Part 3 of 4
Right here.
Right here.
Go like that.
Then there's another road right here.
It not platted over there.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that parallel to Westshore?
>>> This is perpendicular.
Westshore is here.
A road here.
A road here.
A road here.
>> They all lead to Westshore?
>>> Yes, ma'am
Law: Except for Bridge that goes to Gandy.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So I think one of the concerns that we talked about, I don't know when, we were talking about hurricane evacuations.
Would that exit to Gandy be enough?
Or would they have to all go to Westshore to vacate, in case of a hurricane or something?
Law: Would you be able to go in both directions.
You would be able to go to the east to Westshore or could you go to Gandy and go to the east.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Have you all had any talks with the emergency management that takes care of hurricane evacuations?
>>> We did an evacuation study.
And it showed we had a negligible effect on evacuation.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Thornton, would you come back, please, and give the traffic study?
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Calvin.
So that I understand this, first of all, what you did was the peak a.m. and p.m. times?
>>> Correct.
>> That's a one-hour period?
>>> That's a one-hour period, correct.
>> So if I look at this, the difference between 500 and 750 units, a.m. peak exiting is 70.
70 more during the a.m. peak going out of the project, 15 coming into the project, and then in the p.m. peak, we're talking about 60 more going into the project and 35 more coming out.
Do I read this correctly?
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Correct.
Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And the difference in the daily trips is 1045?
>>> Correct.
Yes, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that I have my questions answered.
Thank you.
It would have been helpful to have this rather than just looking at it on the Elmo.
But we got it now.
So thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Steenson.
>> Tampa, Florida 33616.
I'm here as president of the Gandy civic association.
We did indeed have a meeting on Monday night.
As Mr. Pridgen said it went for over two hours.
The end result was this:
Originally the association voted that we wanted to go with the 2001 zoning for 500 units.
Monday night, in an effort to show cooperation and show that we are not totally negative of all these things, all this development, we voted that we can support this development at 600 units.
We cannot support it at 750.
Now, the spreadsheet that we are seeing here, if I may, I had some questions and some observations regarding these.
You have here 62,000 for the improvement of Westshore and Gandy, another 62,000 for the improvement of Manhattan and Gandy.
I submit to you these intersections are already going to be improved because they are built into the budget that D.O.T. has already got to do in the Boulevard from the bridge all the way to Himes Avenue.
Now, I'll grant you that the petitioner has been very, very cooperative.
He's made a lot of concessions.
These concessions are equal good for the city and equal good for the petitioner.
But to put it in the total, he's saying, this is what I'm giving, all giving the city.
I think it's a little deceptive.
For example, the $2.6 million for the rebuilding of Bridge Street from Gandy to the fence at Henry corporation, because that's as far as the street goes now, this benefits them, because it makes their project more viable, more sellable.
Are so for them to say that they are giving the city $2.6 million, I think is a bit deceptive.
We're both sharing it.
And that's very admirable that they will do this.
Yesterday at the citizens advisory council, they have in the 2015-2025 affordable long-range transportation issues Bridge Street from Gandy to Tyson.
That's from 2015 to 2025 to the tune of $8.6, 8.5 million.
These are things the city would like to do and these are all classified as development, paid for by the developer.
Now, I'm not a developer.
I'm no banker.
I don't build condos.
I don't build motels.
I don't build restaurants.
But I can tell you this.
If Mr. Pridgen, smart as he is, he wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't a smart businessman.
He went into this project paying $25 million.
He wouldn't have got into it if he didn't think it was going to make a profit.
Now, Mr. Harrison, at the last hearing, brought up a very good point.
We have had four hurricanes.
Now we can talk about evacuation all day long.
But you look at the images that were on the TV on August the 12th that afternoon and saw the pictures of Gandy bridge, Howard Frankland bridge, Kennedy Boulevard was grid locked.
People could not get out of South Tampa if they had to.
God forbid we should have to both vacate at the same time.
That hopefully would be coordinated with the various county emergency management services.
I got e-mails in folks that said it took them two or throw hours to get from Kash N' Karry across Gandy to get to the houses.
The same thing at Publix over there at the corner of Himes and Gandy.
They couldn't get out.
They could not get out.
And this whole area, this whole area is in a coastal hazard zone.
I didn't bring the schematic.
But this is all zone A.
These are the first people to vacate.
I had lunch with Mr. Lindell.
About a week ago.
And to see if we could find some middle ground.
Two weeks ago they reduced theirs a hundred.
Last Monday night, we upped ours by a hundred.
We are trying to be cooperative.
We are not trying to be negative.
We can support it at 600.
I made a comment to Mr. Lindell, with all the development going on in South Tampa, our folks down here are snake by the, and that's an interesting analogy because this whole area at one time was called rattlesnake.
I've done what the chairman has asked me to do.
We met with these folks in good faith.
They answer add great many questions.
Our folks were, I thought, not emotional.
And the vote was taken that we can support this development at 600.
But we can't support it at 750.
I still maintain that when this gentleman went into this project, he bought the land for $25 million.
He wouldn't have bought it if he didn't think -- he knew what the zoning was at the time.
(Bell sounds)
He wouldn't have done fountain he didn't think it was a viable project.
Thank you very much.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Steenson, do you think that since we have had these four hurricanes that any project is viable out there?
I mean, if we put in 500 units or 600 units, aren't they going to have the same problem with hurricanes, that they are going to have to vacate?
>>> Yes.
I asked the question last time.
How do we get out and where do we go?
Folks south of Gandy?
And it just keeps exacerbating, exacerbating and exacerbating.
>> So the answer is we shouldn't have anything out there.
>>> Shouldn't have anything?
>> Right.
>>> No, don't think that's the answer.
We are not against growth.
>> Well, what I'm trying to --
>>> do it in a sensible, sound man sneer but if you have 500 units or 600 units out there, it doesn't matter if we have a hurricane, these people are going to have to vacate anyway.
And if we are having that problem coming over the Gandy bridge going south, the difference?
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
>>> I understand that.
>> Should we have nothing out there at all?
>>> I understand that, Mrs. Alvarez.
But you're asking the question now but I don't remember that question being asked when we were just down here discussing the WCI project at Westinghouse and that was 650.
This subject never came up.
Now that's a done deal.
That's been reduced now from 650 down to 494.
It's a beautiful project.
This is going to be a beautiful project.
But I submit to you that that drawing right there is not the entire project.
That's only the part that they are asking for additional.
I showed you the image last time.
And I think it's not quite fair to you folks and to the folks that live south of Gandy that may be watching this on channel 15, you are not seeing the full picture.
You're not seeing both sides of Bridge Street to show the enormity of this project.
I think we were cooperative, and we came up from our proposal.
They came down from the original.
I just hope that maybe we can strike some middle ground here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Steenson, one quick comment.
Now that Calvin cleared up the transportation issue, I want to address this one particular issue.
And then something to address later. This area being evacuation A, and you are saying this area is the first one to be vacated in the event of a hurricane.
And this particular project would be exacerbating the evacuation process.
I think the evacuation process is not exacerbation, it's procrastination.
That's why we see gridlock.
And it doesn't matter what hurricane, what unfortunate act of God.
We see all over the country, not just on Gandy, there's gridlock, period, end of story, because of procrastination.
People want to hold on until the last minute because they don't want to leave because they want to find out what is going to happen.
And then when everybody finds out at the that it is coming our way, that's when gridlock happens.
Whether another 650 units, whether another 6,000 units are here, that's just my position on this one particular point.
I just wanted to make my point clear.
I don't need any -- that wasn't for discussion.
>>> I think your point is very well taken.
However, I think these last three storms taught a lot of us a big lesson.
>> Absolutely.
>>> The last time this happened in the City of Tampa was 1921.
A lot of us got very complacent.
I can tell you one thing.
On that Friday morning my wife was in tears when I said you got to get in the truck, we're leaving.
It's not a good thing.
But I think a lot of people learned a liquor lesson with our four tropical visitors.
>> And with that maybe we won't have the procrastination and maybe the gridlock won't be as serious in the future.
>>> I hope you are correct.
>> If we should be so unfortunate to go through this again.
>>> I hope you're right.
>> We go to the audience.
Anyone in the audience wants to speak?
You have 2 minutes to speak.
Mr. Shelby said we have to go to the audience.
Excuse me one second.
A clarification from our attorney.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
This being a new subject, and a new proposal, in effect modified, it's my opinion and the opinion of Mr. Massey that Mr. Steenson, albeit representing a group, is not the only interested party.
Therefore, there may be others who are not affiliated with Mr. Steenson, or there may be those who may not be affiliated with Mr. Pridgen who wish to speak to the project, that particular aspect of the reduction of the residential that we believe should be in council's best interest afforded a due process opportunity to be heard.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move we allow the audience one minute.
>> So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second that the audience get one minute to speak.
(Motion carried)
>> Chris Malzone, Port Tampa city.
I live in Port Tampa, which is south of Mr. Steenson's neighborhood, as far south as you can get without going in the Air Force, and when the storm came through and we were told to leave, we were told that Tampa was to vacate beginning at 6 a.m. on Saturday morning, that Pinellas was vacating on Friday night, and we were to vacate beginning 6 a.m.
I left my neighborhood at 9 a.m. on Saturday morning, to vacate north, and I was the only car on the road.
I drove all the way to Carrollwood village and it took me 17 minutes.
So this whole evacuation thing has been blown out of proportion.
If you follow what the emergency staff said, to stagger the evacuation, you wouldn't be caught in the gridlock.
I am very much in favor of this.
Gandy Boulevard between Manhattan and Westshore has become blighted.
The restaurants are closing.
Retail spaces closing.
Because we need more development.
I spoke to someone last Saturday who just transferred down here from Maryland, MacDill Air Force Base, and I asked him where he decided to live, and he said Brandon.
I said, why are you moving to Brandon?
He said, that's what they recommended to us.
(Bell sounds)
There's no in-fill housing in South Tampa.
We need this project.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> Frank Miller.
I live at 4204 South MacDill, Tampa, Florida, Executive Director of the Friendship Trail corporation.
My Board of Directors, by majority vote, has asked me to thank the City of Tampa and the developers for providing for the Friendship Trail in this project.
The saving of the Gandy bridge, the Friendship Trail bridge, and the Friendship Trail on both sides of Tampa Bay requires the vigilance of both citizens and government, and that's the case here.
We have a developer that according to your own Tampa parks and recreation department has said that the developer is very cooperative, and supportive of the Friendship Trail.
Had you had a property owner in any position along the South Tampa greenway or Friendship Trail that was not cooperative it could jeopardize the entire 20 mile trail.
So we are here to thank the developer, thank City Council for your continued vigilance, in the parks and recreation department.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Bruce Erhart, 3904 South Kenlen Avenue, South Tampa.
I'm for this project and furthermore for all urban redevelopment projects that will come before you in the future as it is very important to the City of Tampa, I think, to really look seriously at high density urban redevelopment.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
Anyone else like to speak?
>>> Todd Simi, North Thatcher Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
And just like to take a moment, council members, to say that I am personal friends with Mr. Pridgen.
Just coming as a testimony to what he's doing, his integrity to this project and the development that he's going to bless the City of Tampa with, I understand not everyone is going to be happy with this decision.
We are never going to make everyone happy with some of the tough decision that is you guys are faced with.
But I know that he needs these numbers to make this project feasible.
And the development to the city will be outstanding.
And I thank you for your time.
And I look forward to your approval.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>> My name is Bill Posten.
I live in Westshore condo at Gandy and Westshore Boulevard.
I have been a resident there since 1988 so I have lived there about 16 years.
I have been on the Board of Directors for ten years.
And I'm president of a company that has 220 apartments in South Tampa.
108 of them are on Westshore Boulevard.
And they butt right up against this project.
We have always been favorably impressed by this project.
We think it's going to do a lot of good.
In the area where we have had some sales that have been generated since the talk started back in April we have seen anywhere from a 20 to 25% increase in the value of the condos at Westshore condo club.
The Pridgen people came to us back in July.
They made a couple telephone calls.
And they had a couple meetings in my office.
They asked for our opinions.
And they have indicated to us that they will work with us to try to take into consideration the concerns that we have, as we do not feel that everything is the way it should be.
But they have said that they will work with us, they will cooperate with us, and try to make all of our concerns met.
No one else bothered to ask us what our opinion is.
And we represent over 600 people within walking distance of this project.
And no one except the Pridgen group has come to us and asked us what our opinion is.
We think it's a great project.
(Bell sounds)
We think it will add tremendous value to the properties.
In the South Tampa area.
I have looked at homes in the last year on some of the side streets.
And in the last three years they have already doubled in value.
So this project, and the WCI project go through, you are going to see a tremendous increase in all the values.
>>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
>>> Excuse me?
>> Your time is up.
One minute was it and you passed your one minute.
>>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>> Good morning.
My name is Steve Porkerand, my accounting firm partner and I own the office condominiums on the southwest corner of Gandy and Westshore.
We are right next door to Mr. Posten's residential condominiums.
And we are directly affected by this project.
We have met the group and looked at it.
And we are very much in favor of it.
We think it will really help out the area.
We are not concerned about more traffic.
We want to see the area undergo redevelopment.
I'm not affiliated with Gandy civic association, or Mr. Pridgen's group.
I just wanted to come here and tell you we like what they are doing.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
Anyone else want to speak?
>> David Sidney, 5215 South Westshore Boulevard.
About five blocks away from where this will all be going on.
I own a condo at Westshore club condominiums, which abuts part of this development.
I would just like to say that the times that we have spoken with the Pridgen group, one of our concerns was the closing of both Paul and Price street.
They agreed with us.
As a matter of fact, that was just before your first hearing when they changed their plan not to completely close those two streets.
I'd like to speak in favor of what I've seen.
I believe it will be a great Gateway to South Tampa.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak?
Petitioner, rebuttal?
>>> Rea Law: Council members, we can certainly go through the numbers with you.
I think the bottom line, when we did the original project some years ago, the requirements under the development order, or the zoning, would cost something like $753,000.
What we have done in coming back now with the changes that the City of Tampa has now seen that need to be done in this area, that's how you get all of these numbers on the right-hand side of this thing.
That comes up to the 5.5 million.
So a lot has been said about Mr. Pridgen being very smart and in fact he's my client so, yes, he's very smart.
Good choice in lawyers.
What can I say?
But the point here is that he's come up with a project that he paid $25 million for that he thought he was going to have improvements of some 753,000.
And now given these other things, given things that he's talked to the neighborhood about, things that he's talked to the city about, the change in how we are going to deal with Bridge Street.
Yes, it's 2.6 million.
Under the original plan you didn't have to reconstruct the whole thing and you didn't have to add the additional right-of-way to it so you can make it the kind of Boulevard that ultimately will help the city with its parallel route to Westshore Boulevard.
So those are the things that cost more.
And that's why this isn't just AP negotiation of, you know, I want 850, and they want 600, so we come to 750.
These numbers have real meaning.
These numbers are what allows us to make the kinds of investments that we're talking about here.
So I would ask you for your approval.
We certainly can answer any questions you have.
I would just end this by saying, this site is UMU-60.
It is considered by the city to be the place that you want high-end, high-density, mixed-use projects.
It is the Gateway to the City of Tampa along Gandy Boulevard.
You need a signature project here that really makes this a destination and a place that we can all be proud of.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question for your traffic expert.
There's a reference made about your study showed that if you did the high and dry, which I can't see it, but that picture down at the bottom, if you do that, versus doing the 750 units here, that the high and dry actually creates more traffic?
So could you --
>>> let me see if we can put this up an and shot.
What we have, and hopefully you can see it there, what we are really talking about is a difference of 250 condominiums, being those condominiums that would be --
>> can't see that.
>>> I'm very sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need your name.
>>> Randy Cohen, 1509 Swann Avenue, Cohen and company.
So what I have got is a comparison of the 250 condos that would be on those parcels, B, C and D.
In relation to 700 slips, dry slips that would be there.
Daily basis, we are comparing 1,364 for the condos, 1733 for the slips.
P.m. inbound virtually the same numbers, 85.
Outbound, 42 versus 53.
Total 127 versus 133.
Very close.
Morning, 18 inbound.
89 outbound for the condos for a total of 107.
For the 700 dry slips, 18 and 38 for a total of 56.
On a daily basis more traffic p.m. peak hour basis, slightly less traffic for the condo.
A.m. as you can imagine a little more traffic for the residential use.
The numbers are very much the same.
And I believe that's why Mr. Pridgen indicated they are pretty much a wash.
To compare that 700 slips against 750 or 800 condos would mean there would be no development on this side of Bridge Street that's currently approved for 500 condominiums.
I believe this is a fair comparison of impact for parcels B, C and D which seem to be the real subject matter at this point.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I have one more question for Mr. Posten.
Mr. Posten?
Would you just step back up here?
I want to make sure I understand your testimony.
And you were sworn in, I take it.
You are in what capacity with the Westshore club condominiums?
>>> In the Westshore condo?
I'm president of the Board of Directors.
And have been for about ten years.
My company got involved in Westshore club in 1988 when it was in bankruptcy.
We purchased 38 units, which we used as rental units, until November of last year.
We sold our last two units in November of last year.
But I live there.
And I own my unit.
So I have been on the Board of Directors for a long time.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Has your association taken any sort of formal vote to endorse --
>>> no.
Just preliminary discussions between myself -- three of our five board members live and own units at Westshore club.
So we have individually discussed it.
But we have not taken any votes of the 95 units.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I think your testimony earlier was that your association is in favor of that.
And I want to understand why you believe that is the case.
>>> Well, if I indicated that, I'm sorry.
I want to indicate that I was in favor of it and the people that I had talked to who are also on the board were in favor of it.
And as president of the company that has 220 units in South Tampa we have no objection to it approximate as we have been able to see units in Westshore club that have been sold since April have increase board of director 20 or 25%.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sir, Westshore club is -- you're located catter-corner across Gandy and across Westshore, correct?
>>> We don't actually face on Westshore.
The front of the condo complex is on Gandy Boulevard.
And there is about 35 units that face Gandy Boulevard.
And the balance of the 60 units enter off of McElroy.
And the last building of the Westshore club butts up against the property that they are talking about using for a shopping center.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are there other questions from council members?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's sort of a question -- if I could have staff put this on the overhead.
It's kind of a clarification.
And I will ask Ms. Law if you can put that on the overhead.
And then I'll describe what I have done there.
And I want to see if the petitioner concurs.
The petitioner has indicated -- and I'm just doing this for clarification so we know what we are talking about -- if you could show the overhead, staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's on.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Now back it up.
Petitioner has indicated roughly $5 million -- you can go up a little, please, REA -- there you go -- about $5 million in additional improvement comparing the 2001 zoning to today.
Okay?
And I think we all appreciate that.
Those are going to be improvements that as Mr. Steenson indicated are to the best of everyone.
The numbers that I have shown there, I'll start at the bottom.
At the 500 units, which is the 2001 zoning, which is what they have today, the $5 million breaks out to $10,000 per unit.
Okay.
So, in other words, when they build the 500 units they can pass that on to the new property owners at $10,000 a unit for those improvements.
If we go up to the next one which is 600 units which is what the neighborhood is recommending, that comes down to approximately -- and I did this math without a calculator but approximately $8500 a unit.
Going further out the current requests at 750 units, which is what the petitioner is at today, comes out to approximately $7,000 per unit.
And then finally the original request where they were a few weeks ago, 850 units is $6,000 per unit.
The only reason I want to say that is, and I will ask you if you want to correct my numbers, feel free to.
But the reason I'm pointing this out is, $5 million sounds massive.
Okay?
But when you break it out on per-unit basis, it doesn't come out as much because my guess is, looking at that market, that these units are going to be selling for anywhere from probably 200, 300, $400,000 each.
Because they are all waterfront or near the water units.
I just wanted to put the $5 million into perspective.
The point is that $5 million is extremely impressive number, by itself, okay?
But on a per-unit basis, anywhere from 7 that you down to $10,000 per unit, it's not as overwhelming, and it's not as big a burden on this developer as I believe they have tried to make it out to. That's my point, Mary.
You might not agree with it.
But that's my point.
>>>.
>> I didn't put the million dollar check on the overhead the other day.
>>> Overall, the units, you can put $20,000 per unit, 250 units divided by the 5 million.
>> Your entire project -- there's no point in quibbling over this.
I could have done it based upon 200 additional units, 100 additional units, et cetera.
But the bottom line is your entire project reflects these numbers.
Okay.
750 units is what you're asking for, the neighborhood is asking for 600.
Today you have 500.
If you build it out and you spread your costs, your improvement costs, which you will spread across all your units, okay.
You can't tell me you won't.
All right.
So you will spread them across all your units.
And that's what the breakdown comes to. There's no point in quibbling about it.
I just want to point that out to my fellow council members.
>>> Thank you. The way we look at it is we are having to spread the 5 million over 250 units.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, I appreciate your diligence and work on this thing.
But it seems a couple weeks ago we asked the developer to come back and see if he could work with 100 units less.
And that's what he's done.
So I think they've done their job.
And now it's up to us to either agree or disagree.
And I understand that.
But the man is in business to make money.
Goodness, wouldn't you want to do that?
That's what you're in business for.
To make money.
(Applause)
>> We are in business to make good community decisions.
>>> Exactly.
And I think where you are planning to put this project is on the west side of Westshore, and in the corner where there's nothing there now, except for slips and boats and things like that.
Wouldn't you like to see a nice-looking project like this come in when you're coming over the Gandy bridge or going over?
>> They are going to build it no matter what.
>>> Well, maybe so.
But the thing about it is we asked them to come back and he said yes, could you do it with 100 less.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm not sure that we were giving him the impression or the understanding that coming back with 100 less was going to be satisfactory to some of these council members, as well as to the neighborhood.
And, Mr. Dingfelder, although your point was very well taken, and for some reason the petitioner thought it was all about your financial statement, and you're absolutely right, it's not.
You were simply showing that reducing it to the point that it was tolerable would be shifted over many units, and it was not add bad as the big number that was on the top or the big check we saw on the projector.
But this is the issue.
I find it a little bit funny, and I find it a little compromising, I was going to say this in the process of my position at the end of this when we vote.
The developer is -- I know we have heard this repeatedly.
He's a very smart young gentleman and makes a lot of money and that's wonderful and that's what America is about.
But when you go into a situation, where you buy something for $25 million, that to me is presumptuous in a sense.
Because you have already made this commitment in terms of investment.
Then you have to figure out the bottom line to make your profit.
But at the same time, we have already, in that position, pre-assumed what has to be put in there regardless of what the infrastructure can tolerate, regardless of what transportation issues can tolerate, without it being a transportation nightmare, and without any consideration to the neighborhood that is surrounding it and the situations surrounding it.
And the many other developments that are there, given this is in and of itself a different development.
So I don't think that for this council member, I didn't go into it looking at the enact that the developer bought it for $25 million.
And we have to work around the figures that make it work for him.
That's part of doing business.
I'm wholeheartedly in support of the position I hear at the right here when Mr. Dingfelder says our position is to make good decisions.
We'd like beautiful projects.
We want development.
We want to see Tampa continue to grow in and develop.
But we have to be reasonable.
We have to be common sensical.
And actually, Mr. Dingfelder, and I were the only ones on that bus.
Right, Mr. Dingfelder?
That saw what goes on when you look at something isolated versus how it sits, as a component of the whole area.
The infrastructure is there, and there are some things that you can do.
But you can't do everything.
And your point to me was well taken and I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
In regards to the chart that we just put up on the Elmo, I can appreciate Mr. Dingfelder's breakdown of that chart.
But there's also one other consideration.
When you're in business, kind of like Bill blowers when you're an attorney, there's certain cost basis you must look at.
The lower the basis the higher units.
You can spread out your cost basis over the numbers.
And you can spread that out to your consumer by charging them less.
Now, when you have a lower cost basis, I meant more lower unit basis versus the higher cost basis where you are talking about 500 units, 10,000, pass that onto the new purchaser, you also have to look at the average sales.
The you price yourself out of the market by doing that as well by adding that extra $10,000.
You can probably overprice yourself or end up with a development that no one can afford.
So that's one of the things that they have to look at when you are looking at the units.
Secondly, to address Ms. Ferlita's issues, as far as my opinion is concerned, the infrastructure in South Tampa, no, I was not on that bus.
I wish I could have been but I was not.
And I have seen some of the conditions in South Tampa, and fortunately not during the storms, but on television.
And one of the great things about this project that I said last time, we have a developer who is coming up front, who is willing to address the infrastructure issues of South Tampa, although not negatively -- not negatively impacting the infrastructure by being on the waterfront.
All of the water, all of the extra drainage, stormwater and things of that nature will be across their property to get to the bay.
They are not sitting in a position where they are going to be impacting back toward the neighborhoods.
And I think this is something that we need to consider, and as well it is the property they are putting that property back on the tax rolls, and making it as viable a visual statement in the south end of Tampa, as we can.
And I think it's a wonderful project.
I don't think we have had one person in opposition that has come back to the reduction in the audience, as well as the developers, and the interested parties for the development, or just regular neighborhood -- residents in the neighborhood.
I think it's a viable project.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
What is the pleasure of council?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move for approval.
>> We have a motion and second.
Question by council?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Not a question but a comment.
I am going to support the motion and its tentative support, and here's what I want everyone to do within the next two weeks.
We have a unique situation here, because you have a condominium association that is being formed.
And I think that that gives us the power or gives the power the developer -- the power to put in the condominium association documents as well as the homeowners documents some sort of real teeth to the event of an evacuation.
So I'd like you all to think -- and you are going to have to be creative here -- how you may try to address within the condominium documents what will happen in the event of a mandatory evacuation.
And Ms. Malzone testified if you get out early you don't have any issue with traffic.
And it's really just those that procrastinate that cause it is tie-up on the roads.
So is there some way that we could put in the homeowners documents that in the event of a mandatory evacuation of this property these folks would go?
They would go out first.
They would go within some specified period of time of the order?
So it a creative -- something of a creative solution to the problem that I expressed a few weeks ago when this came up, which is you're following on the heels of three hurricanes, and the timing is bad for you in that eventuality.
So how can you all, in a creative fashion, address that?
Number two, Mr. Posten represents the Westshore club condominiums, and that appears to me to be the group of property owners who is the most directly impacted by this project.
Now he testified that he did not oppose the project, and he was not aware of opposition to the project from his residents.
But I would like to have that a bit more formalized by the next time we met meet on second reading.
So Mr. Posten, I would ask you, by the time we have second reading in two weeks, to go back and ask your board for an official position on the project, and then be prepared to present that at the second reading.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I could just address that.
With the hearing being closed, there will be no additional testimony to be able to address that concern.
At the council hearing.
I just wanted to be clear on that.
What's it's closed there will not be additional dialogue.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can Mr. Harrison make a motion?
Can he do that?
Mr. Shelby?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I didn't hear the last question from council.
I was conferring with Ms. Law.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can Mr. Harrison make a motion for N two weeks for those --.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: You have a public hearing at second reading. If you are looking for some additional notes or language on the site plan, that would need to be done now.
We would have to go back to first reading in two weeks if we made more changes to the site plan.
I would also add, typically the city does not enforce private documents.
So putting something in the condominium document is not something the city can or would typically enforce.
I just want to make sure council is aware of that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm not talking about us enforcing that.
I'm talking about that being part of the sales package, that you will be on notice of it, and however the condominium association chooses to enforce that, that's up to them.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I understand that.
But I want to make sure council is aware of a couple things.
Number one, City of Tampa does not review condominium documents.
That is preempted to the state.
So no one in the City of Tampa will review these condominium documents to verify that those are provisions in the condominium documents.
Secondly, City of Tampa is not involved in private real estate sales so we will not know whether that statement is in the private sales package.
They could certainly volunteer that.
But it's not something that this council -- there's no real mechanism or vehicle for us to enforce that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Law.
Before you speak, Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is it appropriate?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: When closed the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: The public hearing is closed so we have to vote on the motion.
No more questions.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: There is a statement, that there is a note already on the site plan that states the property owner developer submits to coordinator with the Hillsborough County emergency center relative to evacuations.
That frankly is probably as much as we do could do in the context of the zoning.
There is a commitment on the site plan to do that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think that's a noble offer from Mr. Harrison.
But as our attorney has said I don't think we can enforce that and I don't know that the emergency evacuation plan would force them to move out before the rest of the people in that area.
Once this goes away and the developer goes away, I don't know that that condition of anything is going to be substantial.
My point is simply to say this before.
My objections are on record.
Great that they are bringing improvements and benefit to the area.
I Mr. Steenson said very well that is an upgrade development.
Profit in the project, not a problem.
Simply my objection is that the infrastructure and the transportation areas are going to be affected, and that is a concern when I look at the development in that area.
The current zoning is 500, period.
I'm willing to support 500, period, which of course is out of the question.