:28:18 other office tenants.
21:28:19 In 1995 we purchased the building and surrounding
21:28:22 parcels shown in orange.
21:28:24 Originally built in 1923 as a car dealership with
21:28:27 a wooden parking garage located within the
21:28:29 building, and redeveloped to Bryn Allen
21:28:33 headquarters. In 2009 we sold the building and
21:28:37 the entire block to Tampa General Hospital for the
21:28:40 corporate offices.
21:28:41 As you know, City Council already approved TGH's
21:28:44 redevelopment plans for two six-story office
21:28:46 buildings, retail and ten-story parking garage.
21:28:50 Around 2001 we started our second renovation to
21:28:54 the building shown in blue.
21:28:56 To redevelop the office building to our
21:28:59 redevelopment of Grand Central place.
21:29:01 Unfortunately on May 9, 2002 by brother died in an
21:29:06 auto accident and construction ceased.
21:29:08 Eventually we sold the building to Oxford exchange
21:29:11 in 2011.
21:29:12 On the block, which is the subject of the
21:29:13 rezoning, over the years my family continued to
21:29:16 assemble property for redevelopment of the entire
21:29:19 block as my father had always intended.
21:29:22 The buildings shown in yellow was transformed from
21:29:26 an old boarding house to Bryn Allen Portrait
21:29:27 studio.
21:29:29 The building was converted to offices and operates
21:29:34 as a small office building for the past 20 years.
21:29:37 The building shown in purple was an old boarding
21:29:41 house converted to a small office building, and
21:29:43 the area shown in green contains dilapidated
21:29:46 buildings and boarding housings which were
21:29:49 demolished and the land has been temporarily used
21:29:51 for parking.
21:29:52 Finally, in 2013, City Council vacated all the
21:29:56 alleys on the Grand Central block which at the
21:29:58 time requested to allow us to assemble the entire
21:30:03 block for redevelopment.
21:30:05 After struggling for so many years, downtown Tampa
21:30:07 and the surrounding neighborhoods like this area
21:30:09 are finally embarking on monumental progress.
21:30:12 However, as we have all learned from the
21:30:15 resurgence of downtown, it's a renewed energy,
21:30:21 urban core residents are essential for
21:30:23 neighborhoods and cities to prosper and grow.
21:30:25 And Altman's development has a grand plan to bring
21:30:28 residents back to this area.
21:30:31 As a result of what my father started, the area
21:30:32 has already become redeveloped with a true mixture
21:30:35 of uses, office, restaurant, and retail.
21:30:38 This is the missing link and the last remaining
21:30:41 step to my father's redevelopment plans for this
21:30:43 area.
21:30:44 Over the past several years I haven't received one
21:30:47 phone call from any commercial developer
21:30:50 interested in developing the subject block, but I
21:30:53 had many calls from residential developers.
21:30:56 However, no one has interested me more than Altman
21:31:00 development.
21:31:00 They have an exceptional reputation for high
21:31:02 quality, vast experience and multiple awards.
21:31:05 I'm confident office Grand Central will deliver
21:31:08 the life so desired by today's city residents, but
21:31:13 at the same time helping our neighborhood prosper
21:31:15 and grow.
21:31:15 (Bell sounds).
21:31:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:31:17 That means your time is up.
21:31:18 >> Okay.
21:31:19 Thank you.
21:31:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:31:20 >> Habonay Sanchez, also known as Bonay Sanchez,
21:31:28 762 Harbor Island in Clearwater.
21:31:31 Excuse me, sir.
21:31:34 I'm understanding we were taking people in line.
21:31:36 >> I apologize.
21:31:39 Okay.
21:31:40 Next person.
21:31:45 Well, we said we were going to allow people in
21:31:47 line to go first.
21:31:48 All right, thank you.
21:31:49 >> John Holland, 808 north Frankland street
21:31:54 downtown.
21:31:55 I have been a long time Tampa resident.
21:31:57 And one of the things that I am encouraged by
21:32:00 slowly, very slowly, over the time that I have
21:32:02 been in Tampa is the revitalization of downtown.
21:32:07 I think that in order to have ab community that is
21:32:13 energized like economically, socially, and from a
21:32:17 standpoint of having accessible community, you
21:32:22 need to have residential in that area.
21:32:29 I think that it is in Tampa's best interest to
21:32:35 have this part of town energizing our way.
21:32:41 I think what's before you tonight will allow you
21:32:45 to, if you choose, make that happen in a stronger
21:32:55 way than it is happening now.
21:32:58 That's all I have.
21:33:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:33:01 Next speaker.
21:33:01 >> Bob Walt, 3407 south Philmore Avenue.
21:33:07 I have the privilege of serving as the senior
21:33:10 pastor of First Baptist Church of Tampa and
21:33:12 represent the 700 members of that congregation.
21:33:14 We celebrate 156th anniversary of serving the
21:33:18 church and the community here in Tampa this year.
21:33:22 For the past almost 100 years First Baptist Church
21:33:25 of Tampa has set at 302 West Kennedy Boulevard,
21:33:28 and over the last several years the church has
21:33:30 strived to improve the neighborhood by buying the
21:33:34 property around it, and currently the church owns
21:33:37 from Cleveland Avenue up to Kennedy Boulevard, to
21:33:41 the TECO substation and from Plant Avenue to south
21:33:45 Hyde Park Avenue.
21:33:46 In 1973 as was mentioned earlier, the church
21:33:49 entered into an agreement with the department of
21:33:52 housing and urban development to build a 13-story
21:33:58 apartment complex for low-income senior adults.
21:34:02 Today, Tampa Baptist manor has 240 apartments with
21:34:06 263 residents over the age of 55, and that address
21:34:09 is 215 Grand Central Boulevard.
21:34:12 Grand Central Boulevard bisects the church's
21:34:15 property.
21:34:17 In the 1980s the church bought the old furniture
21:34:21 building, and in subsequent years remodeled it,
21:34:26 turned it into business offices, and as a result
21:34:28 many businesses have moved into our community.
21:34:31 I say all of this to say that the church is very
21:34:34 interested and committed to that neighborhood, and
21:34:39 we would be excited to see the revitalization
21:34:42 starting in downtown and continuing in our area,
21:34:46 to continue, and we are especially excited about
21:34:48 residents moving into the area, and we would be
21:34:52 excited to see that happen in the general area of
21:34:54 the church.
21:34:55 I know that our residents of the manor would
21:34:59 appreciate 24 hour residents for the stability and
21:35:02 security that it will provide for the community as
21:35:04 well.
21:35:05 Thank you.
21:35:05 (Bell sounds).
21:35:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:35:07 Next.
21:35:07 >> I apologize for not following procedure.
21:35:12 My name is Bonay Sanchez, and I live at 762 Harbor
21:35:16 Island in Clearwater.
21:35:18 And I will cut this down because I had planned for
21:35:22 three minutes.
21:35:22 Anyhow, the surface parking, I have known Nat
21:35:27 Baganier for many years. He's a person of great
21:35:32 business ethics and I have great respect for his
21:35:35 ability and his performance.
21:35:37 He has taught me that one of the things that he
21:35:39 was doing to accommodate the residents, the
21:35:43 businesses, is he's going to have a separate
21:35:47 entrance, a grand lobby for the patrons of the
21:35:52 local businesses to enter the separate parking
21:35:54 garage that they are going to have spaces for
21:35:58 those businesses.
21:35:59 So they'll have a separate elevator.
21:36:02 They'll have a separate grand lobby to enter.
21:36:05 It will not be commingled with the residents'
21:36:08 parking spaces.
21:36:12 As far as residential, I grew up in the most
21:36:17 walkable city in the neighborhood that Tampa ever
21:36:20 had and that was Ybor City.
21:36:23 We didn't have a car.
21:36:24 We didn't have bicycles.
21:36:25 Weighed to walk or take the street car.
21:36:28 We lived upstairs.
21:36:29 Our business was downstairs so the commute time
21:36:31 was 24 steps.
21:36:34 One of the things that I notice more and more
21:36:36 people want to live near where they work.
21:36:40 This residence that's going to be constructed here
21:36:44 will provide people the opportunity to walk to
21:36:47 where they work and live in a nice area.
21:36:49 Thank you.
21:36:51 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:36:52 Next speaker.
21:36:56 You're not speaking?
21:36:57 >> They are part of our speakers, however you want
21:37:04 to conduct this.
21:37:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: Who is not part of the speaking
21:37:08 group in line?
21:37:09 Come up.
21:37:10 >> Mary Lou Bailey and I have one of the sheets.
21:37:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
21:37:25 Rosa priest.
21:37:27 Did I say that correctly?
21:37:28 Do I have the name correctly?
21:37:30 I'm sorry.
21:37:31 Roger PRI-something-DE.
21:37:36 Is there a Roger here?
21:37:38 No, okay.
21:37:41 Glen English is here.
21:37:43 An additional minute.
21:37:45 And Steven Roberts is here.
21:37:57 Let me ask, you are Steven Roberts?
21:38:00 Oh, you are Paul Hoffstetter.
21:38:04 Okay.
21:38:04 Is Steven Roberts here?
21:38:09 (Laughter)
21:38:12 Steven Roberts is downstairs?
21:38:14 Are there people downstairs who are on the speaker
21:38:16 waiver form?
21:38:17 >> If you don't mind could you get all your people
21:38:24 together?
21:38:25 >> If I can run through it, I can do it in three
21:38:27 minutes.
21:38:28 So I have got three.
21:38:30 I will say my piece and move on.
21:38:32 Again my name is Mary Lou Bailey, 810 south
21:38:35 Packwood Avenue in Tampa.
21:38:36 It's in historic Hyde Park.
21:38:38 I'm using my time to be speak formally as the
21:38:41 president of historic Hyde Park neighborhood
21:38:44 association.
21:38:44 My board took a formal vote on the matter that I
21:38:46 am representing, not just my individual opinion.
21:38:48 While the subject property is not within the
21:38:51 boundaries of historic Hyde Park it is within the
21:38:53 boundaries of the national district of Hyde Park
21:38:55 and we have a great increase in protecting that
21:38:59 boundary.
21:39:00 We oppose the Altman Development Corporation plan.
21:39:05 We do not see it as consistent with the intentions
21:39:09 as in the specifics of the comprehensive plan.
21:39:13 We have great interest in that.
21:39:16 I am going to name four specific objections.
21:39:18 First the proposal to demolish three historic
21:39:20 buildings.
21:39:20 With no local consultation and the city department
21:39:24 or citizens the developer an end around and we are
21:39:29 quite disappointed with the people at the state.
21:39:31 While these buildings have indeed been modified
21:39:34 most of the changes are in the rear of the
21:39:35 building or on the porch.
21:39:37 Myself, and my board members, have a lot of
21:39:39 experience with historic preservation, and we
21:39:41 think these could really be something special and
21:39:44 endearing to Tampa and what we will proceed.
21:39:48 We are in the process of figuring out how to do.
21:39:51 That in the meantime our local comprehensive plan
21:39:53 does offer protection of the historic buildings
21:39:55 and I offer you to pursue that.
21:39:57 Number two, the project proposes something that is
21:40:00 not relatable to the specific neighborhood and
21:40:03 makes no effort to respect the architecture of the
21:40:06 storied and memorable place.
21:40:08 Again, these are things that our comprehensive
21:40:10 plan significantly says it is intended to do.
21:40:14 Number three, proposed substantial protected trees
21:40:17 including those special grand oaks and makes no
21:40:20 effort to preserve the streetscape.
21:40:22 Number four, we do not see the project that is
21:40:25 true to the planned development of mixed use.
21:40:27 The percentage of commercial uses so small
21:40:29 relative to the residential and parking usage.
21:40:32 It does not promote a sense of community or
21:40:34 pedestrian use.
21:40:35 To the contrary, to historic district, that will
21:40:40 even encroach into the right-of-way.
21:40:42 The developer's application does not enrich
21:40:45 community life or further a public purpose.
21:40:48 Further we are concerned about than the potential
21:40:50 for precedence set by this proposal that might be
21:40:52 incredibly damaging to other areas of Hyde Park
21:40:54 and our greater city.
21:40:56 The developer did not contact me as president of
21:40:58 the historic Hyde Park neighborhood association or
21:41:00 any of our board members despite our very active
21:41:04 role in preserving Hyde Park.
21:41:07 Quite a contrast with the development of Hyde Park
21:41:11 village.
21:41:12 We are not opposed to development but expect the
21:41:14 development to be appropriate to the context in
21:41:15 which it fits.
21:41:16 We urge the council to deny this application and
21:41:19 by doing so honor the history of this special
21:41:22 place for the future of our great city and the
21:41:25 citizens purpose of the comprehensive plan.
21:41:28 I have documented historic Hyde Park neighborhood
21:41:30 association objections to this project in a formal
21:41:33 letter that I will deliver to you now and it does
21:41:35 contain substantial and competent evidence.
21:41:38 Thank you.
21:41:38 (Bell sounds)
21:41:44 >> My name is Stephanie Melnick.
21:41:49 We occupy space 442 West Kennedy Boulevard.
21:41:52 As far as I know we are the largest tenant in that
21:41:55 space.
21:41:56 My business partner and own a consulting firm, we
21:41:57 work with some clients in the Tampa area but we
21:42:02 also bring very large clients like Pfeisser and
21:42:07 Triple A into this area and looking for a very
21:42:10 specific place that has the charm that is
21:42:13 consistent with what I know as being a fourth
21:42:15 generation Tampa native.
21:42:16 Four generations on both sides as is my business
21:42:18 partner, Haley Creedy.
21:42:20 My great grandfather occupied the Valdez jewelry
21:42:24 in that walking area of Ybor City, and I wanted to
21:42:30 contribute to that very special entrepreneurial
21:42:33 spirit.
21:42:33 The only place we could find after a year of
21:42:35 searching was a cigar factory owned by the church
21:42:37 of Scientology which we did not get, and this very
21:42:40 walkable space.
21:42:41 I will say that there are two grand restaurants
21:42:45 than we frequent, the pizza place around the
21:42:47 corner that is new and there's a dough knot nut
21:42:51 shop.
21:42:51 There is one retail place in the Oxford Exchange
21:42:54 and that is the only retail in that building.
21:42:57 We really, really appreciate the development.
21:43:00 We want this area to develop.
21:43:02 We are committed to this area.
21:43:04 We have deep roots in this area.
21:43:07 And what we would really like to be see is true
21:43:09 walkability.
21:43:10 And if you drive down those streets, you can
21:43:12 barely get down them now, and if you look at the
21:43:15 scale and size of the proposed building, it dwarfs
21:43:18 every other building in that area.
21:43:20 Thanks.
21:43:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next speaker.
21:43:26 Two minutes.
21:43:27 >> My name is Haley Norman.
21:43:30 Haley creedy Norman, 336 west Rio Vista court.
21:43:35 Seminole Heights is where I live.
21:43:37 I come as a fourth generation Tampa native to talk
21:43:39 to you tonight.
21:43:40 I do own a business with my business partner
21:43:42 Stephanie Melnick in the Grand Central business
21:43:47 but I this about my 95-year-old grandmother who
21:43:50 went to the doctor in that Grand Central building.
21:43:52 I think about my father who went to the movies
21:43:54 when it was called the park theater.
21:43:56 I think about when I went to the University of
21:43:57 Tampa and I performed with the Spanish New York
21:44:00 theater and I think about my now son who goes to
21:44:03 the University of Tampa and who enjoys that space.
21:44:06 I have had the opportunity to talk to hundreds of
21:44:08 my relatives because they all still live here
21:44:10 because they all believe in Tampa from Wesley
21:44:14 chapel to Carrollwood to everywhere in between,
21:44:16 and they all feel this is not what's best for
21:44:18 Tampa.
21:44:19 What's best for Tampa is that we take a thoughtful
21:44:21 approach, that we look at that area.
21:44:24 We want it to be developed.
21:44:25 We really do.
21:44:26 But we want it to be developed in the right way so
21:44:28 that it's preserved, so that the historical
21:44:31 integrity of that space is preserved.
21:44:33 And I plead with you tonight to please think of
21:44:36 that as you vote so that my daughter's daughter
21:44:39 will be able to enjoy that area and see it thrive.
21:44:45 It truly is a walkable area.
21:44:46 Please give that some consideration tonight.
21:44:48 Let's do the right thing for Tampa.
21:44:50 This gigantic building is not it.
21:44:53 Thank you.
21:44:53 >> My name is Greg Scrivener.
21:45:06 I am a tenant in the Grand Central place building.
21:45:09 I have been thereby for six years now.
21:45:12 Paying my rent every month on time and in a
21:45:15 professional manner.
21:45:16 The problem I have is I have only had one meeting
21:45:20 with the owners in the property management.
21:45:24 That means only discussion.
21:45:27 Nothing came out of it in writing.
21:45:29 Right now, my lease is attached to that whole
21:45:32 entire parking lot area that is supposed to be
21:45:35 parking space granted to me as a tenant.
21:45:39 This plan will destroy the entire parking lot for
21:45:42 a length of time that will not allow any of my
21:45:48 clients, because 95% of my clients are attorneys,
21:45:51 come into my business, with court reporting, legal
21:45:54 business.
21:45:54 It will put me out of business.
21:45:56 I explained that to Altman as well.
21:45:58 The worst part about this whole scenario is when
21:46:01 my lease came due on my fist year, and I
21:46:05 negotiated my lease renewal with the owner -- not
21:46:09 the owners but with the property management, that
21:46:13 time was the most difficult time of my life.
21:46:15 My son had stage four colon cancer.
21:46:19 Property manager worked with me, which put in
21:46:22 something there that allowed me to opt out three
21:46:24 years after my next lease renewal thinking my son
21:46:28 would have two or three years left.
21:46:30 Unfortunately, he passed away Christmas day 2014.
21:46:37 Their current lease that they give to have me to
21:46:39 renew, they added a page in there that if we did
21:46:43 not negotiate, we did not approve, and I find that
21:46:46 so deceptive and deceiving that they would insert
21:46:49 something that included the parking.
21:46:52 They changed a couple words and that sentence and
21:46:57 that word gave them more power and authority to
21:46:59 accomplish what they are trying to do, and I am
21:47:01 sorry, that is despicable of the owners and any
21:47:06 property manager.
21:47:07 (Bell sounds).
21:47:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:47:09 Next speaker.
21:47:10 >> My name is Dominique Martinez.
21:47:16 Through the past several weeks, this was really an
21:47:18 educational process, finding out how everything
21:47:21 goes when somebody wants to develop something, and
21:47:23 it seems to be what the regular process of filing
21:47:26 paperwork with the city, and inform the community
21:47:28 of what your intentions are without their
21:47:30 approval.
21:47:32 It's like trying to hide a white elephant, and I
21:47:35 think the white elephant is a subject in question.
21:47:38 I lived in Channelside for quite some time,
21:47:41 approximately 20 years, I was one of the first
21:47:43 pioneers there, the sixth tenant that lived there
21:47:45 when nobody else would move down there.
21:47:48 I have seen every building come down and every
21:47:50 building go up.
21:47:51 Eventually, I said enough is enough, witnessing
21:47:53 first hand history disappearing, even its original
21:47:58 name because if you ask somebody whereby the
21:47:59 banana docks are nobody knows now.
21:48:02 And it used to be called channel district.
21:48:04 Now it's Channelside.
21:48:05 The Channel District never had a master plan.
21:48:08 They say if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
21:48:10 A custom plan design which will add value to the
21:48:13 community putting that in place would attract the
21:48:16 right projects, the right business, the rate
21:48:17 demographics and the right -- the right landscape.
21:48:21 We also raised our standards within can community
21:48:25 and not just sell them off to the highest bidder.
21:48:27 We are all actions from the city.
21:48:28 What we do and input that we leave behind is very
21:48:32 important.
21:48:33 So when tourists visit Tampa, they can at least go
21:48:37 back home and say, you know what?
21:48:39 Tampa did it right.
21:48:42 We set a precedence for other communities, and
21:48:44 being looked at as a positive role model for other
21:48:47 cities to learn from.
21:48:48 The quaint and charming little pockets of Tampa
21:48:50 still exist and more are being covered and
21:48:54 renovated but even more are torn down.
21:48:57 I myself am restoring station number five in Tampa
21:48:59 Heights, more history being preserved, painstaking
21:49:02 and costly process which will be completed very,
21:49:05 very soon.
21:49:05 We as residents have a duty to preserve our
21:49:07 culture, our history and be extremely selective
21:49:11 where and what we tear down and build up.
21:49:13 Before we know it within the blink of an eye
21:49:16 history disappears --
21:49:18 (Bell sounds).
21:49:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, sir.
21:49:20 Next.
21:49:20 >> Good evening.
21:49:25 Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
21:49:27 My name is Vinny Tafuro, downtown resident at 510
21:49:30 east Harrison street.
21:49:33 I'm asked you to deny this application for the
21:49:35 following three reasons.
21:49:36 The first is the proposal is not in lane for great
21:49:39 urban design and will destroy three historic
21:49:43 buildings regardless of national designation.
21:49:46 Irish poet and philosopher John O'Donohue believes
21:49:48 tradition is to the community what memory is to
21:49:50 the individual.
21:49:51 If you lose your memory, you don't know who you
21:49:53 are, and if you lose your tradition it's the same
21:49:55 thing.
21:49:55 Second, we are witnessing a civic wakening from
21:49:59 Tampa Bay Express to the size of craft beer
21:50:01 growlers.
21:50:02 Tampa residents are deeply engaged and ware asking
21:50:04 you to think different.
21:50:05 We are asking you to encourage transit oriented
21:50:07 development.
21:50:08 We are asking that you discourage reliance on
21:50:10 cars.
21:50:11 We are asking for creative ideas to accomplish
21:50:13 these goals.
21:50:14 Third, I encourage you to use this opportunity to
21:50:17 consider changing parking requirements for
21:50:19 redevelopment in and around the urban core and
21:50:22 incentivize transit.
21:50:23 Grand Central is serviced by three bus routes as
21:50:26 well as a potential circulator in need of
21:50:28 operating funds.
21:50:29 One source of funds could be an endowment funded
21:50:31 by development projects in exchange for parking
21:50:33 concessions.
21:50:34 From teenagers to retiring boomers, the desire to
21:50:37 drive less is growing quickly and very soon will
21:50:39 translate into huge decline of car ownership.
21:50:42 Driverless car technology combined with Uber and
21:50:45 sold in Netflix subscription manner will
21:50:47 eventually devastate the auto industry as we know
21:50:49 it.
21:50:50 Parking garages and projects like the one proposed
21:50:52 tonight will fit its ugly relics to a time gone
21:50:55 by.
21:50:55 An innovative idea to prepare our urban core and
21:50:58 surrounding neighborhoods for a future where fewer
21:51:00 people own a car is an opportunity for the City of
21:51:01 Tampa to tell the community we understand and
21:51:04 embrace the future and we welcome development that
21:51:06 does as well.
21:51:07 Thank you.
21:51:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:51:11 >> My name is Rodney Kite-Powell. I live at 2003
21:51:19 North Village Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
21:51:20 I am a professional historian, everybody
21:51:23 researching the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
21:51:25 County, the State of Florida for about 20 years.
21:51:27 I also served from 2000 to 2006 on the Historic
21:51:32 Preservation Commission.
21:51:33 I am here to speak a little bit about the history
21:51:35 of this subject property, and it certainly
21:51:40 distresses me to think about those three
21:51:42 buildings.
21:51:43 They are not considered historic and are certainly
21:51:46 old enough and the idea of contributing.
21:51:48 What don't they contribute to?
21:51:49 They certainly contribute to what is left of that
21:51:51 part of Hyde Park which is the original part of
21:51:53 Hyde Park, the oldest part of Hyde Park that still
21:51:57 exists today and contributes to the surrounding
21:52:00 neighborhood.
21:52:00 If you look at the building toward the northeast
21:52:03 you see the buildings along Grand Central, you see
21:52:06 the church, and so without a doubt, they
21:52:09 contribute.
21:52:10 That aside, looking at the elements that they want
21:52:14 to add to these buildings.
21:52:16 If you take little bits and pieces, don't your
21:52:19 buildings fit historically?
21:52:21 A bird makes a bed of twigs and leaves, does that
21:52:25 make that nest a tree?
21:52:26 Not really.
21:52:27 Fast forwarding to some modern history, 2011,
21:52:32 Tampa General Hospital, for this property, and
21:52:37 think of what was going on in 2011.
21:52:40 There was slow downs looking for any way to
21:52:43 energize the neighborhood.
21:52:44 So City Council made a decision that would
21:52:47 hopefully energize that space.
21:52:49 Also it included residential.
21:52:50 And so that area needs residential.
21:52:56 This subject property, it's already allowed under
21:52:58 the present zoning under the comprehensive plan.
21:53:00 So look at what's already there and look at what's
21:53:02 allowed. And that's really would fit in with
21:53:05 everything you see today.
21:53:06 Thank you.
21:53:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:53:07 Next speaker.
21:53:08 >> Good evening.
21:53:14 My name is Dave Ward.
21:53:17 I am the co-founder and co-owner of Buddy Brew
21:53:20 Coffee.
21:53:21 I also work in real estate much of my professional
21:53:23 career before, before founding Buddy Brew Coffee.
21:53:27 We currently operate two stores in the Hyde Park
21:53:31 neighborhood, and soon to be three.
21:53:35 And Hyde Park village that we open later this
21:53:39 year.
21:53:41 I want to first state that I am very -- I think
21:53:45 development is essential but it has to be the
21:53:47 right development.
21:53:47 And I strongly oppose this project for those
21:53:53 reasons.
21:53:54 It's not right.
21:53:54 If you look at the scale and mass of this compared
21:53:56 to the neighborhood, that it's going to be put in,
21:53:58 it just doesn't fit.
21:54:01 I am also very in favor of more commercial.
21:54:05 Business is moving in, and entrepreneurial
21:54:07 activities.
21:54:08 I believe this is along with multifamily, which I
21:54:11 am not opposed to as well, is the future of
21:54:15 greater walking city which Tampa desperately
21:54:18 needs.
21:54:20 On another note, I find it absolutely appalling
21:54:23 that somehow these three historic buildings can
21:54:27 slipped through the cracks and have been
21:54:29 declassified as historic.
21:54:31 It's unbelievable.
21:54:33 As a guy who lives at 806 Fremont in Hyde Park
21:54:36 itself, I can't even replace a window in my house
21:54:39 without going behalf committee such as this to get
21:54:42 approval.
21:54:43 And the fact that these buildings be declassified
21:54:47 and then torn down is absolutely appalling.
21:54:53 I also am very much disappointed in the fact that
21:54:56 they weren't looked at for legalization or reuse.
21:55:00 Some of the other things that -- we did the same
21:55:03 thing with our building at 2020 West Kennedy.
21:55:06 The Ulele, same thing, great outcome for historic
21:55:11 buildings and especially the Oxford Exchange.
21:55:13 (Bell sounds).
21:55:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:55:17 >> Create historic and walking business areas.
21:55:23 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next speaker.
21:55:23 >> Paul Hoffstetter, 562 Madiera Avenue on Davis
21:55:40 Island, and I have worked in commercial real
21:55:42 estate in this part of Tampa, in Hyde Park for
21:55:46 over 30 years.
21:55:47 Actually, I'm the manager of Grand Central place,
21:55:53 and I helped with the renovation of it when it was
21:55:55 run down and had been used as dorms for University
21:55:58 of Tampa and really needed rehab, in a great way.
21:56:03 And I worked hand in hand with Bill Stoeltzing,
21:56:08 Sr. to make that building what it is today, and
21:56:10 now those that would have offices there in the
21:56:13 building.
21:56:15 Also like to go to Mise en Place restaurant.
21:56:18 And that building Grand Central Place was a
21:56:20 catalyst for redevelopment of that particular part
21:56:23 of Hyde Park.
21:56:25 As you all probably know, the Crosstown
21:56:28 expressway, you know, that serves transportation
21:56:30 very well, cut off that part of Hyde Park and the
21:56:34 rest of it and eliminated the residential
21:56:37 component which was essential.
21:56:39 As has been mentioned before, without significant
21:56:41 residential development, this part -- that part of
21:56:44 Tampa will not sustain a downturn in the economy.
21:56:47 Also, when you look out for Grand Central place,
21:56:51 you look across large parking lots.
21:56:53 Not only the parking lot that Grand Central uses
21:56:56 and those tenants will use, and continue to use
21:56:59 through getting covered parking, a parking garage,
21:57:03 but you look over to the left and you see the
21:57:05 property that eagle realty has that Tampa General
21:57:09 leases.
21:57:10 It's all parking too.
21:57:12 It's like having a field next to an office
21:57:14 building and it really serves no purpose at this
21:57:16 time.
21:57:17 In that area other than parking cars.
21:57:20 Well, the residential component was eliminated and
21:57:24 needs to be replaced or the area will remain out
21:57:26 of balance.
21:57:27 If you put any other type of development on that
21:57:29 site, it will not be us sustainable.
21:57:32 It will be like Channelside that was put in in
21:57:35 advance of residential development.
21:57:38 It died.
21:57:39 It had to be revived.
21:57:40 (Bell sounds).
21:57:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
21:57:48 >> Good evening, council.
21:57:49 Benjamin Buckley, 1705 west state street.
21:57:53 I'm a member of the neighborhood association North
21:57:57 Hyde Park area which adjoins this neighborhood and
21:58:02 I think Tampa deserves better.
21:58:04 I am not a member of their group, Tampa preserve,
21:58:07 but that's what I think.
21:58:08 The project may go along with the minimum
21:58:12 requirements, with the comprehensive plan of the
21:58:14 city code, but I don't think this plan hold the
21:58:18 spirit of the InVision plan.
21:58:22 The intent.
21:58:23 We worked a couple years on this.
21:58:25 And I think that's very important.
21:58:27 Another thing.
21:58:32 I think you are familiar with the phrase they
21:58:34 paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
21:58:37 The "they" will become you, City Council.
21:58:40 Historic Preservation Commission of Tampa, Altman
21:58:43 development and others involved who will allow
21:58:44 this project with a parking garage with an
21:58:49 apartment facade.
21:58:50 Architects are entrusted with the site to work
21:58:53 within the confines, the site challenges offer and
21:58:56 the contextual fabric of sites surrounding, not
21:59:00 come in and bulldoze everything and say now I can
21:59:04 work.
21:59:05 The project is nothing more than cookie cutter
21:59:07 architecture and planning.
21:59:09 As a matter of fact, I think we have two of these
21:59:11 projects you can look at them over in North Hyde
21:59:13 Park.
21:59:14 And I haven't heard much praise from our
21:59:17 neighborhood over there about those two projects
21:59:19 on Rome Avenue.
21:59:21 They can go anywhere.
21:59:23 This is an empty parcel.
21:59:24 Perhaps with no historical significance.
21:59:28 Lest we forget the national historic significance
21:59:31 of the existing buildings.
21:59:33 The proposed development north of the site, it
21:59:36 ignores the fawna, trees, landscaping, and most
21:59:38 importantly ignores the three historical
21:59:41 structures.
21:59:42 What happened to adaptive reuse?
21:59:45 What happened to historical rehab?
21:59:47 Has anyone asked the developer these questions?
21:59:51 Why does the architect and developer not want to
21:59:53 be challenged?
21:59:56 (Bell sounds)
21:59:56 Thank you.
21:59:57 I ask that you use your wisdom here and vote
21:59:59 against this.
22:00:02 >> My name is Mary McCahon, 2812 north Central
22:00:27 Avenue in Tampa Heights.
22:00:28 I urge you to either allow the developer to build
22:00:33 what he can do without a waiver or develop a
22:00:36 design that reflects the current thinking about
22:00:38 new construction in historical, historic, meaning
22:00:44 the national register of historic places, which
22:00:47 this land still is, or sensitive setting.
22:00:51 Tampa does deserve better.
22:00:54 But that does not mean more, or more expensive
22:00:56 decoration.
22:00:57 Apply decoration to stock design solutions and
22:01:03 calling it a content sensitive solution is so late
22:01:06 90s, and nationally quickly learned and what
22:01:11 City Council has seen that applying decoration to
22:01:13 be standard designs and calling them context
22:01:16 sensitive have not been successful.
22:01:18 It isn't a context sensitive solution as the
22:01:22 interstate in Tampa shows you, and it is not good
22:01:25 design.
22:01:26 What is a better approach is what I offer should
22:01:29 be considered here is good for the opportunity for
22:01:33 good context as a solution and shows by the
22:01:36 interstate highway in YUMA which is quiet, and
22:01:42 select history and the scenic beauty makes a
22:01:45 statement.
22:01:45 You have that opportunity with this project.
22:01:47 You have three fine buildings that should be
22:01:50 brought forward.
22:01:53 And would you please put the picture down?
22:01:55 Brought forward onto the Grand Central approach,
22:01:59 and let us maintain the grandeur that remains of
22:02:03 Grand Central Avenue.
22:02:04 That could be where the mixed use goes and it
22:02:08 would provide a superb buffer between the historic
22:02:12 buildings and maintain the new construction which
22:02:16 should be quiet and reflect the historical of our
22:02:22 community that doesn't exist because all the rest
22:02:24 of it has been torn down.
22:02:25 Thank you.
22:02:25 (Bell sounds).
22:02:29 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.
22:02:30 Next.
22:02:31 >> My name is Meaghan O'Neal.
22:02:35 I reside at 24231 Satinwood Court in Lutz, and I'm
22:02:41 here to represent my family, because my family
22:02:43 loves Tampa.
22:02:44 I have grown up here my entire life.
22:02:46 My family has invested their lives here.
22:02:50 My grandfather and my grandmother pat and Sally
22:02:54 O'Neal opened Sally O'Neal's over 30 years ago and
22:03:01 they are still open today.
22:03:02 My grandmother Joyce Schafer was president of City
22:03:04 Council and the Chamber of Commerce, and was
22:03:07 president of the Chamber of Commerce in Ybor City.
22:03:09 She was very influential in revitalizing Ybor City
22:03:15 while preserving the history there.
22:03:17 And she instilled that love to me for history, for
22:03:22 historical places.
22:03:24 So that's why I am before you today, because I
22:03:25 believe that we can do better, that Tampa deserves
22:03:29 better than destroying three places that are
22:03:32 historical, and that deserve to be recognized as
22:03:37 an historical place.
22:03:39 I also believe that the development that is being
22:03:41 proposed is as many have been stated massively
22:03:45 oversized for the area, and that even just the
22:03:48 construction of this development and this huge
22:03:52 structure could change and will change the
22:03:54 character of this area, that the brick streets,
22:03:58 the small town feel, the historical area feel that
22:04:02 this area has, due to the fact that hits so close
22:04:05 to the University of Tampa, and so close to
22:04:07 buildings that are historical, that that will be
22:04:10 changed in this development.
22:04:11 So I would encourage you to recognize history and
22:04:14 just all of the family roots that we have here as
22:04:18 Tampa residents.
22:04:18 Thank you.
22:04:19 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilman Miranda.
22:04:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This has nothing to say of
22:04:23 this rezoning.
22:04:25 Maybe I shouldn't say this.
22:04:26 But I know your mother and I know your father.
22:04:29 (Laughter)
22:04:31 No, no, no, you aren't going to believe what I am
22:04:33 going to say.
22:04:34 Your mother was from Massachusetts.
22:04:37 Her name was Sally Mosby.
22:04:43 Yeah, your grandmother.
22:04:45 And I worked with her in 1957 at the Sagamore
22:04:49 Hotel.
22:04:50 That's all.
22:04:51 Just that little critique.
22:04:54 (Laughter).
22:04:58 >> I'm Donald profield. I live in the Hyde Park
22:05:02 historic district.
22:05:04 I would like to begin by saying I am not
22:05:06 anti-development.
22:05:06 As a matter of fact I am very pro responsible
22:05:08 development.
22:05:09 To take a location, history, existing
22:05:11 neighborhood, and the responsibility guardianship
22:05:13 of the land in which the development is to stand
22:05:15 under consideration.
22:05:16 I believe that this particular development does
22:05:18 not meet the criteria to be labeled responsible.
22:05:23 As a matter of fact this development seems to be a
22:05:26 wanton disregard for our city and our history.
22:05:29 Buildings that want removed from the historic
22:05:32 roles as shown as a fifth generation Tampan and
22:05:36 I'm frankly not happy about that move but as an
22:05:39 owner of a historic home who is forced to preserve
22:05:43 that history, I'm angry.
22:05:45 That precedence set by allowing those buildings to
22:05:49 be demolished is not one I want to see as our city
22:05:52 moves into what appears to be a great future.
22:05:54 As far as guardianship of the land, there are a
22:05:57 couple of grand oaks on this site that are slated
22:06:00 to be cleared should this development go through.
22:06:03 Again it sets a terrible precedence.
22:06:05 I myself have a grand oak in my backyard where I
22:06:07 would frankly like to have a pool.
22:06:09 I accept that fact, and understand that I can't
22:06:12 get way want, because destruction of that tree
22:06:15 would and should be almost impossible.
22:06:17 These trees don't simply recreate themselves and
22:06:20 should be protected.
22:06:21 However, this developer seems to think they can
22:06:23 remove theirs.
22:06:25 Grand Central and several long standing businesses
22:06:28 that have been good stewards of our community as
22:06:30 well as the unique Grand Central area.
22:06:32 They will be adversely affected as well.
22:06:34 Rezoning is a privilege to this development does
22:06:36 not deserve.
22:06:37 You are the people we have elected to help us
22:06:39 govern our city to help us protect those things
22:06:41 that we as individuals cannot, and I urge you to
22:06:44 please review this -- rebuke this request to
22:06:47 rezone this property.
22:06:48 Thank you.
22:06:48 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.
22:06:51 >> Good evening.
22:06:54 My name is Jeff Gibson. I live at 101 south 12th
22:06:58 Street in the Channel District.
22:07:00 When I last came here and stood before the council
22:07:02 was in favor of the tower that was by the Straz
22:07:05 Center was going up.
22:07:07 A truly mixed use urban building.
22:07:11 I came before the council and argued density,
22:07:13 density, density.
22:07:14 The density and density alone isn't the answer.
22:07:18 We must look at the entire neighborhood and what
22:07:21 the neighborhood would support.
22:07:23 I live in Channel District.
22:07:24 I work downtown.
22:07:26 I frequent the establishment across the street
22:07:28 from this property and plan to continue to
22:07:30 frequent it.
22:07:31 And what they have proposed is not a truly mixed
22:07:34 use place for that, particularly with the only
22:07:38 5,000 square foot of retail space or commercial
22:07:41 space in that.
22:07:42 I urge the council to look at the neighborhood as
22:07:44 a whole.
22:07:45 What we really want for our urban core, and to
22:07:48 deny this as proposed and allow them to come back
22:07:51 with something that trawl would fit within this
22:07:53 neighborhood.
22:07:54 Thank you.
22:07:54 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.
22:07:58 >> MaryAnn Ferpal, West Kennedy Boulevard.
22:08:07 The first six of 29 years were on Platt Street and
22:08:10 23 of which have been located at Grand Central
22:08:12 place across from the proposed development.
22:08:14 I ask you to note that the proposed developer
22:08:16 would thus be my landlord and I believe this
22:08:20 demonstrates that we have much at stake here.
22:08:22 My reputation precedes me with the pro upon end
22:08:26 for progress, one who works for a better Tampa and
22:08:28 as a pioneer and proponent of development.
22:08:31 I remember when this property would one day be
22:08:35 developed but I dreamt about how wonderful it
22:08:37 would be for our city and for our business.
22:08:39 When clients ask me as we opened on Platt Street
22:08:41 in 1987 if it was safe to be drop off their wives
22:08:45 and park, I said yes.
22:08:46 The neighborhood is different now that we are
22:08:48 here.
22:08:49 When clients asked them when we moved to Grand
22:08:51 Central Place and Platt Street in 1992 if we were
22:08:53 jumping from the frying pan into the fryer, I said
22:08:57 no, we want to be part of the growth of downtown
22:09:00 and this neighborhood will be different now that
22:09:01 we are here.
22:09:02 When the Oxford exchange opened and clients asked
22:09:06 if I was worried I said no. Watch how much better
22:09:07 the neighborhood will get with them here.
22:09:07 In fact it has.
22:09:09 And I believe that we have become the destination
22:09:11 that I believe Mr. Stoeltzing dreamt it would be.
22:09:14 But now I have not -- respect for the owner and
22:09:18 developer expressed publicly today, but if someone
22:09:20 asked me if I am worried about the development, I
22:09:23 would have to say yes, I am very worried.
22:09:24 I am worried because if I could put aside my fears
22:09:27 of a year plus of construction upheaval and
22:09:29 parking loads to which no solution has been
22:09:31 presented that comes close to solving a problem in
22:09:33 ways that will save my business, I cannot put my
22:09:36 worries aside that the neighborhood has risked the
22:09:38 test of time and has seen our investment will be
22:09:40 irrevocably devastated, become average,
22:09:42 unremarkable and no longer a unique district
22:09:45 creating a real destination with the power to draw
22:09:48 many but a place that looks and feels like
22:09:50 everyone where else.
22:09:52 We have dedicated ourselves and our business, so
22:09:54 yes, I am worried about first the disruption and
22:09:56 the dissolution of our neighborhood and our era
22:10:00 and the livelihood of the 150 people we employ.
22:10:02 I urge the council this development is
22:10:06 inconsistent with urban neighborhood created by
22:10:08 pioneers like Henry Plant and Mr. Stoeltzing, and
22:10:12 please wait for the right development for this
22:10:14 location.
22:10:14 Thank you.
22:10:14 (Bell sounds).
22:10:17 >> Jim Floyd of Adams and Reese, 101 East Kennedy.
22:10:21 I represent Mise en Place.
22:10:25 Council, you can't see the forest for the trees.
22:10:25 But in this case it's about the trees.
22:10:27 We all like trees.
22:10:28 But what's important is what your code that we all
22:10:30 have to live with says about trees.
22:10:33 In order to remove a grand oak under section
22:10:36 13-45-Z-2-B, it has to preclude reasonable use of
22:10:40 the property.
22:10:44 The reasons stated on the application that why
22:10:47 trees needed to be removed -- and there are grand
22:10:50 oaks, two nonhazardous -- is because of the
22:10:54 constraints of the property. Council, this
22:10:54 property is 2.51 acres.
22:10:56 That's very large by urban standards.
22:10:58 The applicant has not demonstrated by competent
22:11:00 substantial evidence that be they meet the
22:11:02 criteria to show that they are not reasonable use
22:11:05 of the property if the trees remain.
22:11:07 Specifically number 8 of the ten criteria.
22:11:09 Any effort by the applicant to redesign the
22:11:11 proposed development structure or use in a
22:11:13 management to a grand or protected tree. There's
22:11:18 been no competent substantial evidence to support
22:11:19 that and we find the application is flawed for
22:11:22 that reason.
22:11:22 I also want to point you -- and Ms. Feeley said
22:11:25 section 27-136, and requires to be proven when you
22:11:33 approve a planned development rezoning.
22:11:34 I want to read what that says because the
22:11:37 applicant has not demonstrated again by competent
22:11:38 substantial evidence.
22:11:41 The sufficient and sustainable use of land and
22:11:44 infrastructure with careful consideration of one,
22:11:47 potential adverse impact to onsite natural
22:11:49 elements. They are removing 34 trees including
22:11:52 three grand oaks.
22:11:53 They are stripping the property of all the trees
22:11:55 on the property.
22:11:56 Number two, surrounding impact to neighborhoods.
22:11:58 You heard competent substantial testimony of
22:12:01 people who live breathe and work there and is not
22:12:04 compatible to the neighborhood.
22:12:05 And they are tearing down three historic
22:12:08 structures, did an end around the process.
22:12:11 A due process question, really.
22:12:15 We are not against development here.
22:12:17 We welcome responsible residential development.
22:12:19 But we are opposed to this and ask that you deny
22:12:21 it.
22:12:21 Thank you.
22:12:22 (Bell sounds).
22:12:24 >> Thank you.
22:12:25 >> I would say good evening but it's almost good
22:12:32 night.
22:12:32 My name is Mit Patel, a resident of 807 south
22:12:37 Oregon Avenue.
22:12:39 I believe it's historic Hyde Park but I'm still
22:12:42 confused about divisions.
22:12:45 I have seen a lot of you all at different meetings
22:12:47 before.
22:12:47 You know I am a big advocate for smart everything.
22:12:50 I like smart government.
22:12:51 I like smart phones.
22:12:52 I like smart development.
22:12:53 I like smart roads.
22:12:55 I like smart transit.
22:12:57 I'm a smart advocate.
22:12:59 I have been a business owner in this community in
22:13:01 Hillsborough County for 17 years, so I would say
22:13:02 that stretching outside, I think Tampa deserves
22:13:06 better but I think the county deserves better.
22:13:09 I grew up in east county in Brandon, good country
22:13:11 boy.
22:13:12 I moved out of there in 2007, moved to Tampa, and
22:13:15 I'm glad I did, not because I don't love Brandon.
22:13:18 I love Brandon to death but it didn't fit with
22:13:20 what I was looking for.
22:13:21 I went to USF, got are two degrees in USF, one in
22:13:25 engineering, one in entrepreneurship.
22:13:27 I have five businesses, six businesses in
22:13:29 Hillsborough County.
22:13:30 I have three businesses in the city limits of
22:13:33 Tampa, new Tampa, south Tampa, and north Tampa,
22:13:35 and I have seen this area come alive in the last,
22:13:39 you know, few years that I have never seen before,
22:13:41 which is exciting for someone like me.
22:13:43 I almost moved to San Francisco three years ago
22:13:46 because I didn't think there was going to be a
22:13:48 place for me and my generation.
22:13:50 I'm excited about that.
22:13:51 As far as this development, I don't know too much
22:13:54 about it.
22:13:55 I found about it last night.
22:13:57 I do like the T-shirts.
22:13:59 I'm very jealous to come up with a name.
22:14:11 The Oxford Exchange, I love that.
22:14:14 And I looked at the pictures.
22:14:16 It just didn't make sense as far as the way it
22:14:18 looks. And on the surface of it.
22:14:22 And that pretty much concludes it.
22:14:27 Thank you.
22:14:28 >> Good evening.
22:14:37 Anilese Meir, 2307 west Briscoll Avenue.
22:14:40 It is very nice to come before you all again.
22:14:42 It's been quite some time.
22:14:44 This picture I would like you to deny this
22:14:47 rezoning request.
22:14:51 For many reasons.
22:14:52 I'm here to talk to you about this house is 110
22:14:58 Magnolia, owned by the Shimcock family, immigrants
22:15:03 from Lithuania, and my parents and I went to
22:15:08 church on Highland Avenue in Tampa Heights.
22:15:11 And this was a rooming house.
22:15:13 It was very upscale rooming house.
22:15:16 That house is gorgeous inside and I cannot imagine
22:15:19 it's not gorgeous inside.
22:15:22 The balustrade alone is just to die for.
22:15:26 Lydia and Fred came here after World War II.
22:15:30 I'm not quite sure.
22:15:34 And I believe the addition in the back was already
22:15:36 on.
22:15:36 They actually have a kitchen down here and they
22:15:38 lived upstairs.
22:15:39 Their daughter Ruth, who went to plant high
22:15:42 school, lived in the house on the ground floor and
22:15:44 the rooms upstairs were mostly for men.
22:15:46 There was a very strict rule.
22:15:48 No alcohol.
22:15:49 No women.
22:15:50 Or no overnight guests.
22:15:53 Let's put that the way.
22:15:56 This is the cleanest alley in Tampa.
22:16:00 It's not so clean anymore although it's cleaner
22:16:03 than most.
22:16:03 She would get out every day and sweep, as most
22:16:06 eastern Europeans and actually Europeans did.
22:16:08 They swept every day.
22:16:10 This house is still gorgeous.
22:16:11 It is still historic.
22:16:14 Something shifty was done here getting this off
22:16:16 the national register.
22:16:17 Don't want to go into it.
22:16:18 I only wish the Stoeltzing family and the Casper
22:16:20 family would talk because I don't think this
22:16:22 property is under contract unless the zoning goes
22:16:24 through.
22:16:25 Thank you very much.
22:16:25 >> Good evening.
22:16:31 I'm Linda Saul-Sena, and I live at 157 Biscayne.
22:16:35 First of all, I couldn't figure out how you could
22:16:40 delist a contributing structure, so I called
22:16:41 Tallahassee, and the woman, Desiree, said, you
22:16:41 know, I really was kind of new in the job.
22:16:47 Then I called the keeper of the national register
22:16:49 in Washington, U.S. Parks Service, and he said he
22:16:53 looked at a Google Earth image and agreed with
22:16:57 Desiree, that there are a lot of surface parking
22:16:59 lots.
22:16:59 Neither of them visited here. Neither of them
22:17:03 heard from any advocates or from the neighborhood,
22:17:06 and that process was preempted.
22:17:10 The good news is the guy from Washington said we
22:17:12 can reapply, that these again become contributing
22:17:15 structures, and I think it's something we should
22:17:17 consider.
22:17:18 But the reason I am speaking before you tonight is
22:17:20 because, as a City Council member for 20 years, I
22:17:22 can tell you a very specific things that council
22:17:25 did to protect the character of the neighborhood
22:17:29 as identified in the comp plan.
22:17:32 We got the University of Tampa to spend several
22:17:35 hundred thousand dollars to keep two grand trees
22:17:38 alive.
22:17:38 Then across the street they wanted to build a
22:17:41 dorm.
22:17:43 We forced them, the developer of the dorm, to move
22:17:47 the proposed structure back to enable the
22:17:50 continuation of the grand tree at the corner of
22:17:52 Kennedy and Hyde Park Avenue.
22:17:56 And that's in addition to many other rezonings in
22:17:59 the area where we said you must respect the
22:18:02 character of this portion of Hyde Park.
22:18:05 Just because the Crosstown Expressway goes through
22:18:09 there doesn't many there isn't a national register
22:18:12 district to the north of it.
22:18:13 And if you look at the charming house on Fremont
22:18:17 and Edison and those other streets that have been
22:18:19 converted into offices, and residences, you can
22:18:22 see that the residential character north of the
22:18:26 Crosstown is still there.
22:18:27 I believe it was a grave mistake made to remove
22:18:31 those contributing structures, and the trees need
22:18:34 protection.
22:18:35 Thank you.
22:18:36 Please deny this rezoning.
22:18:37 (Bell sounds)
22:18:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: State your name.
22:18:46 >> Kevin O'Hare, Valrico, Florida.
22:18:51 So a few weeks ago, I am walking down Kennedy.
22:18:54 I ran into a friend of mine.
22:18:57 He said, Hey, Kevin -- we were at the intersection
22:19:03 by City Hall, by Kennedy and Florida.
22:19:06 And said, Look at that intersection right there.
22:19:08 It has a parking lot and TPD headquarters.
22:19:10 He showed me a picture of what used to be there.
22:19:13 The Hillsborough County courthouse.
22:19:14 First one ever built.
22:19:17 And then you look at that structure.
22:19:19 And that picture and I think to myself, I think,
22:19:22 you know, that picture identifies Tampa.
22:19:25 It identifies who we are as a community.
22:19:27 It's something unique.
22:19:28 Something that's nowhere else in the world.
22:19:30 It's right here in our downtown.
22:19:33 It was gone.
22:19:34 And now you have a TPD and a parking garage.
22:19:37 And a few businesses on the side.
22:19:42 Every time, we knock down an historical building,
22:19:48 we need to think to ourselves about what we are
22:19:50 destroying, and what we are destroying is the
22:19:52 fabric that makes this community completely
22:19:54 different than anywhere else in the world.
22:19:56 What makes us Tampa, what defines us as a city.
22:20:02 I had a big decision I had to make a couple of
22:20:04 months ago and that's where I was going to go to
22:20:06 school, and I'm proud to be at the University of
22:20:08 Tampa and proud I made the commitment to stay in
22:20:10 my home.
22:20:11 And a big reason why I made that commitment was
22:20:13 because I honestly believe with all of my heart
22:20:16 that Tampa is going to be the next great American
22:20:18 city, and there are advocates working tirelessly
22:20:21 day after day to make that a reality.
22:20:24 And we ask ourselves, why does Tampa deserve
22:20:27 better, oh war does Tampa deserve better of?
22:20:31 And while there's a lot of things that we can
22:20:33 improve on, and while we have a history of tearing
22:20:36 down buildings before, we can start tonight and
22:20:40 set a precedence that we want to protect what
22:20:43 makes Tampa the next great American city.
22:20:45 Thank you.
22:20:46 Pleas stop this project.
22:20:47 (Bell sounds).
22:20:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
22:20:49 >> 3213 west pine street.
22:20:56 I am currently an independent contractor at 303
22:21:00 Grand Central Avenue.
22:21:01 And with this development, I feel there can be
22:21:04 something else that can be developed commercially
22:21:06 for the environment for what's going on now.
22:21:08 And we get plenty of walkability with what we are
22:21:11 building in downtown already.
22:21:12 With this development, I think that we should
22:21:14 create something more commercial, and I urge City
22:21:18 Council to take that into consideration.
22:21:20 Thank you.
22:21:20 >> My name is Jonathan Myers, 509 south Willow
22:21:32 Avenue.
22:21:32 I lived in Tampa Hyde Park specifically for about
22:21:36 eight years now.
22:21:37 When I first moved here, I lived in apartments,
22:21:41 townhouses, historic buildings.
22:21:44 I was looking for something that drew me to the
22:21:50 area having mixes of uses.
22:21:53 I used to be closer to Howard.
22:21:55 But came to the Oxford Exchange area really
22:21:59 brought a lot to the dynamics of that overall
22:22:03 area.
22:22:04 I have also seen that as we are getting more of a
22:22:09 work-play type element introduced to the area it's
22:22:12 attracting a lot of corporations and a lot of good
22:22:16 responsible businesses.
22:22:17 I think that we need to support projects like
22:22:20 this.
22:22:20 And I think that it's overall great for the
22:22:23 economy, and will help to kind of go in a roll,
22:22:27 and it's the first of many steps of redeveloping
22:22:30 that Kennedy corridor.
22:22:31 Thank you.
22:22:31 >> Matt Hanley, district 7.
22:22:45 I have lived here my entire life.
22:22:50 I matriculated through Hillsborough County school
22:22:53 system at every level.
22:22:55 And I'm a huge fan of this city.
22:23:02 And I have been other places.
22:23:04 As a construction professional, I have worked in
22:23:07 large markets, Charlotte, Atlanta, and I have
22:23:11 always come back home.
22:23:13 I love this city.
22:23:15 And when I was not here, and I was in the bigger
22:23:19 market, I lived in multifamily housing and it was
22:23:22 a lot of nice accommodations, and I had a lot of
22:23:25 neighbors who were transient to those markets as
22:23:28 well.
22:23:29 And I know the importance of projects like these.
22:23:32 And I think it's very important for our city, as
22:23:37 we are in a growing economy and our state's
22:23:40 economy is growing.
22:23:40 We just passed New York for the third most
22:23:44 populace states.
22:23:46 Jobs are coming here.
22:23:47 People are coming here.
22:23:48 And that's exciting and I want to live in a city
22:23:50 that's competitive.
22:23:51 And that's very important to me.
22:23:54 And I heard someone say this earlier, but they
22:23:57 reminded me of 2009, and it reminds me that our
22:24:01 city is not -- we are not immune to a downturn in
22:24:06 the economy.
22:24:07 And as a construction professional, I see a
22:24:11 barometer is a good growth and good economy is
22:24:15 companies who want to develop, companies oh who
22:24:18 want to grow in your area, and unfortunately the
22:24:22 operative issue here is time.
22:24:24 And I know some of you read the business journal.
22:24:27 And I know you have seen the articles.
22:24:28 And as people get older they want to move out of
22:24:31 their houses and they don't wanted that burden and
22:24:33 they want nice places to live.
22:24:35 And I don't want to compete with Orlando.
22:24:37 They are always a point below us in unemployment
22:24:39 and I don't want to be second fiddle to them.
22:24:42 I love this city.
22:24:43 Thank you very much.
22:24:43 (Bell sounds).
22:24:45 >> Nice to see district 7 in the house.
22:24:54 >> Ms. Grimes has a speaker waiver form with one
22:24:57 name.
22:24:57 Is Harvey Territo here?
22:25:01 >>GINA GRIMES: I really just planned on three
22:25:03 minutes.
22:25:04 Sorry I had to use the speaker waiver form.
22:25:05 Gina Grimes, Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 East
22:25:08 Kennedy Boulevard.
22:25:09 I represent Ryland property management which is
22:25:12 the asset manager of several properties including
22:25:14 the surface parking lot and the buildings which is
22:25:19 the subject of this rezoning.
22:25:21 I would like to address the opposition to this
22:25:23 rezoning and most of it has been from Oxford
22:25:27 Exchange and their social media campaign, Tampa
22:25:30 Deserves Better.
22:25:31 I would like to address why we believe that they
22:25:35 are so opposed to this project.
22:25:36 Although the basis for their objection has changed
22:25:38 several times over the course of this application,
22:25:42 their current position that the project is not
22:25:44 pedestrian friendly, and that CG zoning is better
22:25:49 than residential just does not make sense.
22:25:51 When something like this doesn't make sense you
22:25:54 really need to look behind it and find out what
22:25:56 the true motivation is.
22:25:58 Is there an ulterior motive with respect to their
22:26:01 opposition to this project? With all due respect
22:26:03 to Mr. Casper we think that there is.
22:26:05 We believe what's really motivating Oxford
22:26:07 Exchange and their on situation is the fact that
22:26:09 they have a lease for 65 parking spaces on the
22:26:13 subject rezoning site, but that lease is
22:26:16 terminable upon sale of this property.
22:26:18 So if this rezoning is approved, and if the sale
22:26:21 of the property occurs, the parking lease will be
22:26:23 terminated.
22:26:25 Why is their parking lease so important?
22:26:27 Well, their parking issues started back in 2011
22:26:30 when they purchased this property, because they
22:26:33 knowingly purchased this building knowing that it
22:26:35 had no parking associated with it.
22:26:38 And by the way, the price of the building
22:26:39 reflected the fact that it didn't have parking.
22:26:42 So in 2011, Oxford Exchange had applied to the
22:26:45 city to obtain a design exception so the off-site
22:26:49 spaces could be used to be counted for parking
22:26:52 requirements.
22:26:53 Then in 2014, Oxford Exchange also was further
22:26:58 dependent on their parking lease and they obtained
22:27:00 a special use permit for alcohol, also conditioned
22:27:02 upon the existence of these parking spaces, these
22:27:05 lease spaces.
22:27:06 Obviously, they have a lot to lose if this
22:27:09 rezoning is approved and they lose their parking
22:27:11 lease.
22:27:12 They have their design exception, their zoning
22:27:14 compliance, and their alcoholic zoning at stake.
22:27:19 But they always knew this parking lease was
22:27:21 terminable upon the sale of any of the parcels on
22:27:23 the subject site.
22:27:24 And you have heard from Ms. Zellman that even
22:27:27 though Altman is not legally obligated to provide
22:27:29 them parking, they have offered to lease to Oxford
22:27:32 Exchange the same number of spaces in the parking
22:27:36 garage as they currently have now in the surface
22:27:38 lot.
22:27:39 But that's not enough apparently for Oxford
22:27:41 Exchange and they refused to even discuss the
22:27:43 parking issue.
22:27:44 Maybe they are worried about disruption during
22:27:46 construction. Maybe they are worried about less
22:27:48 than favorable lease terms.
22:27:50 Maybe they are worried about the convenience of
22:27:51 surface parking versus garage parking.
22:27:54 But at this point they are asking this council to
22:27:56 deny this rezoning, and what we think are faulty
22:28:00 legal grounds, and that is that residential isn't
22:28:03 appropriate and RMU 100 and retaining CG and
22:28:07 surface parking is better than what is the better
22:28:10 that Tampa deserves.
22:28:11 That's not a legitimate basis for denial, and we
22:28:13 ask for your approval of this rezoning for the
22:28:16 reasons stated by Ms. Zellman.
22:28:18 Thank you.
22:28:19 >> Rosemary Henderson, 2001 Bayshore Boulevard.
22:28:19 I've lived in my home in Hyde Park for 44 years.
22:28:19 I have been very involved in a lot of different
22:28:34 parts of Hyde Park.
22:28:35 I was past president, Historic Hyde Park
22:28:37 Neighborhood Association.
22:28:38 And I came tonight because I'm opposed to this
22:28:41 plan.
22:28:42 I had hoped to hear everything that the other
22:28:46 presenters are getting ready to present, and also
22:28:49 going to try to pick up on what I thought were
22:28:51 some of the most important aspects.
22:28:54 But I will hear that in a minute, but I have heard
22:28:55 enough tonight from all the different speakers we
22:28:57 heard from to know that I'm still even more
22:29:00 strongly about why I am opposed to this.
22:29:03 I will be very brief.
22:29:05 The batteries in my hearing aids are starting to
22:29:07 beep.
22:29:09 (Laughter)
22:29:09 And I can't tell the difference between that beep
22:29:11 and your beep.
22:29:14 So I will just say, so many great things are
22:29:16 happening in our city that we can be so proud of.
22:29:20 I am proud of Hyde Park, and so many changes we
22:29:23 have seen there.
22:29:24 I just do not believe that this is the best plan
22:29:27 for our neighborhood, for our city, and for those
22:29:31 reasons I oppose it.
22:29:33 Thank you.
22:29:33 >> Truett Gardner. 401 North Ashley Drive.
22:29:45 A couple of housekeeping issues.
22:29:46 I sent you a memo today.
22:29:48 This is a complete memo with all -- from our
22:29:53 experts as well as the sheets in the front of it
22:29:56 which provides our grounds of substantial,
22:30:00 competent evidence to deny this request, and I
22:30:03 would ask that you peruse this as we are making
22:30:10 our presentation.
22:30:11 To make it more efficient I have some things that
22:30:15 came in late, but it is a letter of opposition
22:30:17 from Tampa General Hospital.
22:30:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does the clerk have any of this
22:30:22 yet?
22:30:24 >> I am turning it in right now.
22:30:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You do have that one.
22:30:29 Okay.
22:30:38 >> Mr. Gardner.
22:30:43 Four minutes.
22:30:44 That's four.
22:30:44 >> And I will try to be under that.
22:30:47 >> There are two names here which we already
22:30:50 acknowledged.
22:30:50 Two minutes plus two names.
22:30:51 >> Truett Gardner, 401 north Ashley drive.
22:30:55 I have the pleasure of representing Blake Casper
22:30:57 and Allison Adams.
22:30:59 They have been life-long friends and are the
22:31:01 owners of Visionary Oxford Exchange which is
22:31:05 across from the property in question.
22:31:07 And on a personal note I have been coming in front
22:31:09 of this board, had the honor to do so for the past
22:31:12 18 years and I believe this is the first time I
22:31:15 have ever come in opposition to a project, but I
22:31:17 believe this project sincerely warrants opposition
22:31:22 and I feel good about being in front of you
22:31:24 tonight.
22:31:25 Next I would like to dispel some of the rumors and
22:31:27 innuendos circulating, also as Ms. Grimes just
22:31:34 said, which I think she completely missed the boat
22:31:37 in all due respect with why Blake and Allison are
22:31:42 opposed to this project.
22:31:43 First of all, they are not opposed to this because
22:31:45 they are anti-development or anti-residential.
22:31:48 In fact, they would welcome a far denser
22:31:54 development and taller development in keeping with
22:31:56 the neighborhood.
22:31:57 Secondly, this is not a sour grapes argument or
22:32:00 argument over fear of losing parking.
22:32:02 Again, they would welcome a development to this
22:32:04 site, and Blake is going to speak to the parking
22:32:07 issue, I'm sure, and that is simply not a reason
22:32:11 why they are here in opposition.
22:32:16 Next I would like to discuss exactly why they are
22:32:20 in opposition.
22:32:23 First, obviously Blake and Allison spent a lot of
22:32:27 their time, their money, and their passion to
22:32:32 creating the Oxford Exchange as with Mise en Place
22:32:38 and they don't want to the see their work to go to
22:32:41 waste with an inferior development.
22:32:43 Second, Blake and Allison want a project along
22:32:45 Grand Central to be of good design, that are
22:32:48 compatible in scale with the neighborhood and that
22:32:50 are sensitive to the historical aspects of the
22:32:53 neighborhood which includes the trees and includes
22:32:55 the homes, just because they are tech I E the
22:33:01 comprehensive plan still protect historic
22:33:04 structures.
22:33:05 All of Blake and Allison's desires are completely
22:33:10 supported by the code, the InVision plan, and the
22:33:12 comprehensive plan, which I can go into place, and
22:33:17 which will go into detail after I speak.
22:33:21 Finally, before the experts, I want to distill the
22:33:28 problem with the development is in the simplest
22:33:30 terms possible, and that is it's simply
22:33:32 fundamentally flawed and not worthy of this
22:33:35 special neighborhood and of your approval.
22:33:38 The developer has a great opportunity, in working
22:33:41 with a two and a half acre site, to put that into
22:33:44 perspective, a block in downtown Tampa is one
22:33:46 acre.
22:33:47 They have two and a half times that to work with
22:33:51 for this site.
22:33:52 In addition, they have the same comprehensive plan
22:33:54 designation as the Channel District, which is RMU
22:33:58 100 and specifically encourages high-rises and
22:34:00 mixed use developments.
22:34:02 However, in essence the developer is proposing a
22:34:05 suburban style apartment complex that is sprawled
22:34:07 over 9% of the property, three of Tampa's oldest
22:34:14 remaining historical residential structures and
22:34:16 100% of the trees including three grand oaks and
22:34:20 34 protected trees.
22:34:20 In summary, a PD should be approved to allow for
22:34:23 flexibility in order to do innovative things.
22:34:26 There is nothing innovative about completely
22:34:28 grading a 2.5-acre site and removing three
22:34:33 historic structures and 100% of the trees.
22:34:35 As a result, this project should be denied.
22:34:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And forgive me if I am
22:34:46 mischaracterizing what you said.
22:34:48 But you said something about the high-rise
22:34:54 development in the city is encouraged?
22:34:59 And this project represents a residential style,
22:35:02 or a suburban style development?
22:35:04 >> Correct.
22:35:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So you would rather see a
22:35:06 high-rise?
22:35:07 >> Yes.
22:35:07 And we'll get into that exactly and the exact
22:35:10 reasons why.
22:35:15 I would like to introduce our experts.
22:35:16 We have Del Acosta, head of historic preservation
22:35:20 of the City of Tampa for 12 years.
22:35:22 A masters in regional planning and three years ago
22:35:26 Dell literally wrote the book on Hyde Park.
22:35:29 And I am going to submit it into the record.
22:35:32 Next we will have Stephanie Ferrell, a registered
22:35:40 architect in the State of Florida since 1976 and
22:35:42 she is an adjunct professor for the school of
22:35:45 architecture, school of design at the University
22:35:47 of South Florida, won numerous awards for her work
22:35:50 including restoration of the federal courthouse in
22:35:52 downtown Tampa which is now the Le Meridian hotel.
22:35:56 Finally we have George Deakin.
22:35:57 George has a degree in civil engineering from the
22:35:59 University of Virginia and 42 years of experience
22:36:02 in traffic engineer.
22:36:04 And our last speaker will be Blake Casper.
22:36:06 With that I would like to introduce Del Acosta.
22:36:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: How much time do you have?
22:36:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Acosta has six minutes.
22:36:15 >> I will try to do it in less time.
22:36:21 I am going to be using the overhead projector.
22:36:24 And the young man spoke a little while ago, talked
22:36:27 about the original courthouse in downtown Tampa,
22:36:29 which was across the street.
22:36:30 And in 1950 it was considered outmoded, outdated
22:36:39 and inefficient.
22:36:43 I would like to go back.
22:36:46 I'm Del Acosta, 1903 West Bristol Avenue, Tampa,
22:36:51 Florida.
22:36:52 And I'm speaking to you today.
22:36:57 I have on the screen a 1892 map of Tampa.
22:37:01 It really codifies what Tampa looked like.
22:37:04 When Tampa was incorporated in the city as we know
22:37:06 today, in 1887, it created four wards -- downtown,
22:37:14 Ybor City, Tampa Heights, and Hyde Park.
22:37:18 So Hyde Park is really one of the original -- one
22:37:22 of the four original wards made up in the City of
22:37:25 Tampa.
22:37:25 Just north of Hyde Park, a few years later, West
22:37:28 Tampa began to emerge, subdivided about two years
22:37:32 later after this was done.
22:37:35 Using Tampa Bay hotel which was open for one year
22:37:38 at this time, and -- excuse me, I'm losing my
22:37:42 voice.
22:37:44 And before crossing the Hillsborough River.
22:37:49 That made Hyde Park possible.
22:37:51 A few years earlier, OH Plant platted Hyde Park
22:37:56 along plant street.
22:37:57 We have Henry B. Plant north of Kennedy.
22:38:00 Then called Lafayette Street.
22:38:01 And then Platt Street you had OH Plant
22:38:04 subdivision, and in between, you have the subject
22:38:07 property over here.
22:38:08 And that block appears, and still is pretty much
22:38:11 the grid of that area that exists today, and this
22:38:15 property is still in the Hyde Park historic
22:38:17 district.
22:38:17 That hasn't been changed.
22:38:19 At all.
22:38:19 And when you talk about historic district, you are
22:38:22 not just talking about the building.
22:38:24 You are talking about the grid, the scale, and the
22:38:27 natural features.
22:38:29 And all of those to a degree still exist, still
22:38:31 have the grid pretty much intact.
22:38:34 You can see Snow Park there.
22:38:38 You can see the triangle where the arcade is,
22:38:41 Grand Central and of course the University of
22:38:43 Tampa.
22:38:50 Between 1890 and 1930, Tampa was one of the
22:38:53 fastest growing cities in the United States.
22:38:56 The map that I showed of Tampa was 1892, and Tampa
22:39:00 had 5,000 people.
22:39:01 By 1930 it had 100,000 people.
22:39:04 So the city grew at a relatively rapid rate.
22:39:08 In 1920, Hyde Park was defined by the area
22:39:12 approximately where North B Street is now on the
22:39:15 north.
22:39:15 Howard Avenue on the south.
22:39:17 Hillsborough bay -- Hillsborough River.
22:39:20 So that ward of Tampa, although politics and
22:39:26 government changed, still is Hyde Park area and
22:39:28 very important to the community and very important
22:39:31 to maintaining our heritage tourism.
22:39:36 Here is the image of Hyde Park in the 1920s.
22:39:38 We begin to see the Hyde Park that we know today.
22:39:44 Where you do have that Intown city that urban
22:39:48 village that we are talking about here, more
22:39:52 pedestrians than cars on the road.
22:39:53 Also the trolley system is still in place.
22:39:56 And we still have the opportunity to maintain that
22:40:00 in the city of the 21st century.
22:40:09 This is the site under question.
22:40:10 It has three historic buildings.
22:40:13 You can determine historic, the comprehensive plan
22:40:15 does call for historic buildings.
22:40:19 Those three still pass what I call the squint
22:40:22 test, the contributing features to those buildings
22:40:24 are still there.
22:40:25 That's one of them.
22:40:27 And this is the other one.
22:40:28 I think it's rather fortunate that they have been
22:40:33 delisted but they haven't been lost.
22:40:35 That block has always been residential.
22:40:38 And those buildings were constructed approximately
22:40:41 1908.
22:40:43 I want to be go back to the plat that I originally
22:40:48 showed you.
22:40:50 And again, when we talk about the fabric of the
22:40:56 grid, this grid still exists.
22:41:00 This block still exists.
22:41:04 Still has Snow park here.
22:41:05 You have the church over here.
22:41:07 And you have this residential block.
22:41:08 I think it's Kuwait possible -- and in keeping
22:41:11 with your comprehensive plan -- to maintain the
22:41:13 structures, to maintain the grand trees, and still
22:41:17 create than the urban village that everyone has
22:41:20 talked about today.
22:41:23 This is Grand Central Avenue.
22:41:26 As it exists today.
22:41:27 You have the church over here.
22:41:29 You have the north side Central Avenue, and you
22:41:33 have that historic house.
22:41:35 A historic district could be made up of three
22:41:37 buildings.
22:41:38 So you still have the four.
22:41:41 You don't necessarily need to keep the whole
22:41:43 thing, but an urban village is still there.
22:41:51 And if you stand at this particular intersection
22:41:53 overhear, this is Grand Central.
22:41:57 This is -- you have a structure here.
22:42:02 1908 building here.
22:42:03 If you turn around, you have a whole collection of
22:42:07 buildings on the north side of Grand Central.
22:42:09 You can go to lower Manhattan.
22:42:11 You can go to neighborhood in Chicago,
22:42:13 neighborhoods in San Francisco.
22:42:14 You can go all over Europe.
22:42:17 And you can see these little pockets of historic
22:42:19 districts that give you the historic reference of
22:42:21 the past and still accommodate future growth.
22:42:24 (Bell sounds)
22:42:27 And there are the grand trees.
22:42:29 Thank you so much.
22:42:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you. How much time for
22:42:45 speakers?
22:42:46 >> Mrs. Ferrell has six minutes in total.
22:42:50 My name is Stephanie Ferrell.
22:43:24 I am a licensed architect, and it's been quite a
22:43:27 while that that's been the case.
22:43:29 It's hard to believe, but subsequent to that, I
22:43:33 became about five years subsequent to that I
22:43:36 became the architect for the Historic
22:43:38 Tampa-Hillsborough County Preservation Board and
22:43:40 then shortly thereafter I became the director of
22:43:42 the Historic Tampa-Hillsborough County
22:43:44 Preservation Board.
22:43:46 During that time I was requested by the city for
22:43:51 the board to prepare -- to basically prepare a
22:43:55 cultural resources survey of the Hyde Park area.
22:43:58 In an effort to determine whether it might become
22:44:04 possibly a historic district -- a National
22:44:06 Register Historic District first and then with the
22:44:09 possibility of a Local Historic District.
22:44:11 My office in the mid 1980s prepared the
22:44:17 nomination that resulted in listing Hyde Park on
22:44:19 the national register of historic places.
22:44:21 I think it's only fitting that I be here this
22:44:26 evening to talk about the new building in the
22:44:27 context of the historic district.
22:44:29 Also, let me point out while we are talking about
22:44:33 this, the historic district boundaries remain the
22:44:37 same, that the proposed Alt site is located within
22:44:42 the historic district, that any new construction
22:44:44 should be compatible with the cultural resources,
22:44:48 historic resources and our cultural resources in
22:44:51 the historic district.
22:44:52 And then I will also mention that the trees
22:44:55 separately are a natural resource and the project
22:45:01 should be compatible with the natural resources of
22:45:04 the area as well.
22:45:07 I'd be happy to answer any questions about the
22:45:09 national register listing and process that maybe
22:45:14 weren't addressed earlier if need to be.
22:45:20 Let me get to my task at hand.
22:45:21 I was asked to look at the proposed project in the
22:45:24 context of the Hyde Park district and determine
22:45:27 whether or not it was compatible with the district
22:45:31 and whether or not I believed that it met the
22:45:35 criteria for meeting the strict requirements of PD
22:45:39 zoning.
22:45:39 And in that, the project proposes to wipe the site
22:45:46 clean, including the three turn-of-the-century
22:45:50 structures plus all the trees, and this includes
22:45:53 three grand trees, 34 protected trees but also
22:45:58 totally on the site as provided by the applicant.
22:46:01 There are 54 trees on the site all of which are to
22:46:05 be removed.
22:46:05 That goes against the requirements of the PD
22:46:09 zoning requirements.
22:46:10 Also, I see no evidence, no apparent effort to
22:46:16 consider adaptive use of the historic structures
22:46:19 on the site, nor consideration of possible
22:46:23 relocation of the structures.
22:46:24 And then I'd like for Truett to put up some of the
22:46:31 renderings of the site so we can talk about the
22:46:36 massing of the site.
22:46:38 One of the most important concepts in looking at
22:46:41 design review is not just the surface of the
22:46:45 building and not just its height and not just the
22:46:49 setback, but what all of those things together
22:46:52 mean to the appearance of a building and it's
22:46:55 relationship to its context.
22:46:58 The reason, in my opinion, that this building is
22:47:01 incompatible with the district is not because it's
22:47:04 tall, because a tall building that's properly set
22:47:07 back I believe could be compatible.
22:47:11 Not just because of the setbacks, but because of
22:47:13 the combination of that massing, which basically
22:47:16 occupies the full site and is a monolithic and
22:47:24 massive project, which -- and the reason -- and
22:47:30 that design in particular results in the removal
22:47:35 of the historic structures and in the removal of
22:47:38 the grand trees.
22:47:40 But what if that density was placed in a tower
22:47:46 that was set back from the edge of the site?
22:47:48 What if the historic buildings were maintained
22:47:51 on-site either in their current location or
22:47:53 relocated?
22:47:54 Then we would have a project that related in scale
22:47:57 to the pedestrian scale of the neighborhood to
22:48:01 grand central itself, to the Lafayette arcade
22:48:04 building and so forth.
22:48:05 And then you would have a project that might fit
22:48:09 well within the context of the area.
22:48:13 So what we are saying, and I'm going to show you
22:48:16 another exhibit.
22:48:21 The first one shows the existing trees on the
22:48:26 site, highlighted with our graphics, but they are
22:48:29 the tree locations per the applicant's data.
22:48:32 The three grand trees are trees one, two, and
22:48:40 three.
22:48:41 Three is determined to be hazardous and will be
22:48:44 removed so the two of them are really towards the
22:48:47 south end of the site.
22:48:48 You see there's quite a bit of site that is
22:48:52 available toward the center of the site.
22:48:54 And then also I'd like to point out that there are
22:49:00 towers -- this is the applicant site here, and
22:49:04 then there are towers that range in height from 8
22:49:10 to actually 13 stories in height all around this
22:49:13 district, and their footprints are such that you
22:49:15 can visually see that many of these, that each of
22:49:19 these could be placed in the middle of this large
22:49:23 two and a half acre site.
22:49:29 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
22:49:30 How much time?
22:49:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Two minutes.
22:49:46 Two minutes total.
22:49:52 >> Good evening.
22:49:54 I'm George Deakin.
22:49:56 I'm a Registered Professional Engineer in Florida.
22:49:59 My street address, business address is 2909 West
22:50:04 Bay to Bay Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
22:50:07 I've conducted traffic counts and traffic impact
22:50:10 studies for over 40 years.
22:50:12 My resumé and my actual letter of comments is in
22:50:17 the packet that was distributed to you earlier.
22:50:20 I reviewed the traffic report that was submitted
22:50:24 by the applicant, and three major comments or
22:50:29 primary comments are, number one, the applicant
22:50:33 looked at less development, the impact of less
22:50:37 development than what's being proposed by the
22:50:39 applicant.
22:50:41 The traffic planner looked at 274 apartments and
22:50:46 2600 square feet of retail.
22:50:49 The actual retail that's being requested is double
22:50:52 that.
22:50:53 It's almost 300 apartments, so the traffic study
22:50:56 needs to be revised to reflect the impact of
22:51:01 actually what's being proposed.
22:51:02 Another comment is that the -- one of the most
22:51:06 critical intersections is the intersection of
22:51:08 Cleveland Avenue and Hyde Park Avenue.
22:51:11 The recent counts that were used were made in June
22:51:15 of 2015, actually taken June 11th, but Cleveland
22:51:21 Avenue West, immediately west of the site was
22:51:24 under construction, being narrowed from three
22:51:27 lanes to one lane.
22:51:29 It choked the capacity.
22:51:31 It reduced the traffic, for that reason, that
22:51:35 count should be redone and the study should also
22:51:37 be revised.
22:51:38 Likewise, the rest of the Cleveland intersection,
22:51:43 there's resurfacing, when those counts were made
22:51:46 in March of this year, so it needs to be redone to
22:51:51 reflect typical conditions, supposed to be the
22:51:54 basis of the traffic study.
22:51:55 Thank you.
22:51:57 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
22:51:58 Next speaker.
22:52:03 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22:52:04 Blake Casper.
22:52:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Casper has ten minutes.
22:52:10 >> I hope not to take that long.
22:52:12 It's late.
22:52:13 I appreciate everybody being out this late.
22:52:16 I'm going to go quickly.
22:52:18 My wife and I live at 80 Ladoga Avenue.
22:52:21 And along with my sister Allison Adams, we own the
22:52:25 retail complex called The Oxford Exchange.
22:52:30 Before I get too into this prepared speech I think
22:52:33 I'll stop and talk to Gina's point about the
22:52:36 parking.
22:52:36 Let's get the parking out on the table.
22:52:39 Gina is right.
22:52:40 She's correct in saying that they have the right
22:52:42 to terminate our parking on the advent of
22:52:44 development of the site.
22:52:46 In fact, that's how we found out about this
22:52:48 project.
22:52:48 We got a letter.
22:52:50 I think it was slipped under the door or maybe it
22:52:52 was dropped off by Harvey, but that's how we found
22:52:55 out about this and it was also in the newspaper.
22:52:57 It's not from a lack of dialogue that we had with
22:53:00 the seller or with Harvey.
22:53:02 We've known them.
22:53:04 We've worked with them, but that was how we found
22:53:06 out about this project.
22:53:07 We were not approached before it was filed with
22:53:10 the city.
22:53:11 We were not approached before we found out about
22:53:13 it in the paper.
22:53:15 But going back to Gina's point on the termination
22:53:18 of the parking agreement.
22:53:20 She's right.
22:53:21 What she failed to mention, though, is our
22:53:23 agreement ends in March of 2016.
22:53:26 We're not going to have any parking in March of
22:53:29 2016 on this property going forward.
22:53:32 So my selfish interest in this is gone after March
22:53:37 of 2016.
22:53:38 In fact, if I had a business interest in all of
22:53:41 this, I would have said let's build it, right?
22:53:44 Let's build it, you're building the parking.
22:53:46 You're not putting retail on the bottom.
22:53:48 From a selfish standpoint as a business operator,
22:53:51 I probably shouldn't be here at all, right?
22:53:54 I'm not going to have any parking after March of
22:53:57 2016.
22:53:58 Whether or not it gets built or doesn't get built
22:54:01 really is beyond our interest.
22:54:04 I speak for my sister as well.
22:54:07 I opened up a bookstore, right?
22:54:09 So business sense, me, probably not so smart,
22:54:13 right?
22:54:13 So I'm opening up a business and a bookstore, and
22:54:17 that was the original concept of the Oxford
22:54:19 Exchange.
22:54:21 It is a business.
22:54:22 We run it like a business.
22:54:25 We haven't applied for any tax credits.
22:54:27 We haven't applied for any government subsidies.
22:54:29 We haven't applied for any of it.
22:54:32 We did it, and we did it in the way that we felt
22:54:35 like the city would enjoy and it would be
22:54:40 received.
22:54:41 So far from the results, it's been that way.
22:54:44 But it's not something that we are doing to -- I'm
22:54:51 not here tonight because I need to protect The
22:54:53 Oxford Exchange business.
22:54:56 I'm not.
22:54:57 I'm here because Tampa deserves better.
22:54:59 You know, we can do better.
22:55:03 We can demand better.
22:55:05 Andrea talked about Jeff spect and walkability.
22:55:10 The book I was going to reference was Mayor Rick
22:55:13 Baker's book in "Seamless City."
22:55:16 What downtown St. Pete has done, folks, we don't
22:55:20 have to go all the way to Jeff Speck who lives up
22:55:22 in Boston.
22:55:23 We can look at what's going on in downtown
22:55:25 St. Pete.
22:55:25 There are wonderful things happening right here in
22:55:27 Tampa largely from public works, right?
22:55:30 Curtis Hixon Park, the Riverwalk, all the things
22:55:34 that are happening.
22:55:35 Now, we've got what's going to happen with Jeff
22:55:38 Vinik, and he's going to do it wonderfully.
22:55:40 We're going to have wonderful, incredible
22:55:44 development.
22:55:44 What Richard Gonzmart and you all did at water
22:55:47 works, that's a public/private partnership.
22:55:49 That's fantastic.
22:55:50 That's really great stuff.
22:55:52 That's the kind of great stuff that Tampa
22:55:54 deserves.
22:55:54 We deserve better than, you know, what's being
22:55:58 proposed here.
22:55:59 And, you know, I've met with Jeff.
22:56:03 I want to say Jeff Altman.
22:56:05 It's not Jeff Altman.
22:56:06 It's Jeff Roberts.
22:56:12 You know, Joe Altman is not here, right?
22:56:15 He's so concerned about this development that I
22:56:19 don't believe Joe is here.
22:56:23 The fact is, I haven't met Joe Altman.
22:56:26 I don't think anybody has met Joe Altman.
22:56:29 How concerned is he with the project?
22:56:31 What is he doing for this project?
22:56:33 You heard Maryann speak here.
22:56:36 You've heard all the tenants speak that work and
22:56:42 ply their trade in this area.
22:56:44 If you want to call this selfish, if you want to
22:56:48 call this like, you know, I'm doing this for
22:56:51 financial reasons, I mean, I can take a lot of it,
22:56:57 but that's not -- you know, it's beyond pale.
22:57:02 We're not here to tell people how to do things.
22:57:06 We obviously have a lot of passion for this.
22:57:08 We have a lot of passion for this area.
22:57:11 You've heard a lot tonight.
22:57:16 We can do better.
22:57:22 We can absolutely do better.
22:57:23 I hope you vote to decline their application.
22:57:31 I did it in five minutes.
22:57:33 Thank you.
22:57:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: Who is next on the list?
22:57:38 Anybody else remaining?
22:57:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
22:57:40 That is the last of Mr. Gardner's group.
22:57:43 >> That concludes our presentation.
22:57:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Nelson, let me see who is
22:57:56 here.
22:57:56 Charles Manley.
22:57:58 That's an additional minute.
22:58:00 Beverly Snow.
22:58:01 Beverly Snow?
22:58:04 >> She might have left.
22:58:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't see Beverly snow.
22:58:08 Is David Snow here?
22:58:09 I don't see David Snow.
22:58:12 Is Kathryn Reine here?
22:58:16 Okay.
22:58:17 Total of four minutes.
22:58:18 >> Thank you, sir.
22:58:19 Thank you, Council.
22:58:20 Thank you for your attention.
22:58:21 It's good to see you all again.
22:58:23 It's a late hour, so I'll get to it.
22:58:25 First, I'm going to explain a couple of misnomers
22:58:28 that have been brought before you tonight to make
22:58:30 sure the record is clear, and I'll end quickly.
22:58:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: State your name for the record.
22:58:35 >> Seth Nelson, I'm sorry.
22:58:36 442 West Kennedy.
22:58:38 The sole shareholder of Nelson Law Group where we
22:58:42 have 12 employees at the grand central building.
22:58:45 We're going to just set the facts straight a
22:58:49 little bit on some things that have been said and
22:58:51 I'll quickly wrap up with, as you started the
22:58:54 evening, that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding
22:58:56 and why under your code, you can deny this
22:58:59 project.
22:58:59 Said she was speaking as an adjacent owner.
22:59:09 That's currently true but Grand Central Building
22:59:11 is under contract and closes if this project goes
22:59:14 through.
22:59:14 She'll no longer be an adjacent owner.
22:59:17 I will still be an adjacent tenant.
22:59:20 They have talked many times tonight about they are
22:59:22 not required to give us so much parking on this
22:59:25 project.
22:59:26 Technically, that is true.
22:59:29 It's a misnomer, though.
22:59:30 It's a red herring.
22:59:32 It's not the full truth.
22:59:33 It's not the full truth because part of the sale
22:59:36 includes grand central without the extra parking,
22:59:39 Grand Central isn't worth what they are getting
22:59:42 for it.
22:59:42 But you cannot deny on that basis.
22:59:44 You cannot deny on any alleged reasons and
22:59:49 motivations.
22:59:50 You can deny this project if you find that it does
22:59:52 not meet with the comprehensive plan.
22:59:56 You can deny this project if you say the trees
23:00:01 doesn't comply with the comprehensive plan.
23:00:03 You can deny this project if you say the scope and
23:00:06 the scale does not comply with the comprehensive
23:00:10 plan.
23:00:10 But if you disagree with all that and you say it
23:00:12 is within the comprehensive plan, you can still
23:00:15 deny this project because you can deny this
23:00:18 project by maintaining that the existing zoning
23:00:21 classification with respect to the property
23:00:26 accomplishes a legitimate public purpose.
23:00:28 What is that purpose?
23:00:30 That purpose is that this project is zoned for
23:00:35 more commercial.
23:00:36 It's zoned for residential.
23:00:38 We are only here tonight because they want more
23:00:41 residential.
23:00:43 They can build residential today without coming
23:00:47 before you, but not to the scale that they want.
23:00:51 And what do they trade for it?
23:00:53 They trade the commercial, and then they wrap
23:00:55 back, in we don't need commercial to meet the
23:00:58 comprehensive plan.
23:00:59 They can look to the surrounding area, and let's
23:01:01 do that.
23:01:01 They say we need more residential, we want more
23:01:04 residential, we want it more walkable, but then
23:01:06 they point to University of Tampa that has a dorm.
23:01:09 Then they point to the church that has
23:01:12 residential.
23:01:14 I submit to you we have enough residential in this
23:01:18 area.
23:01:18 It's zoned for the appropriate amount of
23:01:20 residential, but it needs more commercial to make
23:01:23 it a truly walkable area, a walkable city.
23:01:27 As Councilwoman pointed out, she's not walking
23:01:31 from here over there.
23:01:32 So why do we think they are going to balk from
23:01:35 there to downtown?
23:01:36 They are not walking to a bowling alley.
23:01:41 They've got one in the building.
23:01:43 They are not walking to a dog park.
23:01:44 We were told when we met with the developers that
23:01:46 they had a walking area for dogs in the building.
23:01:48 And they also said it's good for safety at night.
23:01:51 Where are they walking?
23:01:54 When you look at this, you have to look at the
23:01:57 community as a whole.
23:01:59 It is a great project for the community, if you
23:02:02 define that community as the project in and of
23:02:04 itself.
23:02:05 They told us, we're going to have residential, and
23:02:07 we're going to have commercial.
23:02:08 The commercial is going to support the
23:02:10 residential.
23:02:10 We're going to get a dry cleaner.
23:02:12 I'm not walking my clothes over there.
23:02:15 If you define the community as solely that one
23:02:19 block -- excuse me, over two city blocks, it's a
23:02:22 great project.
23:02:24 If you define community as a community as a whole,
23:02:28 not just south Tampa and downtown and Channelside,
23:02:31 but district 7.
23:02:32 How do those people come down and work it?
23:02:37 How do we work as a community as a whole, the
23:02:39 entire City of Tampa?
23:02:41 Then this project fails.
23:02:42 It's up to you as City Council to define how we do
23:02:46 that.
23:02:47 I ask you tonight to do a motion to deny this
23:02:51 project, one, because it doesn't meet with the
23:02:54 consistent comprehensive plan, but in the
23:02:55 alternative, if you find that it does, I ask you
23:02:58 to deny this on a motion and I'll be very clear.
23:03:02 The current zoning classification with respect to
23:03:06 the property at issue accomplishes a legitimate
23:03:08 public purpose that is not arbitrary.
23:03:11 Councilman Miranda, I appreciate what you're
23:03:14 saying about TGH.
23:03:16 But TGH is on Kennedy.
23:03:18 This is a block off.
23:03:19 I think that is a distinguishing difference that
23:03:20 should be taken in.
23:03:22 It's not arbitrary.
23:03:23 There's been no issue about discriminatory reason
23:03:25 and it's certainly not unreasonable with the
23:03:28 competent substantial evidence that you've heard
23:03:30 throughout this evening.
23:03:31 Thank you for your time.
23:03:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone else wishing to speak that
23:03:39 has not spoken at this time?
23:03:45 >> Jason Ball, 5802 Idle Forest Place.
23:03:48 Before I start, I would like to personally thank
23:03:51 folks like Mr. Blake Casper, Linda Saul-Sena.
23:03:53 They are stakeholders and community leaders like
23:03:55 that for taking up this issue, coming out and
23:03:57 meeting people face to face, shaking their hand
23:04:01 and telling them how they feel.
23:04:03 A lot of us have seen Tampa has changed a lot over
23:04:06 the last few years.
23:04:07 The kind of developments we saw occur in the
23:04:09 '90s, changed in the 2000s.
23:04:12 Started seeing more urbanism, the urban core.
23:04:14 Now we're starting to see it spread out into other
23:04:18 neighborhoods.
23:04:18 The primary issue we see here is not so much this
23:04:22 particular development.
23:04:25 Item 4, item 6 on the agenda, these are also urban
23:04:29 projects occurring in neighborhoods where there is
23:04:31 no walkability included in the project.
23:04:33 The one on Westshore, what is it, parking on the
23:04:36 ground floor?
23:04:37 So while you're sitting here deciding on this
23:04:42 project tonight, it's important to keep in mind
23:04:48 the overall greater issues that the city is
23:04:50 facing.
23:04:56 You should consider being a little more proactive
23:04:59 instead of reactive.
23:05:00 We might even need to look at improving the code
23:05:02 so you're not dealing with the issue over and over
23:05:05 again.
23:05:05 For example, other projects over on North Rome,
23:05:08 spruce and the Westshore area, they are all seeing
23:05:10 the same kind of issue, not getting the sufficient
23:05:13 walkability, not getting a sufficient mix of uses
23:05:15 in the RMU-100 designation.
23:05:17 You don't necessarily think of it now, but a key
23:05:22 aspect of this project, if it goes through as a
23:05:25 largely residential project, what that does to the
23:05:28 tax base is a less effective than if it goes
23:05:30 through as a truly mixed use that has office space
23:05:33 included or a hotel or something like that.
23:05:36 Moreover, like down the street where they are
23:05:41 proposing the project, same neighborhood at the
23:05:44 Tribune building.
23:05:46 Replacing jobs with residential.
23:05:48 It's not going to help the tax base and not going
23:05:50 to help the city.
23:05:51 Thank you.
23:05:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
23:05:52 Do we have any additional people signed up?
23:06:00 >> No, sir.
23:06:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: We'll take a three minutes break
23:06:02 to allow the clerk to scratch his legs and do what
23:06:06 else he has to do.
23:06:08 And we'll come back for the rebuttal after three
23:06:13 minutes.
23:06:13 [Recess]
23:06:16
23:06:16 [ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
23:14:29 >>FRANK REDDICK: I hope you're not lining up to
23:14:40 speak again.
23:14:42 [ LAUGHTER ]
23:14:42 We'll call this meeting back to order.
23:14:50 Roll call.
23:14:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
23:14:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
23:15:00 >> Capin?
23:15:01 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
23:15:02 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
23:15:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.
23:15:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
23:15:05 All right.
23:15:11 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Thank you.
23:15:11 Andrea Zelman on rebuttal.
23:15:13 I'll try to keep my remarks brief.
23:15:16 I think Council tonight hearing the opposition to
23:15:18 this, you got a little flavor of what we've been
23:15:22 dealing with trying to address the community's
23:15:25 concerns because through the course of the
23:15:27 testimony, you heard keep the three buildings in
23:15:32 place and keep it small and charming, despite the
23:15:36 fact that again the scale of the neighborhood, the
23:15:39 character of this neighborhood has changed.
23:15:41 You've got huge buildings going up on the Tampa
23:15:45 general site to the west and again to the east,
23:15:48 they have the right to build an 11-story garage.
23:15:51 So the character that people think is there --
23:15:55 that horse is already out of the barn, but you
23:15:58 heard that.
23:15:58 You heard keep it small.
23:16:00 Then you heard build a high-rise tower.
23:16:03 It's too suburban.
23:16:05 It's not urban enough.
23:16:06 I feel like Goldilocks.
23:16:08 This is what we're dealing with trying to address
23:16:11 everyone's concerns.
23:16:12 But the thing to keep in mind is -- and I just
23:16:18 lost my train of thought.
23:16:20 I apologize.
23:16:20 The thing to keep in mind, the people that keep
23:16:23 saying keep it commercial general, if we were to
23:16:26 develop this site as apartments under CG, you
23:16:31 would have a suburban apartment complex.
23:16:34 You would have to meet greenspace requirement.
23:16:37 You couldn't go -- is it 45 or 60 feet in height?
23:16:40 60 feet in height would be as tall as you could
23:16:43 go.
23:16:43 You would have surface parking.
23:16:45 That would be a suburban development.
23:16:47 What we're proposing is not a suburban
23:16:49 development.
23:16:50 What we're proposing is in scale with what's to
23:16:54 our west and what's to our east.
23:16:56 And it is complementary to the businesses nearby.
23:17:00 People kept talking about, no, you need to create
23:17:03 commercial.
23:17:04 That will make it walkable.
23:17:05 Who is going to walk there if people don't live
23:17:14 there?
23:17:15 That's the whole point.
23:17:16 A couple of things I just want to correct.
23:17:19 I don't want to go too deep into this but
23:17:22 Mr. Casper said something incorrect about his
23:17:25 parking lease.
23:17:27 He has the right to renew that lease for 18 years.
23:17:30 So it's just incorrect to say it's going away
23:17:32 March 16.
23:17:32 Again, tonight he said he wanted a high-rise
23:17:35 tower.
23:17:35 Last week on Facebook he said keep it
23:17:37 commercial.
23:17:38 I want it commercial.
23:17:39 This is what we're dealing with in trying to
23:17:41 please everyone, but please understand, it seems
23:17:45 like what a lot of people are saying we don't like
23:17:48 it.
23:17:49 Don't like the look of it.
23:17:50 We are not in an overlay district.
23:17:52 We are not in a design district.
23:17:54 We are not under the control of the ARC.
23:17:56 It's not for this Council to say it's not pretty
23:18:00 enough, it's not designed well enough.
23:18:02 We believe it is designed.
23:18:04 We believe it is a beautiful building.
23:18:05 In any event, that's not what is before you.
23:18:08 I do want to talk about the trees, but just
23:18:11 briefly, the historic preservation thing, I wish
23:18:15 it didn't play out the way it did.
23:18:17 I have a two-hour presentation prepared on the
23:18:22 historic preservation issues, and just to be
23:18:25 clear, the issue that was in front of the HPC
23:18:28 wasn't should these buildings be demolished or
23:18:31 not?
23:18:32 The issue before them was whether they should
23:18:34 recommend to this Council that these structures be
23:18:38 individually designated as landmarks.
23:18:41 That was question one.
23:18:42 And the criteria they were supposed to apply is
23:18:45 the same criteria that's in the national register,
23:18:50 bulletin 15.
23:18:51 The second question they were supposed to
23:18:54 consider, even if they found the buildings
23:18:56 warranted landmark designation, would it be too
23:18:58 much of an economic hardship to require this
23:19:02 property owner to preserve them?
23:19:05 And your staff, we submitted books and documents
23:19:09 about the economic hardship that would be created,
23:19:12 and, yes, we did look at relocating the buildings.
23:19:15 We did look at preserving the buildings on-site.
23:19:18 We submitted documentation showing what an
23:19:21 economic hardship it would be to preserve them,
23:19:23 and your staff agreed that we establish one so I
23:19:26 want to make that clear.
23:19:29 Nothing underhanded was done.
23:19:31 Our historic architect approached the state and
23:19:34 said, would they still be considered contributing
23:19:39 today?
23:19:40 And what he was looking at was this.
23:19:42 This is the area we're talking about north of the
23:19:45 Crosstown.
23:19:46 Can you all see these?
23:19:48 Everything in red has been demolished.
23:19:50 Everything in red has been demolished.
23:19:53 It's almost 30 structures.
23:19:56 Where was the outcry then?
23:19:57 On our site, there were 11 structures.
23:20:02 There are three left now.
23:20:04 8 have been demolished, five contributing, two
23:20:07 were demolished two years ago in order to provide
23:20:11 more parking for Oxford Exchange.
23:20:13 There was no outcry then.
23:20:15 I do want to talk about the trees.
23:20:23 We do have Scott Andreasen here.
23:20:28 What he will explain and Kathy Beck is here as
23:20:30 well and can testify to this we did meet with her
23:20:34 about redesigning the site -- I mean, originally
23:20:37 we talked with her about designing the site in a
23:20:40 way that would preserve the trees.
23:20:41 We talked about relocating the trees.
23:20:44 Frankly, it just didn't work.
23:20:46 Scott and Kathy, are you here?
23:20:48 I'd like to bring them up.
23:20:50 In addition, as I mentioned earlier --
23:20:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, let me say this.
23:20:55 Your time has expired.
23:20:57 They should have been utilized prior to this time.
23:21:01 They should have done it during public comment.
23:21:04 >> I would invite your staff to ask questions
23:21:07 about the trees because it was a long process to
23:21:09 preserve them.
23:21:10 Thank you.
23:21:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
23:21:11 That concludes the comments.
23:21:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before we close, I want to make
23:21:19 a comment, an observation.
23:21:21 I never met Mr. Vinik.
23:21:23 I never met Mr. Altman.
23:21:25 I might have met Mr. Casper and shook hands but
23:21:29 never had a conversation that I know of.
23:21:33 Let me tell you who I have met.
23:21:35 I've met every attorney who has been here.
23:21:38 They are damn good.
23:21:39 You know what else I see?
23:21:41 I see I had a minitrial.
23:21:43 Court reporter and all.
23:21:45 It reminds me back of the '90s, the late '90s
23:21:50 when a previous Council on the design of a
23:21:55 building on Bay to Bay and Bayshore, and I don't
23:22:00 know what the figure was, but it was in the
23:22:03 millions it cost the city, the taxpayers.
23:22:07 No matter which way this Council goes, I don't
23:22:12 think this is ending tonight.
23:22:13 I see two great people, all of you.
23:22:17 You don't have to be here to listen to us.
23:22:21 You could be watching TV still listening to us.
23:22:24 I mean, it's wonderful that you're here.
23:22:28 I'm happy to see that.
23:22:29 But it's just going to end up somewhere along the
23:22:35 line, there's going to be somebody who think they
23:22:40 won, somebody who think they won, too.
23:22:42 So at the end of the day, it's going to go down
23:22:45 the street over there to the building that was
23:22:47 over here called the courthouse.
23:22:50 And there's where it's going to end up at in the
23:22:53 near future, no matter what this Council does.
23:22:56 That's my personal feeling.
23:22:58 I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion.
23:23:02 Never have and never will.
23:23:03 But that's what I see, Mr. Chairman.
23:23:05 I see this coming, so I'm just asking this
23:23:07 Council, whatever remarks they make, they make
23:23:10 them precise to the point, get in and get out
23:23:12 because the more you say, the more we're going to
23:23:14 have to pay one way or the other.
23:23:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez.
23:23:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.
23:23:21 We know you didn't meet other people, but you did
23:23:24 meet Sally O'Neal.
23:23:26 We know that.
23:23:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Her name was Sally Hosey.
23:23:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I've got a couple of questions, and
23:23:34 this goes specifically to two distinct issues.
23:23:39 The first, and I would like Ms. Kert to come up
23:23:42 and speak about this, because I have a question.
23:23:44 You made a comment during the time that there was
23:23:47 some questioning by Mr. Maniscalco about -- maybe
23:23:51 not questioning, but he was making a lament or
23:23:54 comment about historic buildings and the
23:23:57 destruction of historic buildings.
23:23:59 Now, that doesn't mean that we can't discuss the
23:24:01 historic district and what has happened or
23:24:04 transpired.
23:24:05 The applicant has even brought it up and made
23:24:08 quite a discussion of it.
23:24:10 What can we discuss about the historic nature of
23:24:13 the buildings that are currently there?
23:24:18 >> The only thing that I would caution Council
23:24:20 about in making your decision, you need to
23:24:23 consider whether or not the petitioner
23:24:25 demonstrated that they met your code requirements
23:24:29 because you can only deny this if you find they
23:24:33 did meet the code requirement or demonstrate that
23:24:35 maintaining the existing accomplishes a legitimate
23:24:39 public purpose or that it does not meet your
23:24:42 comprehensive plan.
23:24:44 And to go back to what you actually said, my main
23:24:48 point was, there has been some action by the
23:24:51 keeper of the federal government related to the
23:24:53 contributing or noncontributing status of three
23:24:56 buildings on that.
23:24:59 And I understand that there is a level of concern
23:25:02 about that decision, and whether or not that
23:25:06 decision was right would not be the appropriate
23:25:09 basis for approval or a denial of this decision.
23:25:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm going to follow your line of
23:25:16 what you just said, but the staff report
23:25:19 specifically talks about this.
23:25:20 Now, why do we put it in the staff report if we
23:25:23 can't even discuss it when it comes to an open
23:25:28 public hearing?
23:25:29 And that's where I'm a little bit distressed about
23:25:33 because if it's not an issue, it's not going to be
23:25:36 an issue, only if it's already been designated one
23:25:40 way, why do we bring it up in any way --
23:25:44 >>REBECCA KERT: Staff may be able to answer that
23:25:46 better.
23:25:47 Just from a factual standpoint, I can say the
23:25:50 staff report was written when the structures were
23:25:52 still designated as contributing.
23:25:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I totally understand.
23:25:56 Again, it's in the staff report specifically as
23:25:58 one of the key elements that makes it
23:26:00 inconsistent.
23:26:01 How can we not discuss about what has happened
23:26:03 since that point about the inconsistency?
23:26:07 That's my only concern.
23:26:09 I wanted to bring that out because like a lot of
23:26:11 other things that we have done on this Council
23:26:14 when it comes to public hearings -- this happened
23:26:19 a few years back, we had the police officer report
23:26:22 something to us that we could not use for a zoning
23:26:26 issue.
23:26:27 It's extremely frustrating, Ms. Kert, to see it in
23:26:30 the staff report that we can't discuss.
23:26:32 That's all I have to say.
23:26:33 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, sir.
23:26:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, thank you.
23:26:35 Mr. Fernandez, I'm going to ask you a question
23:26:39 specific to the type in terms of what happens with
23:26:42 the designations.
23:26:43 I know these things change all the time.
23:26:46 I know we had a designation for the bro bowl and
23:26:52 that was not changed but it was allowed to be
23:26:54 demolished even though it was considered an
23:26:57 historic landmark.
23:26:58 The terminology is wrong.
23:27:00 I apologize.
23:27:01 So there's nothing unusual about this happening,
23:27:05 is that correct?
23:27:05 About buildings being demolished that are part of
23:27:10 historic districts?
23:27:11 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Dennis Fernandez, Historic
23:27:13 Preservation Manager.
23:27:14 There are no protections for properties that are
23:27:19 listed on the national register.
23:27:21 There are mitigative circumstances, as was the
23:27:25 case with the skateboard bowl, because there were
23:27:30 federal dollars being expended.
23:27:32 It was an entire different process.
23:27:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Different contingency as part of
23:27:35 that.
23:27:36 My point in bringing that up is we as a city did
23:27:41 not preserve the buildings that are on this
23:27:46 property now currently, is that correct?
23:27:48 And we could have made a designation of them, is
23:27:51 that what it is?
23:27:52 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: We have not extended the local
23:27:55 boundaries to encompass that area.
23:27:57 We do have a section of our code that deals with
23:28:03 nonlocally designated properties that are listed
23:28:07 on or eligible for listing on the national
23:28:10 register, and that's what we were working up --
23:28:13 working under the scope of until the delisting.
23:28:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Got it.
23:28:18 We were on that path.
23:28:21 We did not get it done before this national
23:28:25 designation said, well, look, we don't consider
23:28:31 contributing building in that district.
23:28:33 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: National Park Service.
23:28:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: The National Park Service, yes.
23:28:37 Thank you.
23:28:37 I want to talk about the trees, if I could have
23:28:40 someone -- where is our staff member for the
23:28:44 design?
23:28:45 I don't think for the trees specifically, but for
23:28:47 the design, the applicant just made a comment to
23:28:51 go to staff about what designs were done.
23:28:53 I guess, Ms. Feeley, if you want to come up.
23:28:56 Oh, Kathy.
23:29:00 I think this has to do with the design, though, if
23:29:02 I'm not mistaken.
23:29:04 During the presentation, the applicant talked
23:29:08 about -- that they tried to save the trees.
23:29:11 Now, when you look at that, and Ms. Zelman said
23:29:14 just didn't work -- oh, Kathy, because of the tree
23:29:20 stuff.
23:29:20 I thought you might have seen the design itself.
23:29:23 I apologize.
23:29:24 I'm sorry, Kathy.
23:29:26 I didn't mean to keep you in the back over there.
23:29:29 >> Good evening, Council.
23:29:30 Kathy Beck, natural resources coordinator.
23:29:32 And I have been sworn.
23:29:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, Kathy.
23:29:35 What went on between the applicant and you in
23:29:39 discussing saving those trees and trying to
23:29:41 preserve them?
23:29:42 What happened?
23:29:43 >> Okay.
23:29:43 Our initial conversations which took place a long,
23:29:46 long time ago started out with how to preserve the
23:29:51 trees.
23:29:51 The first option they provided us was
23:29:53 transplanting.
23:29:54 We did not feel that these particular trees were
23:29:57 candidates for transplanting.
23:29:59 We then went into scenarios with how we could
23:30:03 possibly preserve them.
23:30:04 The trees are kind of like in the middle of the
23:30:07 site, how possibly we could put them in a
23:30:10 courtyard.
23:30:10 We didn't feel that was going to work either based
23:30:14 on the size of the structure and the space that
23:30:16 they could be provided.
23:30:17 So we did look at options for redesigning the
23:30:22 site, came up with not a lot of options,
23:30:25 basically.
23:30:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, so, meaning that fitting the
23:30:31 development around the tree itself in the same
23:30:35 configuration, essentially but maybe in doing a
23:30:39 few adjustments in order to make the tree survive
23:30:41 was not doable because of the conditions of the
23:30:45 trees or because what's necessary to keep the root
23:30:48 structure viable?
23:30:48 >> What's necessary.
23:30:49 Based on what they proposed to build on the site,
23:30:54 it was difficult to get the amount of space.
23:30:56 These are very large trees, very old trees, and
23:30:59 they need space.
23:31:01 There was a lot of discussion about pruning.
23:31:04 That would have not been acceptable either.
23:31:07 It would have been too much removed from the
23:31:09 trees.
23:31:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
23:31:11 Ms. Zelman, can I ask you a quick question about
23:31:14 that, specifically?
23:31:15 The design of the building was not changed
23:31:18 significantly in terms of reducing the number of
23:31:21 units or anything in order to accommodate or try
23:31:23 to accommodate the trees, am I correct?
23:31:26 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: What we're trying to explain is
23:31:29 that -- yes.
23:31:30 We have two competing things here.
23:31:32 You have an RMU-100 comprehensive plan category
23:31:36 that encourages dense development, high density
23:31:42 development.
23:31:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sure.
23:31:43 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Then you have the tree issue.
23:31:45 So what you're left with is, yeah, trying to
23:31:47 design a courtyard around trees.
23:31:49 Well, then you have issues with light and space
23:31:52 for the trees, and so, again, to preserve them,
23:31:55 you go back to having a very suburban-scale
23:31:58 development, which is inconsistent with the comp
23:32:01 plan, which isn't what many of the people that
23:32:05 spoke here tonight said they wanted.
23:32:07 It doesn't work.
23:32:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Meaning there is no way you can
23:32:12 design something that was going to both -- you
23:32:14 were trying to do a balancing act, am I correct?
23:32:20 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: It would be a very small urban
23:32:22 scale development in order to protect the trees.
23:32:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Meaning you probably would have
23:32:26 taken out a number of units.
23:32:28 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: A lot of units.
23:32:30 Probably couldn't have structured parking --
23:32:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Can you give me a ballpark?
23:32:33 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: -- development that would be
23:32:35 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
23:32:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Do you have a ballpark about how
23:32:38 many?
23:32:41 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I'm sorry.
23:32:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: That's okay.
23:32:47 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I actually wasn't privy to a lot
23:32:50 of these early discussions.
23:32:53 >> Scott Andreasen.
23:32:57 I have been sworn in.
23:32:59 When we worked on the layout of the community, we
23:33:01 worked on the trees first.
23:33:02 We worked on traditional apartment configurations
23:33:09 that are done throughout the industry of kind of
23:33:10 unit, hall, unit or just unit and non-hall, and we
23:33:15 looked at those traditional proportions and worked
23:33:17 hard on trying to preserve those trees and met
23:33:20 numerous times with natural resources looking at
23:33:22 those different configurations and balancing out
23:33:24 the amount of units and parking you would need to
23:33:27 be able to make it work.
23:33:28 Through all the different ones, we were unable to
23:33:30 find the combination that could achieve both that
23:33:33 was deemed reasonable use of land in the
23:33:36 preservation and, like I said, even looked at
23:33:39 transplanting and those different items.
23:33:41 Additionally, we hired an arborist before we
23:33:44 started that did a tree assessment that assessed
23:33:46 these trees on the basis of City of Tampa
23:33:49 guidelines.
23:33:50 We presented those to natural resources, and then
23:33:55 because there were some questions, their arborist
23:33:57 met and that, we did actually a further study that
23:34:00 is typically never done where we did a photometric
23:34:04 study and looked at the density of the trees
23:34:06 because we were so fixed on trying to make it work
23:34:08 around them or transplant them and worked hand in
23:34:10 hand with natural resources.
23:34:12 We met with Mary and Kathy numerous times,
23:34:15 probably five to six times on these various issues
23:34:18 trying to make it work.
23:34:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I guess my question, though, to
23:34:22 you, how many units would have been loss in order
23:34:24 to try and deal with the canopy issues and the
23:34:28 root system?
23:34:29 I assume those are two of the things they talked
23:34:33 about, that natural resources talked about to you.
23:34:36 Do you have a ballpark figure of what that was?
23:34:39 >> What we ran into was, if you were trying to get
23:34:42 height to accomplish the preservation of those
23:34:45 areas, we ran out of room to fit the garage and
23:34:47 the units that would be, A, you know, aesthetic
23:34:51 and also be meeting the walkability and fitting
23:34:53 the fabric of the community.
23:34:56 And then secondly, if we were low enough to
23:34:58 achieve that, our densities were not at all in
23:35:01 compliance to the RMU-100 and were so minimal that
23:35:04 it just wasn't worth doing the project.
23:35:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Did you look at going vertical
23:35:09 higher and not -- I mean, I'm just curious about
23:35:12 that.
23:35:13 You haven't answered my question, which is, about,
23:35:16 if you were to accommodate the trees, and
23:35:18 obviously you were trying to accommodate the
23:35:19 trees.
23:35:20 I have no doubt about that, what would that have
23:35:23 looked like in terms of the number of units you
23:35:26 would have had on there?
23:35:27 You obviously have a number because you said it
23:35:29 didn't fit into the CMU-100.
23:35:32 >> If we were going with the garden-style
23:35:35 apartments, I think we were in the range of 50 to
23:35:37 60.
23:35:37 And then when you went super hikers you ran into
23:35:40 problems of physically fitting a large enough
23:35:42 garage to accommodate that higher building and
23:35:45 preserving those trees in location as it fit
23:35:49 within the site, because, unfortunately, those two
23:35:51 are kind of located in the middle, so it became
23:35:54 very difficult because either you were on one side
23:35:57 or the other and the wraparound was very difficult
23:36:00 in the preservation.
23:36:01 We looked at preserving one or both in that whole
23:36:04 process.
23:36:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Got it.
23:36:07 Thank you.
23:36:07 Appreciated that.
23:36:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Cohen.
23:36:11 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.
23:36:12 So I spoke to Ms. Kert, our attorney, during the
23:36:19 break and beforehand, and she explained to me, as
23:36:24 my colleagues mentioned, that the whole issue of
23:36:26 the historic buildings is not really part of what
23:36:29 we're going to be considering here tonight.
23:36:32 I have to tell you, however, that on Tuesday
23:36:34 morning when I woke up, I had intended to come
23:36:38 down here and listen to the hearing about the
23:36:42 historic significance of the buildings.
23:36:44 When I went online to find out what time it was, I
23:36:48 saw that it had been canceled.
23:36:49 And I had never been -- ever seen anything cancel
23:36:54 this close to a land use hearing that was directly
23:36:58 related to the subject that was being discussed.
23:37:01 I hope that regardless of where this particular
23:37:09 application goes, that we will returning to --
23:37:13 that we will return to the issue of historic
23:37:16 buildings because I just cannot believe that we
23:37:19 can be put in a position of losing the structures
23:37:23 when no one even has a chance to weigh in on it or
23:37:26 hear what the arguments or make sure that the fact
23:37:29 finders have had the opportunity to actually visit
23:37:33 the site and see for themselves the context of the
23:37:37 area.
23:37:37 I'm going to follow Mr. Miranda's advice and say
23:37:42 less rather than more.
23:37:43 But I do want to say that I think the biggest
23:37:46 issue in front of us tonight has to do with the
23:37:48 context of the neighborhood.
23:37:49 There are an awful lot of places in Tampa where I
23:37:57 would vote for this project in a heartbeat.
23:38:00 But this is a very unique neighborhood and between
23:38:02 the brick streets and the historical character and
23:38:04 the unique businesses that have grown up, I do
23:38:08 think that we run the risk when we are quick to
23:38:14 demolish looking back many years later and
23:38:20 wondering what happened to what it was we used to
23:38:23 have.
23:38:24 We've sat here in this chamber many times and
23:38:27 talked about the courthouse that was once across
23:38:29 the street.
23:38:31 And I know we've all asked the question, who on
23:38:34 Earth thought it was a good idea to tear that
23:38:38 down?
23:38:39 You know, one of the things that's so exciting
23:38:43 about a lot of the redevelopment that's going on
23:38:45 in Tampa is that it literally is coming up out of
23:38:51 the ground and replacing nothing.
23:38:53 This neighborhood, though, is a little bit
23:38:56 different, a lot different.
23:38:58 And what would normally go in a lot of good places
23:39:03 I think deserves an extra level of scrutiny here.
23:39:08 And that is what I'm wrestling with as we look at
23:39:13 this question, because I know that once this very
23:39:16 unique and special neighborhood is gone, it will
23:39:18 be gone.
23:39:19 And, you know, whether we're right or wrong now,
23:39:25 we won't have a chance to redo these decisions
23:39:27 later.
23:39:32 >>FRANK REDDICK: Ms. Montelione.
23:39:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
23:39:35 forgive me, as all of you probably know by now, I
23:39:38 am a little bit under the weather, which is an
23:39:41 understatement.
23:39:42 So bear with me.
23:39:44 It is very difficult, this particular decision,
23:39:54 and I've been looking through all of the criteria
23:39:59 that are laid out in the staff report and in the
23:40:03 comprehensive plan and kind of ticking off which
23:40:07 arguments make the case and which do not under the
23:40:14 code.
23:40:14 I can tell you it's really very close.
23:40:17 Ms. Zelman, I have some similar questions to what
23:40:21 councilman Suarez was asking.
23:40:23 About not just the preservation of trees, but some
23:40:31 of what Ms. Ferrell testified to about the massing
23:40:37 of the structure and actually bringing it higher
23:40:41 to scale it back and make it a more relatable
23:40:47 structure, at least from the streetscape.
23:40:51 Mr. Suarez asked you about how many units you
23:40:56 would lose by doing something like that and
23:41:01 working around the existing conditions.
23:41:04 But he didn't ask you how many parking spaces you
23:41:08 would lose if you were to do that.
23:41:11 You already stated at the very beginning, if I
23:41:16 remember correctly, I think I wrote down, you said
23:41:18 you had over-parked by 95 --
23:41:23 >> 94.
23:41:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE: 94 spaces.
23:41:27 So one of the tenets of our code and the
23:41:32 comprehensive plan is transit oriented
23:41:34 development.
23:41:34 We talk about it all the time.
23:41:36 If you were to reduce the parking to encourage
23:41:41 that transit-oriented development, because,
23:41:43 remember, I said I'm the one who doesn't want
23:41:46 parking because that forces people to find
23:41:48 alternative ways, including myself, of how to get
23:41:52 from here to there.
23:41:54 What would that do to this project if you were to
23:42:02 scale down the parking and do some of that
23:42:06 massing.
23:42:07 I'm sure in an expensive project with all of these
23:42:09 experts involved over the length of time, that was
23:42:13 one of the scenarios discussed.
23:42:17 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I don't think what Ms. Ferrell
23:42:19 talked about really related to the parking garage.
23:42:21 I think she was talking about the building going
23:42:23 lot line to lot line as opposed to being set back.
23:42:28 If you set it back and built a high-rise, you
23:42:31 could still have parking.
23:42:33 If you set it back and don't build structured
23:42:37 parking, you would be very limited in what you
23:42:41 could build and how much parking you could provide
23:42:45 for any of the uses on the site let alone the
23:42:47 folks across the street.
23:42:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I guess what I'm trying to do
23:42:50 is find a balance of what I mentioned earlier
23:42:55 about encouraging transit oriented development and
23:42:59 having the bonus density credits by putting in
23:43:02 some of the features that would promote transit
23:43:05 oriented development, and avoiding the situation
23:43:08 we have in other areas of our city where
23:43:13 developments were built but the parking that is
23:43:17 necessary to keep the roads moving because they
23:43:22 are very narrow roads, just like they are here.
23:43:26 So I'm trying to find that balance.
23:43:29 And I didn't see -- I didn't see that in the plans
23:43:33 that you presented that you try to create that
23:43:39 balance.
23:43:42 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I would submit to you that we
23:43:43 did.
23:43:43 First of all, in terms of the scale, again, ten
23:43:46 stories to the west, 11 stories to the east, we're
23:43:50 at 9.
23:43:51 We were trying to keep within that scale.
23:43:53 Okay?
23:43:54 Then in terms of pedestrian -- we have pedestrian.
23:43:57 We have bicycle stations.
23:43:59 We are trying to encourage that.
23:44:01 The concept is, not that this is going to become a
23:44:05 driving community.
23:44:07 This is going to be like the residences in the
23:44:11 Channel District.
23:44:11 People are going to leave their cars in the garage
23:44:14 and walk.
23:44:15 They'll walk to Mise en Place.
23:44:17 They'll walk to Oxford Exchange.
23:44:19 They can walk to Publix.
23:44:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm sorry for interrupting, but
23:44:23 if they can leave the cars in the parking garage
23:44:25 and walk, then why build so many parking spaces?
23:44:30 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I'm talking about the people who
23:44:32 live there.
23:44:32 The additional spaces are for the people like you
23:44:34 and me who want to eat lunch at Mise en Place and
23:44:37 don't have a place to park if someone doesn't
23:44:39 provide parking.
23:44:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But the people who live there,
23:44:43 if they are moving there because of the
23:44:46 walkability, because they can walk to Mise en
23:44:49 Place.
23:44:51 You and I wouldn't be able to.
23:44:57 Right.
23:44:57 But not necessarily downtown to work, unless it's
23:44:58 transit-oriented development.
23:45:00 Unless there's less parking and they have to take
23:45:02 a bus or they have to take the trolley.
23:45:04 And there are some considerations for mass transit
23:45:11 in this project.
23:45:12 And I didn't see any consideration for mass
23:45:14 transit in this project.
23:45:16 I would beg to question, too, how many bicycle
23:45:19 spaces you referred to as opposed to parking.
23:45:26 >> [Not speaking into a microphone]
23:45:30 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: There is a bike storage area.
23:45:31 Bike repair stations, bike parking.
23:45:34 Close to a hundred bikes.
23:45:37 There is a bus stop on Cleveland that would serve
23:45:43 the development as well.
23:45:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's a very difficult decision
23:45:55 for us to make.
23:45:56 Based on what we heard from all of the citizens, I
23:46:00 don't hear that there is a lot of concession on
23:46:04 your side.
23:46:05 I'm curious, when you looked into moving the
23:46:08 homes, how expensive was that?
23:46:13 We do that all the time, especially when it's in
23:46:16 the way of an interstate.
23:46:18 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I don't have that information
23:46:20 with me.
23:46:21 Maybe someone else does.
23:46:22 There were several problems.
23:46:24 There was the condition of the homes themselves.
23:46:27 There was the location near the Crosstown, trying
23:46:30 to move them under a highway.
23:46:34 There were a lot of economic factors.
23:46:36 We did submit that.
23:46:37 Again, that was all part of the package that went
23:46:40 to the ACC.
23:46:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Since you talked about that, I
23:46:44 would like to hear from Dennis about that.
23:46:46 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Again, Dennis found that it was
23:46:48 an economic hardship to ask this property owner to
23:46:53 preserve the building.
23:46:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But I also heard him say he was
23:46:57 in opposition.
23:47:03 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: One other issue that also relates
23:47:07 to -- 600,000 to 800,000 total to relocate.
23:47:16 We also had to purchase donor sites.
23:47:19 We don't have a number for that because we
23:47:21 couldn't necessarily find any.
23:47:22 I'm a little concerned that we're going too far
23:47:25 astray into the historic preservation.
23:47:27 Again, this is not in front of the Council.
23:47:31 We can present our historic preservation case.
23:47:34 Again, we have a two-hour case we can present.
23:47:36 If you want to stay tonight, but I don't think
23:47:39 it's appropriate because --
23:47:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm asking about that not
23:47:43 specifically about the nature of the historic
23:47:46 preservation and whether or not it should be.
23:47:49 I'm talking about it as an economic hardship.
23:47:52 And that is one of the criteria in our code about
23:47:55 economic hardship.
23:47:56 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Your staff found that we met it.
23:47:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
23:48:01 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I do have those staff reports
23:48:03 here.
23:48:04 Go ahead, Dennis.
23:48:05 Dennis found that we met the criteria for economic
23:48:08 hardship.
23:48:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Again, I'm asking it in the
23:48:10 context of what's in both our Land Development
23:48:13 code and what's in the comprehensive plan, not in
23:48:17 the context of whether or not this is based on
23:48:21 preserving history.
23:48:23 If you could keep your comments.
23:48:24 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I evaluated the projects based
23:48:27 on section 259 and section 260 under chapter 27,
23:48:34 which is where the criteria is specified.
23:48:37 And where the definition of economic hardship is
23:48:42 delineated.
23:48:44 Based on -- this is the demolition packet that was
23:48:49 presented to the staff for the three properties on
23:48:52 the site.
23:48:54 And evaluating that, there is the discussion on
23:48:57 relocations within the information.
23:49:00 Based on the dynamics of the project were, I found
23:49:05 that keeping the structures on-site did constitute
23:49:08 an economic hardship in the sense of the
23:49:10 definition of the code.
23:49:12 But I did ask for further information on
23:49:14 relocations of the structure.
23:49:16 There was discussion on the cost of relocation
23:49:19 which ranged somewhere within the 80 to 90
23:49:24 thousand dollar estimate by the mover, but that
23:49:27 was a very truncated investigation because it
23:49:30 didn't take into consideration prospective
23:49:34 receiving sites and the marketability upon
23:49:38 relocation that could be considered in the act of
23:49:42 relocating the structure.
23:49:44 And that was to be discussed further at the
23:49:46 Historic Preservation Commission.
23:49:48 But because the delisting and the applications
23:49:51 were then --
23:49:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Understood.
23:49:54 Thank you.
23:49:54 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: -- withdrawn.
23:49:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you very much.
23:49:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anything else?
23:50:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm not sure if Ms. Feeley or
23:50:10 Ms. Beck would have to answer the question.
23:50:11 When we have a situation when we have, I think --
23:50:13 were there two or three grand trees on-site?
23:50:17 I think there were three.
23:50:19 Two non---
23:50:24 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Abbye Feeley, Land Development.
23:50:26 Two non-hazardous and one hazardous.
23:50:29 The hazardous would be able to receive a permit
23:50:33 for removal given its hazardous status without a
23:50:36 waiver by council.
23:50:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: It was actually two grand that we
23:50:39 want to protect as part of our code.
23:50:41 Is there a way or have we done this before where
23:50:44 there is a sort of Sophie's choice of you can take
23:50:48 one tree but not the other type of thing?
23:50:51 I'm curious about that -- maybe Sophie's choice is
23:50:54 a bad analogy, you know -- maybe it's in bad
23:50:59 taste.
23:50:59 >>ABBYE FEELEY: They are right next to each other
23:51:03 in this case, so it isn't one without the other
23:51:07 because of what Ms. Beck has taught me, the root
23:51:10 system, everything is intertwined there.
23:51:13 You couldn't have a sole survivor if we decided to
23:51:16 take one instead --
23:51:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: They are Siamese twins.
23:51:19 They are conjoined twins, so to speak.
23:51:23 Kathy, why don't you come up here and make sure
23:51:26 we're right about this.
23:51:27 I was curious about that.
23:51:28 I thought, you're removing every tree along there.
23:51:31 There are 34 trees -- is it 34 plus the two grand
23:51:36 or is it 36 trees, including the two grand?
23:51:40 >> 34 trees that are coming out including the
23:51:44 grand trees.
23:51:44 And the trees, the two grand trees, one is, they
23:51:51 did a lot of work to investigate the condition of
23:51:54 the trees and the viability of transplanting
23:51:57 and/or preservation, all down to what's called
23:52:02 sonic tomography, which is kind of like radar
23:52:05 through the trunks of the trees, and one was
23:52:07 better than the other.
23:52:08 We just couldn't find a way to get what they
23:52:12 needed to develop and preserve the trees.
23:52:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Was there any discussion about
23:52:18 saving one tree versus the other?
23:52:21 >> Yes.
23:52:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: There was no way that they could
23:52:23 save the one tree and get rid of the other --
23:52:27 >> That's why we're here this evening, putting it
23:52:30 in your capable hands for reasonable use
23:52:33 determination.
23:52:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: So you punted to us.
23:52:36 >> Yes, sir.
23:52:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: That's a good answer.
23:52:38 Okay.
23:52:39 Thank you, chair.
23:52:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
23:52:40 Do we have a motion to close?
23:52:48 >> [not speaking at a microphone]
23:52:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right, Council, do we have a
23:52:56 motion to close the public hearing?
23:52:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So move to close.
23:52:59 >> Second.
23:52:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: We have a motion from
23:53:00 Mr. Miranda, seconded by Mr. Cohen.
23:53:03 All in favor say aye.
23:53:04 Opposed?
23:53:05 All right.
23:53:06 What is the pleasure of Council?
23:53:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder, Mr. Chairman,
23:53:25 that your code, as Ms. Feeley stated at the outset
23:53:28 is delineated to section 27-136.
23:53:33 Begins on page 7 and ends on page 10.
23:53:36 The code itself numbers 1 through 9 are listed,
23:53:44 and the staff's findings are in bold italics.
23:53:49 But the criteria itself precedes that in regular
23:53:55 type.
23:53:55 Also, with regard to the waivers, your criteria
23:53:59 for consideration of a waiver is 27-139 sub 4.
23:54:05 That's listed on page 10.
23:54:07 And you have A, B, C, and D.
23:54:11 I would ask again, as we usually do, that you base
23:54:15 your decision on the competent substantial
23:54:20 evidence that you've heard and seen from tonight's
23:54:24 hearing and apply that to your code to make a
23:54:27 determination.
23:54:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
23:54:31 What's the pleasure of Council?
23:54:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move to deny the application
23:54:43 based on section 27-136 of our code, subsection 1,
23:54:48 that the project does not promote the efficient
23:54:53 and sustainable use of land and infrastructure
23:54:54 with careful consideration of potential adverse
23:54:56 impacts to on-site natural elements surrounding
23:54:59 impacted neighborhoods and cultural resources.
23:55:02 I refer back to the two grand trees that are
23:55:06 currently on-site.
23:55:08 Those grand trees were found as part of our
23:55:15 regulation chapter 13 and chapter 27, that they do
23:55:19 not reach for a hardship for the tree removal and
23:55:25 for reasonable use.
23:55:26 I did not find any evidence to show that the
23:55:32 applicant made a reasonable effort to try and come
23:55:38 up with a plan that would have saved those trees,
23:55:43 either one or the other, and it sounded to me like
23:55:47 there was not anything that was proposed that
23:55:49 would change the project but also save the trees.
23:55:54 >> Second.
23:55:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'd like to add to that,
23:56:00 please.
23:56:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I know you do.
23:56:03 You're the conscience.
23:56:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: You have a friendly amendment.
23:56:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Tighten it up.
23:56:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I know you are.
23:56:12 Go ahead.
23:56:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'll also reference section
23:56:15 27-136, number one, promote the efficient and
23:56:18 sustainable use of land and infrastructure with
23:56:20 careful consideration of the potential adverse
23:56:22 impacts to on-site natural elements surrounding
23:56:25 impacted neighborhoods and cultural resources.
23:56:27 This redevelopment of the block -- I'm quoting
23:56:31 from our staff report, page 7 -- redevelopment of
23:56:34 the block with a minimum setback development
23:56:37 requires total site clearing, including structures
23:56:39 and trees.
23:56:40 That purpose starts out with, provides rezoning
23:56:45 districts that recognize unique conditions.
23:56:47 I'll also cite the application as Mr. Suarez
23:56:52 pointed out, requesting 100% tree removal,
23:56:55 including grand trees, which the staff finds
23:56:57 inconsistent.
23:56:58 That is at the top of page 8.
23:57:00 Number 2, in that paragraph, development that
23:57:08 would not otherwise be provided for or allowed for
23:57:11 under general zoning districts established in this
23:57:13 chapter, the existing district allows for
23:57:17 residential as we have heard testimony tonight.
23:57:19 Encourage compatibility and overall site design
23:57:24 and scale both internal, external to the project.
23:57:27 We've heard lots of testimony tonight from expert
23:57:31 witnesses and substantial competent evidence that
23:57:34 the site design and scale is inappropriate for the
23:57:37 area.
23:57:37 Number five, encourage flexible Land Development
23:57:43 which reduces transportation needs, conserves
23:57:46 energy, and will maximize the preservation of
23:57:48 natural resources, and one of those resources is
23:57:53 open space, greenspace, and historical and
23:57:56 archaeological sites.
23:57:59 We heard testimony tonight where the parking as
23:58:04 designed is actually over-parked by 95 spaces.
23:58:09 So it's not reducing transportation needs.
23:58:10 It increases the transportation availability to
23:58:13 residents, and it's not compatible with
23:58:15 transportation-oriented development as cited in
23:58:17 the Comprehensive Plan page 5 of the staff report,
23:58:23 transit-oriented communities, objective 26.11,
23:58:27 transit-oriented development and villages with
23:58:31 mixed-use development.
23:58:34 Policy 26-112, place new residential development
23:58:37 in locations that increase potential ridership on
23:58:41 the regional transit system.
23:58:42 We only heard about one bus stop that is located
23:58:45 on Central -- I believe it was -- Avenue, that was
23:58:49 cited.
23:58:49 Policy 26.113, establish development patterns that
23:58:55 combine residential with other compatible uses in
23:58:57 mixed-use areas, such as CDB, business centers,
23:58:59 urban villages, mixed-use corridors, village --
23:59:02 corridor village and transit station.
23:59:05 The 5,000-square-foot of commercial does
23:59:11 constitute mixed use, but in comparison with the
23:59:14 number of residential units and the amount of
23:59:16 parking, I don't feel that, from the testimony we
23:59:20 received here tonight, that that is a true mixed
23:59:24 use in good urban planning design.
23:59:26 I believe those are the specific areas of the code
23:59:41 that I wish to cite.
23:59:44 Urban design goals, objectives, and policies in
23:59:46 the Comprehensive Plan, objective 13.1, respect
23:59:49 Tampa's human scale, unique history, aesthetics,
23:59:52 natural environment, and sense of community
23:59:54 identity as the City changes and evolves.
00:00:59 I don't think based on a preponderance of evidence
00:00:00 that we received here tonight from expert
00:00:05 witnesses and from the public that this project,
00:00:07 especially, is in conflict with objective 13.1.
00:00:10 >> Good to have a planner on council.
00:00:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Five different motions there.
00:00:18 We have a motion --
00:00:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not going to be supporting
00:00:24 the motion to deny.
00:00:25 I'll tell you why.
00:00:26 When you look at what was said and you look at the
00:00:30 expert witness that they are talking about, the
00:00:33 Planning Commission did not object.
00:00:35 The city planner had some reservations and
00:00:38 observations in the beginning, which were dropped
00:00:41 later on in the text of conversation.
00:00:44 The trees were talked about, and I'm satisfied
00:00:51 with the remedies, including the expert witness
00:00:53 that they are talking about that's a city employee
00:00:55 that talked about saving the trees and they
00:00:56 couldn't do it with what they had to work with.
00:00:59 When you look at the preservation of the
00:01:01 structures, that was put in the record in the
00:01:05 beginning.
00:01:07 This will not end here.
00:01:10 I guarantee you.
00:01:11 I've been around here long enough to know where
00:01:14 this is going.
00:01:15 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:01:15 >>FRANK REDDICK: Any other comments?
00:01:17 Motion by Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mr. Maniscalco,
00:01:24 amended by Ms. Montelione.
00:01:26 All in favor of that motion say aye.
00:01:28 Opposed?
00:01:31 >> Nay.
00:01:32 >> Motion carried with Miranda voting no and Capin
00:01:35 being absent at vote.
00:01:38 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
00:01:39 We'll go to information reports.
00:01:42 Ms. Montelione, anything?
00:01:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No new business, sir.
00:01:49 [ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
00:01:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me remind you, we are still
00:01:57 in session.
00:02:00 Mr. Maniscalco?
00:02:13 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: No.
00:02:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Cohen.
00:02:15 >>HARRY COHEN: No.
00:02:16 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez?
00:02:17 Ms. Capin had to leave, would you read that for
00:02:23 her?
00:02:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ladies and gentlemen, if you
00:02:26 could please be quiet, we still have business to
00:02:28 attend to and it's almost midnight.
00:02:30 Thank you.
00:02:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, councilman.
00:02:34 I make a motion to present Vicki Pollyea with a
00:02:36 commendation on Thursday, September 24th at
00:02:38 9 a.m. in recognition of her work for the Tampa
00:02:41 Bay area Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association support
00:02:46 group.
00:02:46 >> Second.
00:02:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: A motion from Mr. Suarez on
00:02:50 behalf of Mr. Capin.
00:02:51 Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
00:02:53 All in favor, aye.
00:02:54 Those opposed?
00:02:55 Mr. Miranda.
00:02:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I got ten of them, but they are
00:02:59 for another day.
00:03:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion to receive all documents.
00:03:03 >> So moved.
00:03:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by Mr. Miranda, seconded
00:03:06 by Mr. Cohen.
00:03:07 All in favor aye.
00:03:09 Anything else to come before?
00:03:11 We stand adjourned.
00:03:12
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software
compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.