. >> I WILL CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER. AT THIS TIME, ROLL CALL PLEASE. >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >>LYNN HURTAK: HERE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: HERE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HENDERSON IS H HERE. >> FOR RECORD, CHRIS CHRISTOPHER DEMACHE, LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. TO CLEAR THE AGENDA, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 24, TO YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: 315 E. KENNEDY, THIRD, FLOOR. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WHAT YOU SAID. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: A MOTION AND A SECOND. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THE FIRST CONTINUANCE FOR THE ITEM? >> CORRECT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: IN ALL TAFR. OPPOSED. YES, SIR, NEXT. >> LAST ITEM AGENDA ITEM 5, FILE NUMBER REZ 25-06. THIS ITEM WAS MISNOTICED AND REQUESTING THAT IT IT BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA TONIGHT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER 5. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER. WE WILL DO ITEMS ONE AND TWO AND THEN TAKE A RECESS IN BETWEEN BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WE WILL BRING UP. QUASI JU DISH THAT SHA-- JUDICI IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ON ONE OR TWO, RAISE YOUR HAND. [SWEARING IN] >>? U THANK MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR RECORD, CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 9220, 9222, AND 9224 N. HYALEAH ROAD AND FOLIO 141810.0100 FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY 60, RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY 24, AND RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY 35 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND SEMI DETACHED. I WILL TURN IT OVER NOW TO JENNIFER MALONE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. >>JENNIFER MALONE: FOOD EVENING, JENNIFER MALONE WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. IN THE UNIVERSITY PLANNING DISTRICT FOR ITEM NUMBER -- FOR THE FIRST ONE, REZ 24-11. NORTH OF EAST BUSCH BOULEVARD A EMPHASIS CORRIDOR WITH A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USE ALONG IT AND SOME MULTIFAMILY USES IN IF THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND WHERE EAST -- SORRY, WEST OF NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. ALONG NORTH HIRE LEAH ROAD. THIS LARGER PARCEL HERE. AT 1.768 ACRES. AS COUNCIL IS AWARE, IT IS RARE THAT WE SEE ZONINGS OF THIS SIZE IN THE CITY. USUALLY THE PARCELS ARE A LITTLE SMALLER. RARITY NOT ONE, NOT TWO, BUT THREE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES AT RESIDENTIAL-10. RESIDENTIAL 35. AND RESIDENTIAL 50. SO STAFF CAREFULLY REVIEWED THIS. AND HAD THE APPLICANT PUNT THE DELINEATIONS ON THE SITE PLAN. THE ACREAGE FOR EACH ON THE SITE PLAN AND WE MADE SURE IT WAS IN LINE WITH THE DENSITY SO THAT PART WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS WILL PROVIDE HOUSING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS IN SCALE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO, YOU KNOW, RESPECTED THE FUTURE LAND USE BOUNDARIES ON THE SITE PLAN AS WELL, AS WELL AS THE CONNECTING UNIT ENTRANCES AND THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. AND, AGAIN, THIS WILL PROVIDE HOUSING ON UNDERUTILIZED LAND TO ENSURE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IS AVAILABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF TAMPA'S FUTURE AND PRESENT POPULATION. WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE TERRACE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S IT FOR ME. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARINGS. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION AND A SECOND. A FORMALITY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR POLICE MALONE? I SEE NONE. YES, SIR, COME ON UP. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN, CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. I WILL START WITH THE AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE IN THE SURROUND AREA. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN RED ON THE AERIAL. IT IS LOCATED ON NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. WESTERN SIDE OF NORTH HYALEAH ROAD AND NORTH OF EAST BUSCH BOULEVARD. NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES. UNDEVELOPED RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND STORMWATER RETENTION. IMMEDIATELY SOUTH, WE HAVE A PARCEL THAT IS ZONED PD FOR AIR-CONDITIONED STORAGE WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. ALSO SOUTH, AS WELL AS WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE HAVE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ACROSS NORTH HYALEAH ROAD IS VACANT LAND AS WELL AS PROPERTY ZONED CG. THERE ARE ALSO CG ZONED USELESS ALONG EBOULEVARD EAST BOULEVARD THIS IS THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES 18 UNITS WITHIN THREE BUILDINGS. 16 OF THE UNITS ARE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED. TWO ARE SEMI DETACHED. BUILDINGS ONE AND THREE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED. AND BUILDING TWO IS SEMI DETACHED. ALL THE UNITS ARE ORIENTED TOWARD INTERNAL PRIVATE ROAD WITH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS PROCEEDEDED THAT CONNECT TO A SIDEWALK PROPOSED ON NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PROVIDE BY NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. 41 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND 41 SPACES PROVIDED. DRIVEWAY PARKING IS PROVIDED FOR EACH UNIT. VISITOR PARKING IS LOCATED EAST OF BUILDING TWO. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES 26,235 SQUARE FEET OF GREEN SPACE WHICH EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS -- THE REQUIRED 10,359 SQUARE FEET OF GREEN SPACE. TYPE I SHADE TREES ARE PROPOSED INTERNAL TO THE SITE AND ALONG NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. NEXT, WE HAVE SOME ELEVATIONS. THIS ELEVATION IS SPECIFICALLY FOR BUILDINGS ONE AND THREE. THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION FOR BUILDING ONE. THIS WILL BE THE ELEVATION FACING NORTH FOR BUILDING THREE. IT WILL BE FACING EAST. WE ALSO HAVE THE REAR ELEVATION FOR BUILDING ONE AND FACING SOUTH. AND FOR BUILDING THREE, IT WILL BE FACING WEST. WE ALSO HAVE WEST ELEVATIONS AS WELL AS RIGHT ELEVATIONS FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED BUILDINGS. NEXT, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY SELFI DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. THIS IS FOR BUILDING TWO. WE HAVE THE FRONT ELEVATION WHICH FACES SOUTH. WE HAVE THE REAR ELEVATION THAT FACES NORTH. AND THEN THE LEFT ELEVATION FACES LEFT. AND THE RIGHT ELEVATION FACES EAST. NEXT, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SITE ITSELF. WE HAVE THE FIRST ONE. SUBJECT SITE IN PRESENT CONDITIONS. NEXT WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A PHOTO SHOWING FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING NORTH. WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECTED -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO THE NORTH OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE SUBJECT SITE, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY ZONED PD CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THIS SITE HAS A COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AS WELL. THIS IS LOOKING EAST ACROSS NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. A VACANT PARCEL. PROPERTIES ZONED CG. AN ADDITIONAL PHOTO LOOKING EAST, BUT MORE CENTRAL TO THE SITE, SO IT IS INTERNAL SHOT LOOKING -- LOOKING EAST TOWARD NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. AND THIS IS A PHOTO ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING WEST. YOU CAN SEE SOME -- THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS LOCATED TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. WE ALSO HAVE A PHOTO FROM INSIDE THAT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THIS WAS TAKEN ALONG ASHLEY LANE. IT IS ACTUALLY LOOKING EAST TOWARD THE SITE. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS MAIN BUILDING, YOU SEE IN THE PHOTO IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NEXT WE HAVE A VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. AND LOOKING SOUTH. ON NORTH HYALEAH ROAD. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE STAFF REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT. SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, MODIFICATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED ON THE SUBMITTED REVISION SHEET MUST BE COMPLETED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND STAND BY ALONG WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SIR. AN APPLICANT FOR ITEM NUMBER 1? YES, MA'AM, COME ON UP. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. YOU WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT IF YOU NEED ALL THAT TIME. AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE. YES, MA'AM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME CELIA KAUFMAN CARUTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. STAFF'S PRESENTATIONS WERE VERY COMPREHENSIVE. SO WHAT I WILL SAY, WE FEEL THIS DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING TO IT THE NORTH AND MULTIFAMILY TO THE WEST. IN ADDITION OF A BUFFER BETWEEN THE HIGHER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE AREA. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I AM HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION TO CLOSE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE REGISTERED. COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. READ ITEM NUMBER 1. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ITEM NUMBER 1, REZ 24-113, ORDINANCE PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION, GENAGAIN VICINITF 9220, 9222, AND 9224 N. HYALEAH ROAD AND FOLIO 141810.0100 IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED FROM ZONING DISSTRESHT RS-60, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, RM-4, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY AND RM-5, RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY SEMI ATTACHED AND ATTACH $PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. SECONDED FROM COUNCIL MEMBER VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. DO YOU NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE? WITH THE REVISION CHEAT, COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WITH THE REVISION SHEET, EXCUSE ME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? >>CLERK: SECOND READING STAND ADOPTION APRIL 3, 2025 AT 10 A.M., LOCATED AT 315 E. KENNEDY, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, MR., 3062. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEE YOU ON THE 3rd. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ITEM NUMBER 2, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF. I MANAGE A PORTFOLIO THAT HAS A HOUSE WITHIN 250 FEET OF THIS DWELLING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YOU WILL FILE THAT FORM. MR. SHELBY, DO YOU WANT US TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE FORM. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION IN COUNCILMAN CARLSON. SECONDED FROM COUNCIL MEMBER VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THE 8-B PARANORMAL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES, SIR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL SEE YOU SOON. >> FOR THE REPORTS, CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE. NEXT IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, REZ-25-09, REQUEST TO REZONE 25250 WEST BEACH FEET IS FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY RM-126 TO MR-18. TURN IT OVER TO JENNIFER MALONE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. WE ARE LOCATED EAST -- WEST OF N. ARMENIA AVENUE THE WEST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE. JUST NORTH OF WEST PALMETTO ST STREET. THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG NORTH MEENLZ AS I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE AND REFLECTED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WEST BEACH STREET HAS DEVELOPED WITH A VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL TYPE OF USES. FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL-20. AND IT IS RIGHT ADJACENT TO COMM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 35 WHICH IS THE RED. ONE OF OUR COMMERCIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT RUNS UP AND DOWN N. ARMENIA AVENUE. RESIDENTIAL-20 IS ALONG WEST B. STREET. OUR MEDIUM DENSITY. ALLOWS ATTACHED, DETACHED, MULTIFAMILY USELESS. HOUSING AT A HEIGHT OF THELY HIGHER DENSITY THAN THE CATEGORIES BELOW IT. THIS REZONING, THROUGH APPROVAL, WILL PERMIT THE CONSIDERATION OF MORE UNITS ON THE SITE. AND WE HAVE DID FIND THIS WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. BECAUSE ITPRO MOMENTS THE PLAN STRATEGY THAT ENCOURAGES INFILL WITHIN TRANSIT AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND ON VACANT LAND. THE SITE IS VAF VACANT AND WITHIN NORTH ARMENIA AND A TRANSIT CORRIDOR AND HAS TRANSIT SERVICES. DENSITY WAS CONSISTENT WITH THAT ALONG THE BLOCK. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR. >> AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, LAND DEVEL DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. GET A LITTLE CLOSER. AERIAL OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN RED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST BEACH STREET BETWEEN NORTHTAMPANIA AVENUE AND WEST -- SORRY, NORTH ARMENIA AVENUE. SUBJECT SITE IS DEVELOPED WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING. ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE WEST TAMPA OVERLAY DISTRICT. GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE SUBJECT SITE AT 10,000 SQUARE FEET, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED BE THE RM-18 ZONING WOULD BE FOUR DWELLINGS. NEXT WE HAVE A SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT SITE. IT IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW. LOW THE CAPED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST BEACH STREET. WILL BRING IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. THERE WE GO. IT HAS 100 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE AND 100 FEET OF DEPTH. THE SUBJECT BLOCK BETWEEN NORTH TAMPANIA AND NORTH ARMENIA INCLUDE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS TO THE NORTH AND WEST, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AND A VACANT PARCEL TO THE SOUTH. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS TO THE EAST. AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL USES FURTHER EAST ALONG N. ARMENIA AVENUE. GIVEN THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA SURROUNDING SUBJECT BLOCK, THE REQUESTED RM-16 ZONING IS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IN EXCEPTION 27-2450 IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR WEST TAMPA OVERLAY DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS AND THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. ACCIDENTS THIS IS A EUCLIDIAN ZONING, NO SITE PLANS OR ELEVATIONS TO SNOW YOU. WE HAVE PHOTOS OF SUBJECT SITE AND THE SURROUND AREA THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE. FIRST PHOTO IS OF THE SUBJECT SITE. LOOKING ACROSS WEST BEACH STREET TO THE NORTH, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT SITE. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON WEST PALMETTO STREET. WE HAVE A STRAY CAN'T PARCEL AND SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. AND THIS ISLOOKING EAST ON WEST. STREET TOWARD N. ARMENIA AVENUE. THIS IS LOOKING WEST ON WEST BEACH STREET. AND WE ALSO INCLUDED SOME PHOTOS SHOWING COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE AT THE CORNER OF BEST BEACH STREET AND N. ARMENIA AVENUE. KOORLD NATION AND COMPLIANCE STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. APPLICANT, COME ON UP. HELLO, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> JAMES LASCARA. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. THE OWNER AND APPLICANT FOR REZ 4-09 AT BEACH STREET TRANSITIONING FROM RM-16 TO RM-18. I LIVE DOWN THE STREET LESS THAN A MILE AWAY ON GRAY STREET IN THE SAME ZIP CODE. I AM A STRONG ADVOCATE SUPPORT MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IMPROVING IT FROM WITHIN. THIS IS THE VISION FOR THE PROJECT. IT IS CONDITION WITH ONE BLOCK OF THE WEST TAMPA COMMUNITY ARE DEVELOPMENT AREA OF BEING A VIBRANT, DIVERSE COMMUNITY AND OUR PROJECT SUPPORTS THE VISION. EXCITED TO HEAR THAT CITY STAFF REPORTED THAT THEIR FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD IN SUPPORT OF THIS. THIS PROPOSED REZONING IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR CITY'S WELL BEING. OUR URBAN CORE AS THE POPULATION GROWS AND MORE PEOPLE CALLING TAMPA HOME, HAVING A MIX FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO MULTIFAMILY UNITS ENSURES THAT WE CAN 'COME DATE VARIOUS RESIDENTS' NEEDS INCLUDING FAMILIES, YOUNG PROFESSIONALS AND SENIORS. UP EARNESTLY URGE THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE REZONING 25-09, RECOGNIZING ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN OUR CITY'S GROWTH AND PROSPERITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THEN IN THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 2? IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK. COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> FRANCISCO CABELLERO. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING WITH THE WEST TAMPA NEIGHBORHOOD. I ACTUALLY GREW UP RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED PROBABLY IN DIRECT PROXIMITY IN THE REZONING -- THIS INITIATIVE ENHANCES OUR COMMUNITY'S VITALITY BY FOSTERING RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, EMBRACING THIS REZONING WILL NOT ONLY ATTRACT NEW BUSINESS, FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORS, BUT WILL ALSO ENSURE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REMAINS A VIBRANT AND WELCOMED PLACE FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO THRIVE. I AM EXSUPERICITED TO SEE THIS OUR COMMUNITY AND I ENCOURAGE TO YOU APPROVE THIS ZONING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR CLENDENIN CLENDENIN MOTION TO CLOSE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WOULD YOU PLEASE LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE? NO? YOU ARE GOOD? MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLENDENIN. SECONDED FROM COUNCIL MEMBER VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO REVISION SHEET. >>LUIS VIERA: MOVE AN ORDINANCE 520 WEST BEACH STREET, CITY OF TAMPA TAMPA, FLORIDA, RM-16 TO RM-18 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY. PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED. LET THE RECORD REP FLEKT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA ABSTAIN $. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE WILL TAKE A RECESS. >>CLERK: MOTION CAROLINE BR BRYANIED WITH MIRANDA ABSTAINING. >>MARTIN SHELBY: DID YOU ANNOUNCE THE NEXT. >>CLERK: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION APRIL 3, 2025 AT 10 A.M. LOCATED AT 315 E. KENNEDY, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, THERE, 302. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL TAKE A 20-MINUTE RECESS AND BRING A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM DOWNSTAIRS. WE ARE IN RECESS FOR 20 MINUTES. SO WE WILL SAY 5:50. [GAVEL SOUNDING] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, WELCOME TO TAMPA CITY COUNCIL. ROLL CALL PLEASE. >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >>LYNN HURTAK: HERE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: PRESENT. >>LUIS VIERA: HERE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. MARTIN SHELBY, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. COUNCIL, YOU HAD WRITTEN DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED AND HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO BE RECEIVED AND FILED INTO THE RECORD AT THIS TIME. >>GWEN HENDERSON: MOTION. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED. >>MARTIN SHELBY: ALSO, IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS -- VERBAL EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS PLEASE DISCLOSE THEM AT THIS TIME, IF ANY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANYBODY? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IT HAS BEEN QUITE SOME TIME, REALLY RIGHT AFTER I GOT ELECTED. I HAD AN INFORMAL MEETING WITH I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT THE PROJECT BUT TWO YEARS AGO. IT HAD NOT BEEN FILED. SO, YES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AND MR. CLENDENIN, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AND BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ABSOLUTELY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHERS? THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: JUST THAT IF YOU HAVE A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM, PLEASE DO BRING THEM UP AND PRESENT THEM TO ME BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAK. WHAT I WILL DO IS SPEAK LOUDLY, AND I WILL CALL THE NAMES OF EACH OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WAIVING THEIR THREE MINUTES TO ALLOW THE SPEAKER TO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL MINUTE. FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE ARE SEVEN NAMES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESENT ON THE LIST AND THOSE SEVEN PEOPLE RESPOND, THE SPEAKER WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES. AND -- SO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT I EITHER HEAR YOU OR SEE YOU IDEALLY BOTH, BUT THAT'S OKAY. AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE WE GO ON -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: BEFORE WE GO ON, I BELIEVE, MR. CARLSON, YOU HAVE A STATEMENT? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: GO AHEAD, SIR. >>BILL CARLSON: ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2023, I ATTENDED A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MEETING IN A BUILDING LOCATED NEARBY TO THE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. ALTHOUGH I SPECIFICALLY DID NOT ADDRESS ANY ISSUES IN THIS QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER, I HAVEBURN INFORMED THAT A PERSON PRESENT AT THAT MEETING MISTAKENLY INFERRED THAT I HAD TAKEN A POSITION IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING. AS A RESULT, I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY COUNCIL THAT I SHOULD ABSTAIN TO ASSURE A FAIR PROCEEDING FREE OF ANY APPEARANCE OF POTENTIAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE. SO I MOVE TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MO MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. YES, HE IS ABSTAINING. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION WAS MADE BY HIM AND HENDERSON IS THE SECOND. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. YES, MA'AM. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 3, THE LAST ITEM OF THE NIGHT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF YOU WANT TO ANNOUNCE THE CASE AND HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS. THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY MAY WANT TO RAISE ON THE RECORD AT THIS TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: BEFORE YOU BEGIN, SINCE THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN. >>MARTIN SHELBY: ANYBODY WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN IN. [SWEARING IN] >> I DO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OKAY, YES, SIR. HELLO, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS ETHAN LOBE. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY WITH BARTLETT LOBE, HINES THOMPSON. REPRESENTING THE OWNER BAYSHORE LLC. I DON'T HAVE TERRIBLY LONG OF MY PRESENTATION. I'M HERE FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS AS THE LANDOWNER'S ATTORNEY TO BE HERE TO HELP PROTECT ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND YOU WILL NEAR MR. GARDNER TALK OF THOSE IN MORE DETAIL. THE OTHER PART OF THE PRESENTATION WHICH WILL TAKE ME JUST A FEW MINUTES. AND I HAVE GOT SOME SLIDES HERE THAT I WILL DO MY LEVEL BEST TO BE A TECHNOLOGY WHIZ KID, IF YOU WILL, IS TO SHARE YOU WITH SOME RECENT REVELATIONS, IF PULL, THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT WE FEEL IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO DISCLOSE TO YOU GIVEN THE PAST NINE MONTHS, IF PULL, IN TERMS OF BOTH MY CLIENTS AND THE APPLICANT DOING THEIR BEST TO SEE IF THEY CAN'T COME TO A CONSENSUS WITH THE COMMUNITY. YOU PROBABLY HAVE HEARD THE NAME JANE GRAHAM BEFORE. SHE HAS BEEN INSIDE OF THESE CHAMBERS IN THE PAST. I KNOW MISS GRAHAM QUITE WELL. SHE USED TO WORK AT OUR LAW FIRM. I HOLD HER IN VERY HIGH REGARD. ALTHOUGH MISS GRAHAM AND I DIFFER PHILOSOPHICALLY THE WAY WE VIEW THINGS, SHE IN JULY OF 2024 WAS REPORTEDLY RETAINED BY SOMEBODY BY THE NAME OF DAN WINEGRAD ON BEHALF OF THE PARK SIDE OF ONE BAYSHCONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. I PUT ON THE SLIDE DECK, YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THE SIGNATURE, JULY 20 OF 2024. AFTER THAT REPRESENTATION CULL MINUTE NATED AND WAS COMPLETED, BOTH THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEYS, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND ATTORNEYS FOR MY CLIENT SAT DOWN TO SEE IF THERE IS SOME WAY THERE CAN BE A CONSENSUS REACHED. AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE MEETINGS. AND THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS BACK AND FORTH. AND IN GOOD FAITH, EVERYBODY ON OUR SIDE WAS SEEKING TO TRY TO FILED A SOLUTION SO WE COULD NOT HAVE A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE BACK HERE. BELIEVING THAT MY CLIENT AND THE APPLICANT WERE TALK WITH THE PARK SIDE OF ONE BAYSHORE ATTORNEY AND THE INDIVIDUAL HOLDING HIMSELF AS BEING THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THAT ORGANIZATION. THERE WERE MULTIPLE MEETINGS BACK AND FORTH. AND ULTIMATELY, THEY COULD NOT COME TO SOME FORM OF A RESOLUTION. THEY REACHED AN IMPASSE. AND MISS GRAHAM FILED AND SENT TO MISS WELLS A LETTER OF OBJECTION. AND YOU CAN SEE THE PARK SIDE OF ONE BAYSHORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION WHICH SHE PURPORTS TO REPRESENT OUTLINE OBJECTIONS. LEADING UP TO THIS POINT, WE THOUGHT THEY WERE NEGOTIATING WITH SOMEBODY, AND IT TURNS OUT AS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THAT OUR FOLKS WERE NEGOTIATING WITH PEACECALLY A NOTHING. AND HERE IS WHY. MISS GRAHAM, AFTER SHE SENDS THAT LETTER OF OBJECTION ON MARCH 4, CURIOUSLY SENDS TO MISS WELLS AND OTHERS AN E-MAIL SAYING I AM WITHDRAWING AND RETRACTING THIS LETTER AND INDICATING SHE DOESN'T REPRESENT THE CLIENT, WHICH SEEMS AWFULLY ODDS. SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT, WE HAD A PHONE CALL. AND MISS GRAHAM WAS KIND ENOUGH TO FORWARD THIS TO MR. GARDNER. I CALLED HER UP BECAUSE OF MY PRIOR RELATIONSHIP WITH HER AND MY DEEP RESPECT OF HER AS AN ATTORNEY AND A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR. MISS GRAHAM INLAND THE CAPED TO ME SHE COULD NOT TELL ME MUCH, BUT SHE DID TELL ME THAT IF THERE IS A HEARING, MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TALKING AND THEY ARE SAYING WHO THEY ARE REPRESENTING, BE SURE THEY ARE ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THOSE INDIVIDUALS. SOMEWHAT CRYPTIC. MY SPIDEY SENSES TO THE EXTENT THEY TO EXIST WENT UP. AND WE ASKED IF WE COULD SPEAK WITH MISS GRAHAM. WE CALLED HER BACK AND SAID CAN WE SPEAK WITH WHO YOUR FORMER CLIENT IS AND IDENTIFIED MR. WINEGRAD ULTIMATELY. MISS GRAHAM AFTER SHE SENT THAT INITIAL WITHDRAWAL E-MAIL, FOLLOWED UP INDICATING TO MISS WELLS AND COPIED ME AS WELL AS OTHERS INDICATING THAT SHE SENT A LETTER, THE ONE WE HAD DISCUSSED AND INDICATED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ENGAGED HER FIRM WAS NEVER AUTHORIZED TO RETAIN HER FIRM ON BEHALF OF PARK SIDE ONE OF BAYSHORE, WHICH IS DEEPLY TROUBLING AND DISTURBING AS I SAID. A LOT OF TIME, MONEY AND ENERGY THAT GOES INTO THESE PROJECTS. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GOOD FAITH TO SEE IF THERE IS A RESOLUTION THAT COULD BE REACHED, AND YOU FIND OUT THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS REPORTING TO REPRESENT AN ORGIZATION IS NOT ACTUALLY DOING THAT AND ASSIGNED SOMETHING WITHOUT AUTHORITY, THAT CAUSES EVERYBODY A LOT OF HEARTACHE. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, THE BUSCH ROSS FIRM GETS INVOLVED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE TRUE IN-HOUSE LEGAL COUNCIL FOR THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. AND WEB MILTON INDICATES THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN WE RECEIVED THE LETTER INDICATING THAT JANE GRAHAM REPRESENTS THE ASSOCIATION. AND TURNS OUT AS I ALREADY TOLD YOU IT WAS CONFIRMED SHE DID NOT. TO HER CREDIT, MISS GRAHAM REACHED OUT TO LANCE SCRIVEN, WHO MOST OF US HOPED TO NEVER HAVE TO TALK TO HIS LAWYERS, BECAUSE HE WORKS IN DEALING WITH BAR GRIEVANCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT SHE HIRES A LAWYER. AND MR. SCRIVEN CONFIRMS TO US THAT MISS GRAHAM LEARNED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNING ON BEHALF OF THE CONDO ASSOCIATION WAS IN FACT NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO SO. AND ATTACHED TO THAT E-MAIL WAS A LETTER FROM MR. SCRIVEN OUTLINING HIS POSITION IN FURTHER DETAIL. AND A COMMUNICATION THAT WAS EXCHANGED JUST A FEW DAYS INTO MARCH OF 2025 BETWEEN MISS GRAHAM AND MR. WINEGRAD. AND IN THAT COMMUNICATION, IT IS INDICATING THAT WHEN SHE WAS RETAINED, IT WAS CLEAR TO HER BOTH ONE ON ONE AND THE KEY PHRASE IS IN FRONT OF A GROUP OF ALLIES THAT SHE WAS HIRED ON BEHALF OF PARK SIDE OF ONE BAYSHORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. AND SHE INDICATED THAT AT BEST, IT WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION. ONE THING THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL FAILED TO CLARIFY REPEATEDLY OVER MONTHS OF RECOMMENDATION INCLUDING DURING MEETINGS WITH OPPOSING COUNCIL. AND SO AS IT STANDS NOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN IN TERMS OF -- IN TERMS OF THE LETTER OF OBJECTION. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE THE RECORD VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT THAT COMMUNICATION THAT WAS AUTHORED, A VERY LENGTHY COMMUNICATION IN ORDER TO ASSERT OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND FILED AND HAS SINCE BEEN WITHDRAWN, BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, AT LEAST FROM MY CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE AS THE LANDOWNER HERE AND, AGAIN, I'M HERE TO HELP OUT AS BEST AS I CAN, TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU AND PROTECT ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE AND SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IN FRONT OF Y'ALL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE HAVE DISAGREEMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT YOU ALL ARE A GOVERNMENT AND I HAVE RESPECT FOR THE ENTITY ITSELF. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE CONSIDERED IT OR RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM MISS GRAHAM OR ANYTHING, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO KINDLY DISREGARD THAT AND TAKE THAT THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM MR. GARDNER AND OTHERS AS THIS HEARING PROGRESSES. THANK YOU FOR LET MOOING HE SPEAK ON THIS POINT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL MEMBER CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MR. SHELBY, THAT WAS A LONG DISSERTATION. BASICALLY WHAT I GATHERED FROM THAT DISSERTATION. IT WAS BASICALLY DISREGARD THIS PARTICULAR ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATION AS A AUTHORIZED SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. ANYTHING ELSE THERE THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING? >>MARTIN SHELBY: MY SUGGESTION IS IT GOES BEYOND THAT. THE LETTER WAS RESCINDED. WHATEVER THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF WHATEVER WAS COMMUNICATED, DISREGARD THAT AND NOT CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF YOUR EVIDENCE THAT YOU WEIGH IN THIS CASE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I NEVER SEEN THIS OR HEARD THIS -- OR HEARD ABOUT IT. IF ALFRED HITCHCOCK WOULD BE ALIVE, THIS WOULD BE A MOVIE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. GARDNER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED. >> TWO OR THREE MINUTES. HOUSEKEEPING OF WHAT WE ARE PROFFERING FOR YOU. TRUETT GARDNER, 200 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE. WHAT WE ARE BRINGING TO YOU IT TONIGHT SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT. THIS KIND OF GOES TO -- TO CLARIFY, TRUETT GARDNER. I REPRESENT CRESCENT RESOURCES. ETHAN REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY OWNER WHICH IS THE LINE OF DEMARCATION CLEAR. BUT AS ETHAN WAS MENTIONING, WE DID ENGAGE IN MULTIPLE COMMUNICATIONS WITH MISS GRAHAM WHO REPORTEDLY WAS REPRESENTING PARK SIDE ONE BAYSHORE AND MR. SHEA REPRESENTING 345 BAYSHORE AND HERE TONIGHT IN THAT CAPACITY. ONE OF THE DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT WE KEPT HAVING WAS ON HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. AND SO AT ONE POINT, WE HAD AGREED -- THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROFFERING TONIGHT. YOUR STAFF REPORT IS PREMISED ON A HEIGHT OF 330 FEET. AND WHAT WE ARE OFFERING TONIGHT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS 274 FEET. WE WANTED TO -- YOU GOT A LONG REVISION SHEET AND ACTUALLY THIS WILL BE A SUPPLEMENTAL REVISION TO THAT REVISION SHEET. OUR CLIENTS -- WE TOLD THEM IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE CHANGES, WE WILL NEED A CONTINUANCE SO THEY CAN BE REVIEWED. THEY DID NOT WANT US TO CONTINUE AND SO WE ARE FORCED TO COME TO YOU TONIGHT PROFFERING UP WHAT THIS IS. WE VETTED THIS WITH STAFF. AND THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND BE REVIEWED BY OTHER AGENCIES. SO IT IS A MATTER THAT CAN BE CHANGED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING SHOULD WE BE LUCKY ENOUGH TO PROCEED TO A SECOND READING. AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY TO YOU IT TONIGHT THAT WHAT YOU SHOULD BE CONSIDERING IS THE 274 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE PROFFERING, NOT THE 330 WHICH IS WHAT THE STAFF REPORTS WERE -- WERE WRITTEN ON, AS WELL AS THE OTHER MATTERS THAT WERE REVIEWED. SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DO THAT NOW OPPOSED TO DURING THE COURSE OF THE PRESENTATION. SO WE ARE CLEAR ON THE 274. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, BEFORE MISS WELLS COMES UP TO SPEAK -- MISS WELLS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND FIRST. >>LYNN HURTAK: I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION BECAUSE -- FEET AND STORIES TELL -- THAT -- THAT'S THE COMPLICATION FOR US. SO THIS WAS 330 FEET, WHICH IS 27 STORIES. AND WHAT WOULD 274 -- I CAN'T DO THE MATH IN MY HEAD. >> 274, 25. >>LYNN HURTAK: OH, OKAY. GOING FROM 27 TO 25. OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YES. >>CATE WELLS: THANK YOU, CATE WELLS FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO ADVISE COUNCIL WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS THE APPLICATION FILED BACK IN OCTOBER 2023. AS THIS WAS ORIGINALLY NOTICED BACK IN AUGUST 2024 WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION. NOT A REVISED SITE PLAN BEFORE YOU. SO -- BUT STAFF HAS REVIEWED IS THE SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND THE APPLICATION AS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. THAT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE AUGUST OF 2024. SO I DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT WHAT STAFF SHOULD BE ADDRESS SOMETHING A HEIGHT OF 274 FEET. THAT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PROFFERED. THIS IS THE FIRST I AM HEARING OF IT. WHAT IS BEFORE YOU, AND WE TELL YOU THIS WITH ALL THE OTHER APPLICATIONS WHERE APPLICANTS TRY TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN AT THE PODIUM IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS THE APPLICATION THAT IS FILED AND NOTICED AND BASED ON THE STAFF REPORTS AS THEY ARE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO YOU. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. R, MISS DOCK. >>LaCHONE DOCK: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND COUNCIL, LaCHONE DOCK, LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. ITEM 3, REZ 23-99. I WANT TO JUST GIVE AT THAT BRIEF INTRODUCTION ON THIS ITEM. AND THEN I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MISS MALONE BE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO GO OVER HER REPORT. AND THEN I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JONATHAN SCOTT WITH MOW TO REVIEW HIS FINDING OF INCONSISTENT. THIS REZONING CASE, REZ 23-99 FOR THE PROPELOCATED AT 319 BAY BOULEVARD. REQUEST TO REZONE FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2010 AND ALL FILE Z 10-34. THIS ALLOWS FOR THE USES OF RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL ON SKWOIT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE TO PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND IT IS FOR STOREFRONT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD USES. AND JUST TO GIVE -- JUST TO GIVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST. I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU THE CURRENT APPROVED PD PLAN. SO WHEN WE ARE REFERENCING THE CURRENT ZONING IS PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT IS FROM THE APPROVED REZ 2010 FILE, Z 10-4. THIS IS PLATT STREET THAT IS ON THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. THIS IS BAYSHORE. AND THIS IS BURN STREET. SO THE AREA UNDER APPROVAL FOR THE 2010 REZONING IS THIS ENTIRE AREA. SO IN 2010, WESTERN THIS REZONING WAS APPROVED, IT WAS APPROVED AND AMENDED AS A PHASE DEVELOPMENT. PHASE ONE LOCATED HERE. PHASE TWO LOCATED HERE AND HERE. AND PHASE THREE. SO PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT. WHAT REMAINS AND WHAT IS VACANT IS PHASE THREE. SO WHAT IS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS THE REZONING REQUEST TO DEVELOP PHASE THREE. SOFT I JUST WANTED TO JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR. THE APPLICANT IS COMING IN WITH JUST THE THIRD PHASE. THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO COME IN AND REZONE THE ENTIRE ALL PHASES FROM PD TO PD. BUT THEY ARE COMING IN WITH JUST THIS PHASE. SO SINCE THE 2010 REZONING APPROVAL, THERE HAVE BEEN THREE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REQUESTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. SO THROUGH THOSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REQUESTS, AS YOU MAY KNOW THROUGH THE PD SITE PLAN PROCESS, THERE IS A LIMIT ON THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REQUEST THAT YOU CAN MAKE. AND THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS. SO AFTER YOU HAVE AN APPROVED PD, THERE ARE TWO WAYS YOU ARE GOING TO REQUEST A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. EITHER THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE PLAN, MAYBE BY THE TIME YOU GET TO PERMITTING AND THERE IS A REDESIGN. YOU HAVE TO SHIFT STAIRWELLS, ADJUSTMENT OF A SETBACK. YOU WOULD APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REVIEW. TO HAVE A DETERMINATION MADE THAT IT IS NONSUBSTANTIAL. OTHER WAY THAT YOU APPLY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REVIEW IS IF YOU HAVE NOT DEVELOPED THE SITE WITHIN FIVE YEARS. SO YOU RECEIVE REZONING APPROVAL. THAT PD APPROVAL AND THOSE SET OF ENTITLEMENTS ALWAYS REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL YOU COME AND REZONE AGAIN. IF YOU GO BEYOND THE FIVE YEARS AND LET'S SAY SIX YEARS, SEVEN YEARS, YOU COME TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, YOU SUBMIT FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REVIEW TO SHOW THAT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING FOR PERMITTING IS WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ENTITLEMENTS APPROVED IN THAT PD. SO IN THIS CASE -- SORRY, THROUGH THE YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN THREE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REVIEWS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. ONE OF THE REQUESTS ALLOW FOR THE -- WAS A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT REMAIN ON PHASES ONE AND TWO. TO BE APPLIED TO PHASE THREE. SO THE ORIGINAL 2010 REZONING APPROVED 753 UNITS OR 753,198 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT. AND AFTER PHASES ONE AND TWO WERE BUILT, THERE WAS A TOTAL OF 3609,329 SQUARE FEET. THAT WAS APPLIED TO PHASE THREE. NOW COUPLE OF THINGS HERE. ONE IS THE APPROVED REZONING FROM 2010. YOU CAN SEE FROM EACH PHASE HAS A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL UNDER EACH PHASE. FOR PHASE THREE, IT DOES STATE THE DWELLING UNIT IS AT 11 UNITS. AND IT ALSO STATES WITH PHASE THREE, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS 98 FEET. 98 FEET OR EIGHT STORIES .THAT IS ON THE APPROVED PLAN. SO GIVEN THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT WERE TRANSFERRED TO PHASE THREE, AND GIVEN THE CONDITIONS UNDER THE APPROVED CURRENT PD ZONING, IT LIMITS THE DEVELOPMENT TO THAT HEIGHT AND THE STORIES AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. I WILL GO OVER THAT WHEN I DO MY STAFF REPORT LATER. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN HOW WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH PHASE THREE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FROM THE APPLICANT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>LaCHONE DOCK: I WILL TURN IT TO MISS MALONE TO GIVE HER REPORT AND I WILL COME BACK AND GIVE MINE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. MR. SHELBY? >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. GARDNER DID RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE HEIGHT AND THE STORIES AT THE BEGINNING. BECAUSE IF A REQUEST -- EXCUSE ME, IF A CONTINUANCE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN I JUST WANT TO BRING TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION, IT IS A RULE THAT WAS ADOPTED AT THE LAST AMENDED AND RESTATED RULES OF PROCEDURE, RULE 6-J-2 -- EXCUSE ME 6-J-3, SO COUNCIL IS AWARE AND SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH IT. NO REQUEST OF A CONTINUANCE FROM THE APPLICANT, PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED AFTER THE APPLICANT, PETITIONER HAS COMPLETED ITS INITIAL PRESENTATION UNLESS UPON DETERMINATION BY CITY COUNCIL THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR PURPOSES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR AS TO IF THERE IS A NEED FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THIS CASE, THAT IT BE RAISED EARLY SO WE DON'T GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND LEFT WITH A SITUATION WHERE IT HAS BEEN -- THE RIGHT TO A CONTINUANCE HAS BEEN WAIVED. UNLESS COUNCIL WAIVES ITS RULES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK MR. GARDNER? MISS DOCK, FROM MR. GARDNER HAD RAISED TO THE 330 TO THE 274 FOOT CHANGE. >>LaCHONE DOCK: LaCHONE DOCK, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. THE CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED, THAT CHANGE CAN BE MADE TO THE SITE PLAN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. ADDITIONAL CHANGES ALSO TO BE MADE IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO MAKE. BUT THOSE CAN BE MADE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. GARDNER, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. >> TRUETT GARDNER, 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE. YES, WE ARE PROFFERING THE 274. AGREE WITH MISS WELLS THAT STAFF REPORT WERE WRITTEN AND ONLY COULD BE WRITTEN ON THE 330 FEET, THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION ON FILE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OF YOUR STAFF REPORTS WOULD CHANGE, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THE MOUTH OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF POTENTIALLY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDS. DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR VIEW IS ON THAT. BUT THAT IS THE CONCESSION FROM 330 TO 274, AND I KNOW THE HEIGHT WAS AN ISSUE THAT THEY HAD. BUT WE ARE FINE, ESPECIALLY WITH -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WITH MOVING FORWARD. >> WITH MOVING FORWARD. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. WHO IS NEXT? MISS MALONE. COME ON UP. YES, MA'AM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. REZ 23-99 LOCATED AT BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AT 319 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. I HAVE AN AERIAL TO SHOW. JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED IN OCTOBER OF 2023. MY FINDING IS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN AND THE HEIGHT ON THAT SITE PLAN. THE SITE IS A VACANT PARCEL. IT IS JUST SOUTH OF THE BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND WEST PLATT STREET INTERSECTION. THIS ACROSS THE STREET IS DAVIS EYE LANDS AND TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL. HERE IS THE SUBJECT SITE. WE HAVE TALLER BUILDING HERE ABOUT 274 FEET TO THE SOUTH. WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE SMALLER USES TO THE -- BEHIND THE SITE SO TO SPEAK. AND THESE ARE THE OTHER PHASES. I AM SURE LACHONE -- MISS DOCK WILL GO INTO IT IN MORE DETAIL THE OTHER PHASES AND HOW THEY WERE BUILT OUT AND THEIR HEIGHTS. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL 83. WE ALSO HAVE RESIDENTIAL 50. AND THEN REGIONAL MIXED USE-100 IN THE AREA. THE SITE PLAN FROM 2010 HAD THREE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES ON IT WHEN IT WAS APPROVED BACK THEN. BAYSHORE BOULEVARD IS A LINEAR PARK. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE RECREATIONAL/OPEN SPACE, FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY THAT IS THE GREEN. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THIS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE DID LOOK AT THE EXISTING HEIGHT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA TO COMPARE THE SCALE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED PD. WE DID NOT FIND THIS IN SCALE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. THE OTHER HEIGHTS. I WILL SAY THAT THE -- THAT THE -- THE BUILDING RIGHT TO THE SOUTH IS ABOUT 274 FEET HIGH. BUT THE OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS ARE BETWEEN -- RANGE BETWEEN EIGHT FEET -- SORRY, EIGHT STORIES AND 18 STORIES. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS. IT REFERS TO THE SENSITIVITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PD IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND PROPOSED PD IS NOT MITIGATING THESE IMPACTS THROUGH EFFECTIVE MASSING AND SCALE. IT IS OUT OF SCALE WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF PHASE THREE OF REZ 10-34 WHICH SOUGHT TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION AND DENSITY ON THIS PARCEL WHICH SUSPECT FURTHEST FROM DOWNTOWN TAMPA THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS MALONE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MISS DOCK, YOUR PRESENTATION. >>LaCHONE DOCK: THANK YOU, COUNCIL. LaCHONE DOCK, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. I WILL PUT UP THE AERIAL FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. AND SO THIS IS THE SITE WHICH IS OUTLINED HERE IN PINK. THIS IS WHAT IS IDENTIFIED AS I SHOWED EARLY ON THE SITE PLAN AS PHASE THREE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WHAT IS OUTLINED IN THIS RED OUTLINE, THIS IS THE OVERALL 2010 REZONING AREA. AND SOHE REQUEST WOULD BE TO -- WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY REZONE JUST IN PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED HERE. THIS IS BARBIE BOULEVARD. THIS IS WEST PLATT STREET. YOU CAN SEE JUST NORTH OF THE SITE AND NORTH OF WEST PLATT STREET, YOU HAVE YOUR PD ZONING WHICH IS AN OLDER PD THAT WAS APPROVED. THIS IS THE PUBLIX. COMMERCIAL USES IN THE CG ZONING THAT RUNS ALONG PLATT STREET. YOU HAVE ST. JOHN'S NORTH OF PLATT STREET. AS YOU MOVE FURTHER SOUTH AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, THIS IS REALLY NORTHWEST OF THIS PARCEL FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, BUT OF THE OVERALL PD REZONING TO THE WEST IS THE RO-1 ZONINGS. SOUTHWEST, YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF PD REZONINGS. THERE IS A PD THAT WAS APPROVED IN '22 THAT IS FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY. THIS PD WAS APPROVED IN '05 FOR BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. TO THE SOUTH, YOU HAVE THE PD DEVELOPMENT THAT IS 345 BAYSHORE. AND THEN YOU HAVE GOT THIS PD WHICH IS TAMPA GENERAL THAT CAME THROUGH AND DID ANOTHER REZONING ON '23 ON THAT SITE. SO ON THE SITE ITSELF, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED GIVEN THE STOREFRONT RESIDENTIAL REQUEST, WITH 2150 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL PROPOSED. 237 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED. THE TOTAL HOSPITAL AREA IS 34,435 SQUARE FEET, OF .79 ACRES. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED 330 FEET FOR 27 FLOORS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. AND THIS IS BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. THAT IS TO THE SOUTH. THIS IS BEACH PLACE. AND THIS IS THE ALLEY. AND THIS IS VERN STREET. SO ALONG BEACH PLACE, THE LOT WIDTH IS 140 FEET. ALONG VERN STREET, THE LOT WIDTH IS 157 FEET. LOT DEPTH IS 2210 FEET ON BAYSHORE AND 211 FIGHT ON THE ALLEY. THE SETBACKS ARE TO THE NORTH 10 FEET, TO THE SOUTH, 15 FEET, TO THE WEST 3 FEET, TO IT THE EAST, 5 FEET. TOTAL OF 246 SPACES REQUIRED. AND 355 SPACES ARE PROVIDED. SO ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF, YOU CAN SEE THAT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE IS HERE ON BEACH PLACE. THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SITE IS SURROUNDED WITH A FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK SURROUNDING THE SITE. AND THIS IS THE LOCATION OF YOUR SOLID WASTE, YOUR LOADING VEHICLES -- THE LOADING SPACES, RATHER. AND THE VEHICLES WOULD ACCESS THE SITE FROM THE ALLEY. FOR THOSE PURPOSES. YOU CAN SEE THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION PROVIDED FROM THE BUILDING ENTRIES, THE POINT OF ENTRY WITH THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE SIDEWALKS. THAT ARE ADJACENT. THEN I HAVE ELEVATIONS OF THE SI SITE. LET ME ZOOM OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT. THE NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION. AND THIS IS THE EAST BUILDING ELEVATION. THIS IS THE SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION. AND THEN THIS IS THE WEST BUILDING ELEVATION. THEN I HAVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE. THAT IS LOOKING WEST TO THE SITE. THIS IS THE NORTH END OF THE SITE, SO THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH. THIS IS THE SITE IF YOU ARE FROM THE ALLEY AND YOU ARE LOOKING SOUTH. THIS IS IF YOU ARE FROM THE ALLEY THAT IS THE WEST END OF THE SITE AND LOOKING NORTH. TOWARDS WHAT IS PHASE THREE. THIS IS WEST OF THE SITE. THIS IS TO THE WEST. THIS IS ON BEACH PLACE. THIS IS IF YOU ARE LOOKING SOUTH ON BAYSHORE, THE SUBJECT SITE IS TO THE RIGHT. THIS IS SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE THIS IS TO THE EAST. THIS IS LOOKING NORTH ON BAYSHORE. OF THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW. THIS IS LOOKING NORTH. AND THIS IS YOUR VIEW OF PHASE TWO WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW. THIS IS INTERNAL TO THE SITE. AND THIS IS IF YOU ARE HEADED EAST ON HYDE PARK PLACE. IN IS ANOTHER VIEW OF NORTH. THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF PLATT AND BAYSHORE, PART OF PHASE ONE. AND THIS IS ACROSS PLATT STREET, ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE NORTH END OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT IS ON PLATT STREET, YOU ARE LOOKING EAST. AND THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT. PHASE ONE THERE. AND THEN THAT IS SWINGING BACK TO THE EAST AT THE HOSPITAL. SO WITH THIS REQUEST, THERE WERE WAIVERS REQUESTED AND I WILL LET JONATHAN REVIEW THE TRANSPORTATION-RELATED WAIVERS. ONE WAIVER RELATED TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND THAT IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER FROM FIVE FEET TO FOUR FEET ON THE NORTHWEST. AND. THIS ADDITION, THE DRC STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PETITION AND FINDS THE REQUEST INCONSISTENT. FINALLY, YOU WILL SEE THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT FROM DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION FROM TRANSPORTATION AND THEN PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT IS ALSO INCLUDED. AND FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO SOME OF THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY STAFF IN THE FINDS. SO STAFF HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THE SCALE AND MASSING PROPOSED WITH THE BUILDING HEIGHT OF 330 FEET. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG THE SEGMENT OF BAYSHORE BOULEVARD, THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND BUILDING HEIGHTS TRANSITION FROM THE TALLEST STRUCTURE LOCATED ON -- AS PART OF PHASE ONE WHICH IS AT THE CORNER OF PLATT AND BAYSHORE BOULEVARD OF BUILDING HEIGHTS OF EIGHT STORIES IN PHASE TWO. GIVEN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT EXISTS IN PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, WHICH IS PART OF THE OVERALL PD DEVELOPMENT. AND IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA, THE PROPOSED 330 FEET IN HEIGHT DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING BUILD ENVIRONMENT. CURRENT PD APPROVAL, WHICH IS UNDER Z 10-34, AMENDED PHASE THREE DEVELOPMENT AT 11 DWELLING UNITS AND A MAXIMUM HOO HEIGHT OF EIGHT STORIES AND CONSIDERED IN STAFF ELSE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE PD PLAN. THE CURRENT PD IS OUT OF CHARACTER AND EXCEEDS THE SCALE AND MASSING THAT EXISTS IN THE SURROUNDING IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO THE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IS HOW TALL? >>LaCHONE DOCK: THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH I HAVE AT APPROXIMATELY 20 STORIES. I HAVE A MAP, I AM SORRY. YES, AT 20. 20 STORIES. KRLD AS A PART OF THIS ANALYSIS IS -- IS NOT ONLY THAT BUILDING TO THE SOUTH, BUT THE FACT THAT THIS IS A PARTICIPANT OF THE PD. SO THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE GRANTED, ARE GRANTED BECAUSE IT IS A PART OF THIS OVERALL PD. SO WHAT WE LOOK AT IS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN THIS PD IN 1010 AND WHAT IS ANTICIPATED IN THIS PARCEL. AS FAR AS SCALE AND MASSING, WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED. WHILE THEY ARE ASKING TO REZONE TO A PD AND PULL OUT THAT PARCEL, IF YOU WILL ON ITS OWN, FROM THIS ORIGINAL PD, IT IS STILL ORIGINAL NAIPTED HERE. MANISCALCO MANISCALCO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CLENDENIN, MIRANDA AND THEN HURTAK. >>LaCHONE DOCK: THEN I WILL TURN IT -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: BACK TO THAT MAP IF YOU CAN PUT IT UP THERE. I WASN'T HERE IN 2010. SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. RIGHT NOW, THE PARCELS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED AS PHASE ONE, TWO AND THREE ARE ONE ZONING, ONE PD? >>LaCHONE DOCK: CORRECT. THIS IS PHASE ONE. THIS -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THROWING OUT THE PHASE ONE, TWO, THREE. LOOKING AT THE ZONING MAP, THAT ENTIRE V OF A SHAPE OF A PARCEL IS ONE ZONING DISTRICT, ONE PD ZONING DISTRICT. >>LaCHONE DOCK: CORRECT. THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED AND THE AREA ALSO HIGHLIGHTED IN PINK. RIGHT NOW THIS IS ALL ONE PD. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WHAT IS BEFORE US TONIGHT IS A NEW APPLICATION BEING HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME TO SINGLE OUT THIS ONE PARCEL AS A BRAND-NEW PD? >>LaCHONE DOCK: CORRECT. THIS PARCEL IS CURRENTLY VACANT. IN ORDER TO DEVELOPMENT THIS PARCEL RIGHT NOW IS LIMITED AT THE HEIGHT OF 98 FEET. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES CORRECTLY. THE ALLEY -- I GUESS I CAN SAY SAVE THIS FOR TRANSPORTATION. BECAUSE I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THIS ALLEY AND THE WAIVER REQUEST. SO I WILL SAVE THAT FOR TRANSPORTATION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MIRANDA, HURTAK. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I WAS HERE IN 2010. >>LaCHONE DOCK: YES, SIR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WITH MY MIND GOING BACK 15 YEARS. I AM HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME. BUT I REMEMBER SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AREA. AND THERE WAS A LADY WHO HAD A HOUSE IN THE BACK OF OF IT. BEAUTIFUL TOWNHOUSE, BIG ONE. I GET STUCK. ALL I REMEMBER ABOUT IT. I WISH I CAN ROLL BACK THE COMPUTER AND GO BACK AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN 2010. ALL THAT IS CODIFIED IN THE RECORDS. SO I DON'T SEE HOW I CAN DO THAT. DOBLGZ DOCK I BELIEVE THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT -- >>LaCHONE DOCK: I BELIEVE THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I DIDN'T SEE IT. >>LaCHONE DOCK: I MEAN, I CAN CERTAINLY CHECK TO SEE -- SEEING IF THAT ADJACENT USE IS STILL THERE? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I AM TALKING OF THE WHOLE AREA, THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THOSE THINGS BEING SHIFTED TO THIS PROPERTY HERE. WHAT WAS THAT PROPERTY TALKED ABOUT -- REZONING THE MASTER LOCATION THAT IS ATTACHED. >> THIS PARCEL HERE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES, MA'AM. >>LaCHONE DOCK: I DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY ON THIS BEFORE THE REZ REZONING. I AM NOT CERTAIN THE APPLICANT MAY KNOW A LITTLE MORE, BUT THIS -- THE REZONING, IT HAS BEEN PART OF THAT OVERALL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MISS WELLS. >>CATE WELLS: IF I MAY ASK COUNCIL TO -- YOU GET TO DECIDE THIS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST TODAY, THE CODE THAT EXISTS TODAY OPPOSED TO WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THERE IN 2010. I WILL ASK TO YOU FOCUS ON BUT WHAT HEAR TODAY IN THE RECORD OF TODAY'S HEARING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HER. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: GO AHEAD. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE -- TO THE DEVELOPMENT, I GUESS, AT VERNON PLAT. YOU SAID THAT -- THE SOUTH -- THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS TO THE SOUTH. WHAT -- I AM -- I AM CONFUSED. I HEARD IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I SAW PHOTOS THAT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS DONE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN. YOU SAID HOW MANY STORIES BUT NOT HOW MANY FEET. >> SO THIS DEVELOPMENT -- I HAVE A PHOTO OF IT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT HERE IS THE ONE YOU ARE REFERENCING. >>LYNN HURTAK: I BELIEVE SO. THAT IS THE ONE. >>LaCHONE DOCK: 20 FLOORS. I DON'T HAVE THE FEET ON IT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 345. >>LaCHONE DOCK: DO YOU HAVE THE FEET? OKAY, 274 FEET. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. AND WHEN WAS THAT APPROVED? >>LaCHONE DOCK: THIS ONE -- SO THIS ONE ORIGINALLY WAS AN OLDER PD THAT HAD MULTIFAMILY ON IT. JUST HISTORICALLY ON THE SITE ITSELF, BUT IT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED MORE RECENTLY. BUT THIS ISN'T A RECENT PD. >> NOT A RECENT? >>LaCHONE DOCK: NO. >>LYNN HURTAK: FOR SOME REASON I HAVE GONE HEARING 2023. I APOLOGIZE. MY CONFUSION. SEPARATE QUESTION FOR -- FOR MISS WELLS. -- OH, ACTUALLY I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU FIRST. >>LaCHONE DOCK: OKAY, YES. >>LYNN HURTAK: YOU SAID -- CAN YOU, AGAIN, REPEAT THE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND THE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. >>LaCHONE DOCK: YES, MA'AM, ABSOLUTELY. LaCHONE DOCK, LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE 246 SPACES. AND THEY ARE PROVIDING 355 SPACES. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT IS A DIFFERENCE OF. 100, GIVE OR TAKE. HOW MANY FLOORS DOES -- DO 100 PARKING SPACES TAKE UP? HOW OVERPARKED ARE THEY IN TERMS OF STORIES? >>LaCHONE DOCK: I BELIEVE THE PARKING -- AND THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIRM -- IS LOCATED OF FLOORS TWO THROUGH SIX -- OR FLOORS TWO THROUGH SEVEN IS THE PARKING. JUST ONE SECOND. LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT IT. YES, SORE FLOORS TWO THROUGH EIGHT CONTAIN PARKING AND 9 THROUGH 27 -- >>LYNN HURTAK: DO WE KNOW THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF SPACES PER FLOOR? OR MAYBE MR. SCOTT CAN SPEAK TO THAT. IF NOT, I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT. >>LaCHONE DOCK: I DON'T KNOW THE AVERAGE -- I DON'T HAVE THAT AVERAGE. HOLD ON. >>LYNN HURTAK: SEEMS LIKE SHAVE OFF SOME STORY THERE IS SCOTT /*. >> JONATHAN SCOTT, TRANSPORTATION. >>LYNN HURTAK: I CAN REQUEST THE APPLICANT LATER. THEY ARE ON NOTICE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I APPRECIATE IT. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCIL MEMBER CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SO FOR MISS WELLS. IT'S BACK TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND WHAT IS BEFORE US TONIGHT. SO -- I -- I KEEP HEARING OF THIS PHASE ONE, TWO, THREE. AND THIS PROPERTY BEING ZONED. BUT WE ARE RIGHTFULLY SO, THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL TONIGHT TO PULL OFF A PIECE OF THIS AS A PD. AND WE ARE LISTENING TO THIS AS A STAND-ALONE HEARING BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT ON THAT PARCEL. AM I FRAMING THAT CORRECTLY? >>CATE WELLS: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE APPLICANT THROUGH THE SERIES OF SUB CHANGE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE FILED BETWEEN 2015 AND 2021 2-- 2022, KWFD THE CITY TO REALLOCATE UNUSED SQUARE FOOTAGES FROM PHASES ONE AND TWO. AND THE CITY APPROVED THE ABILITY TO PLACE THAT ON PHASE THREE SUBJECT TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING AND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE APPROVED FOR PHASE THREE IN 2010. SO THE HEIGHT WAS 98. YOU HAD A CERTAIN FOOTPRINT. AND WHAT THEY WERE ALLOW TO AT SOME POINT WAS REQUEST THE REALLOCATION OF THOSE UNITS. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO MOVE THEM TO PHASE THREE, BUT ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS REZONING PROCESS TO ACTIVATE THOSE -- THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WASN'T BUILT OR AUTOPSIED ON PHASES ONE AND TWO. SO YOU STILL LOOK AT THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE OVERALL SITE PLAN. AND WHAT THAT OVERALL F.A.R. IS. WHILE IT IS STILL -- WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS INDEPENDENTLY AND JUST ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE THREE, THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS COMING FROM THE OVERALL SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2010 THAT INCLUDED ALL THREE PHASES. BY DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SAY THIS IS A STAND ALONE. THIS -- THIS IS A -- THIS IS THE LAST REMAINING PORTION OF A PD SITE PLAN THAT THEY ARE NOW SEEKING TO CHANGE THE WAY IT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2010. AND THAT CHANGE IS BASED ON THE UNUSED F.A.R. OR THE UNUSED SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM PHASES ONE AND TWO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SO -- EXCUSE ME. SO HOW THIS WAS FILED WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD THAT WAS ISSUED IN 2010? >>CATE WELLS: OUR CODE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A PROCESS FOR FILING AN AMENDMENT TO A PD. IT IS FILED AS A NEW PD, BUT IT TIES BACK TO WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2010. I BELIEVE ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF, ARE REFERENCES THE HISTORY OF THE APPROVAL FOR THE OVERALL SITE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I SAW THAT. I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEXUS BETWEEN THAT WAS. IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPLICANT CAN COME BEFORE US AND SAY NOW I WANT TO BASICALLY FILE IT AS A NEW PD AND START FROM SCRATCH. WOOP THAT HAVE BEEN AN OPTION AS WELL? >>CATE WELLS: I WILL HAVE TO REFER TO STAFF, 309,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING WILL BE ALLOWED ON THIS SITE ALONE WOULDN'T THE ABILITY TO BLEND THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE OVERALL THREE PHASES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. >> JONATHAN SCOTT. I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IN ONE MOMENT. WE FIND IT INCONSISTENT DUE TO LOADING SPACE WAIVER FOR THE MAN NUFRG IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEY DIDN'T NEED A LOADING REDUCTION FOR THE NUMBER. THEY HAD IT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE SITE. NOW THIS SITE DID REQUIRE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. DUE TONIGHT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND MITIGATION PAYMENT THEY WILL BE PAYING OF $31,589. AND THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BENEFIT TO THE AREA ACROSS BAYSHORE. THEY ARE GOING TO ADD A CONCEPTUAL NOTE THAT HE WILL INSTALL A CROSSWALK AND SIDEWALK RAMPS AND FLASHING BEACONS OF REFUGE ISLANDS AND THIS WILL BE CONCEPTUAL. THESE ARE NOTES ADDED ON THE SITE PLAN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. AND ONCE AGAIN, TRANSPORTATION. INCONSISTENT FINDS DUE TO THE LOADING AND MANEUVERING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. YOU HAD A QUESTION ON THE ALLEY, I BELIEVE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I DID. ON THAT VERY ISSUE. I AM CURIOUS. IT IS A HIGHLY CONGESTED AREA. CURRENT CONDITION AND USE THANK YOU ALLEY SERVICES HOW MANY PROPERTIES IN THERE? IS IT -- ACCESS ALLEY AND TRASH FROM OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR THE SOLE USE OF THIS ALLEY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. >> OTHER PROPERTIES DO USE THAT ALLEY. ROUGHLY -- THERE IS MORE THAN A FEW. I KNOW THAT SOME OF THEM COME INTO IT, BUT NOT SOLELY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THE PICTURES WE SAW, THAT ALLEY SEEMED LIKE A PRETTY SMALL ALLEY. SUFFICIENT FOR THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE PROJECT FOR THE TYPE OF USE. >>JONATHAN SCOTT: IT IS LIKE 15 FEET WIDE. THEY WILL WIDEN IT A LITTLE BIT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THEY WILL ENHANCE THE ALLEY. >>JONATHAN SCOTT: WE ASKED THEM FOR A TRANSPORTATION EASEMENT OF FIVE FEET AND SORT OF OFFICIAL PUBLIC. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THAT KIND OF ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. I WAS LOOK AT THAT PICTURE AND SAYING THAT LOOKS AWFULLY SMALL. >>JONATHAN SCOTT: THEY WILL MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL. AND BENEFIT AS WELL. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE REQUIRE MANEUVER, ONE CONTINUOUS MANEUVER AND THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING THAT. IS -- WHACK IS THE REAL LIFE IMPACT OF THAT AND WHY DO WE HAVE THAT IN THE CODE? >>JONATHAN SCOTT: WE HAVE THAT SO THEY WOULD HAVE THE LOADING ON THEIR PROPERTY AND MANEUVER ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LIKE -- THIS ONE -- THE LOADING SPACES ON THEIR PROPERTY AND BACKS OUT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO THAT IS WHAT THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW IN THIS PART OF THE CITY. SOME PARTS LIKE DOWNTOWN AND SO FORTH. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MANEUVER IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: A SERVICE ALLEY. >>JONATHAN SCOTT: A LOW VOLUME. AND NOT THAT BIG OF AN IMPACT IF YOU WILL BACK OUT INTO A REAL BUSY ROAD OR WHATEVER. THE THAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION MANISCALCO MANISCALCO COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ALLEY THEN TOO. DO WE KNOW IF THIS IS -- MISS DOCK, SISTER HAD A -- IS THIS A RENTAL -- IS THIS A RENTAL BUILDING OR A -- OR AN OWNERSHIP BUILDING? >>LaCHONE DOCK: LaCHONE DOCK, LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. I BELIEVE IT WILL BE OWNERSHIP, BUT THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIRM. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION FOR MANEUVERABILITY. I KNOW WE HAVE TALKED ON THIS COUNCIL BEFORE ABOUT MANEUVERABILITY BEING MORE IMPORTANT IN AN AREA THAT HAS RENTAL BECAUSE THEY ARE IN AND OUT MORE FREQUENTLY. DOES -- DOES -- DOES THE LOADING -- BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS CHANGING WITH THEED A VINT OF DELIVERY VEHICLES. THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE LOADING, CORRECT? LIKE, SAY, AN AMAZON TRUCK O OR UPS. >> THAT IS NOT LIKE THE DELIVERY LOADINGS, BUT THICK GO IN THERE IF THEY NEEDED TO. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. >>LaCHONE DOCK: COUNCIL, JUST QUICKLY, LaCHONE DOCK, LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. I WANT TO PUNT ON THE RECORD AMEND THE REVISION SHEET. IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE UNDER THE PD CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE PD SITE PLAN. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD AND THE APPLICANT IS AWARE. AND THIS CON CLULDZ STAFF'S PRESENTATION. WE ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. GARDENR COME ON UP. >> TRUETT GARDNER, 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE. A LONG TIME COMING TO THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION AND THRILLED TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. HERE WE GO. FIRST WANTED TO INTRODUCE OUR TEAM THAT IS HERE TONIGHT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THESE ISSUES. CRESCENT RESOURCE IS MY CLIENT, THE DEVELOPER. RICKY DECAMP IS HERE. IRONICALLY, CRESCENT WAS THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF BOTH PHASES ONE, TWO, AND THREE. SO EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SALE, CRESCENT IS ACTUALLY COMING BACK TO DEVELOP THIS PARCEL WHICH IS PARCEL THREE. OUR CIVIL ENGINEER SCOTT GINER AND BENJAMIN PLANT OF KIMLEY-HORN. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STEVE HENRY WITH LINKS AND ASSOCIATES. AND OUR ARBORIST, RICKY PETERIKA WITH DARK MOSS. THEN I KNOW ON THIS SLIDE, WHAT EATLANTA WAS ALLUDING TO WITH HIS ROLE AS THE PROMPT OWNER AND WANT NOTHING PROTECT HIS RIGHTS -- OR THEIR RIGHTS. WHAT LACHONE DID A GREAT JOB OF GOING OVER THE INTENSITY WHAT IS APPROVED VERSUS WHAT IS PROPOSED. APPROVED THROUGH THESE SUB-CHANGES IS 309,320 SQUARE FEET AND WE ARE PROPOSING EXACTLY THAT SAME NUMBER. WHAT MAKES THIS AN UNIQUE CASE, COMPLETELY UNIQUE FROM ANYTHING I HAVE BEEN PART OF -- TYPICALLY WE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A DEVELOPER AND TRYING TO ZONE UP TO WHAT THE CAMP PLAN ALLOWS. THIS INTENSITY IS ALREADY APPROVED. SO WE ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT ASKING YOU FOR ANY ENTITLEMENTS AT ALL. WITH RESPECT TO THE USE, THE USE THAT IS APPROVED IS MULTIFAMILY. THERE IS ONE CHANGE IN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY MULTIFAMILY, BUT ALSO THROUGH OUR TALKS WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND STAKEHOLDERS, THEY WANTED A SMALL COMMERCIAL SITE. AND SO WE HAVE GOT ONE WHICH WE WILL SHOW YOU WHICH IS 2,000 SQUARE FEET ON THE GROUND FLOOR TO ACTIVATE, FOR HAVE A LITTLE COFFEE SHOP OR A PLACE TO ENJOY A GLASS OF WINE. THAT WAS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT IS OUR ONLY CHANGE AS FAR AS USE, BUT THE PREDOMINANT USE IS MULTIFAMILY. ALSO, ANOTHER CHANGE IS THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. I BELIEVE IT IS THE 2010 APPROVAL HAD OUR ACCESS ON VERN STREET. THROUGH TALKING WITH 345, THEY DID NOT WANT THAT ACCESS ON VERN STREET, SO WE AGREED TO MOVE THAT PRIMARY ACCESS POINT TO BEACH PLACE. AND THEN LASTLY, REALLY THE THRUST OF WHY WE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT OPINION CURRENT APPROVED HEIGHT IS 98 FEET AND WE ARE REQUESTING 274 FEET. OOPS. ON THIS SLIDE, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A FLAVOR OF THE AREA. WE ARE THE SITE THAT IS OUTLINED IN BLUE. AND YOU WILL NOTICE THE 345 CONDO TOWER TO OUR SOUTH. ONE BAYSHORE TOWER TO THE NORTH. AND CBD TO THE NORTH OF THAT. SO REALLY THIS SITE IS THE DOORSTEP, IF YOU WILL, TO THE CDB. AND WE THINK THIS IS WHY SO MUCH INTENSITY IN HEIGHT IS CONCENTRATED THERE TO PROVIDE RESIDENCE TO THE WORKERS IN THE CDB. AS RELAPSE TO OUR SITE PLAN, AS I MENTIONED WE HAVE THE 2150 SQUARE FOOT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL WHICH IS IN THE -- WHICH IS IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, FULL. OUR TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS IS 237. AGAIN UTILIZING 309,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WE ARE ALLOWED TO -- THAT IS ALLOWED TO BE DIVIDED INTO WHATEVER THE NUMBER, AND THAT NUMBER WE ARE SETTLING WITH IS 237. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WE ARE ASKING IS 274 FEET WHICH IS 25 FLOORS. PARKING SPACES. WE HEARD PARKING WAS A CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORS. SO REQUIRED 246 PROVIDED 355. GREEN SPACE REQUIRED 3349. WE ARE ALMOST DOUBLING THAT TO THE PROPOSAL OF 6179 SQUARE IS FEET. THERE ARE ALSO TWO GRAND TREES. ONE IS ON THE SITE. ONE IS JUST OFF. AND BOTH OF THOSE GRAND TREES WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED. AND THEN WE ARE -- WE ARE GRATEFUL -- THIS HAPPENS BEEN A LONG TIME. AND WE WORKED YOUR STAFF RELENTLESSLY. AND GREAT. FUL TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF -- GRATEFUL TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF -- TRANSPORTATION DUE TO THE WAIVER. ADDIE CLARK FROM MY OFFICE WILL GO THROUGH THE WAIVERS AND WE BELIEVE THEY ARE JUSTIFIED AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE HEALTH OF WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN SAFETY. AND ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -- NORTHWEST TO PUNT ANY WORDS IN THEIR MT. BUT WHAT THEY REVIEWED WAS THE 3306 FEET. IN MY OPINION THE 274 IS COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT. I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT A LITTLE LATER AND WANTED TO TRANSITION OVER TO ADDIE TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE TWO WAIVER REQUEST. MANISCALCO MANISCALCO YES, MA'AM, STATEMENT YOUR NAME. >> ADDIE CLARK, 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE. AS YOU SEE FROM STAFF, THE SITE PROPOSES GARAGE ACCESS ALONG BEACH PLACE. AND PROPOSES LOAD AND SOLID WASTE ACCESS VIA THAT ALLEY TO THE NORTH AND JONATHAN DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING THAT. EXISTING 15-FEET-WIDE ALLEY BY AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET AND THE EASEMENT OF THAT AREA TO BE WIDENED. FOR SOME HISTORY, THE 2017 SITE PLAN REQUIRED THAT SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC SERVICES BE ACCESSED FROM THE ALLEY. SO WE ARE SIMPLY CONTINUING THAT REQUIREMENT. AND IT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE TO FOCUS THE LOADING AND SOUTHWEST TO IT THE BACK ALLEY AND AWAY FROM VERN, WHICH IS AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY AND AWAY FROM BEACH PLACE, WHICH IS WHERE OUR ACCESS IS PROPOSED. AND AS -- ALSO REQUESTED BY 345 RESIDENTS PRIOR TO THE ADDITIONAL FILING OF THIS APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE THE ACCESS ON BEACH PLACE RATHER THAN VERN. I WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT RENTAL UNITS IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. MANEUVERING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS HE A COMMON REQUEST FOR THE PD SITE PLAN PROMISING MULTIFAMILY. COUNCIL IS PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEED FOR THE MAN NUFRG IN. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ALSO THE IMPORTANT OF HAVING SOLID WASTE AND LOADING ACTIVITY COMPLETELY CONTAINED ON-SITE AND WITHIN THE SITE BOUNDARY AS TO NOT BLOCK ANY TRAFFIC ON THE MAIN ROADWAYS. YOU CAN SEE THIS IN THE EXHIBIT THAT THERE IS SOME MANEUVERING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ALL OF THAT ACTIVITY OCCUR ON SITE INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT BOUNDARY. I DID WANT TO CLARIFY VERY QUICKLY FOR DELIVERY AND STUFFER AND AMAZON -- I THINK I HAVE SAM JOHN IN COMING TO MY HOUSE MULTIPLE TIMES OF DAY, BUT FAMILIAR WITH A SERVICE CALLED "FETCH." NOT AN EXPERT ON THAT. BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AN OFF-SITE FACILITY WHERE RESIDENTS PACKAGES AND PROPERTY AND MANAGE CAN'T WORK WITH RESIDENTS TO GET TYPICAL NORMAL SEDAN-SIZED CARS TO PICK UP PACKAGES FROM AN OFFSITE FACILITY AND BRINGING THEM TO THE BUILDING SO YOU DON'T HAVE A BIG AMAZON TRUCK COMING IN MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY. GOING TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES WAIVER, PROPOSING A FOUR-FOOT LAND SCAPE BUFFER IN GREEN INSTEAD OF A FIVE FOOT REQUIRED FOR THIS AREA TO THE NORTH. THAT IS ENTIRELY THE RESULT OF NEEDING TO WIDEN THAT ALLEY AS MENTIONED FOR BETTER MANEUVER.ABILITY, AS WELL AS FIRE ACCESS AND PROVIDING A FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK. GIVEN THE 20-FOOT ALLEY AFTER WIDENING, THE FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK AND A FOUR-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, WE ARE EFFECTIVELY PROVIDING 29 FEET BETWEEN THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHILE BALANCING THAT NEED FOR THE ALLEY AND THE SIDEWALK TO BE WIDE ENOUGH FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION. I WANT TO NOTE THANK WE ARE PROVIDING OVER ONE AND A HALF TIMES THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED GREEN SPACE. SO THOUGH THEY BUFFER IS FOUR FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET, THE SITE WILL HAVE AMPLE LANDSCAPED AREA TO PRO DUMS A BEAUTIFUL PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY STREETSCAPE. YES, SIR. >> TRUETT GARDNER. 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE. I AM GOING TO GO QUICKLY BECAUSE I WANT RICKY DECAMPS TO HAVE A SECOND TO SPEAK AS WELL. REALLY, I WANT TO FOCUS THE COUNCIL'S ATTENTION, FULL, ON WHAT I THINK IS THE TRUE ISSUE WHICH IS HEIGHT. AS MENTIONED BEFORE, AND RICKY CAN GET INTO INITIALLY PROPOSING A 330-FOOT BUILDING AND NOW PROPOSING A 274-FOOT BUILDING WHICH MATCHES OUR BUILDING TO THE SOUTH. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ENTITLEMENTS. ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE CONTEXT. 345, OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH. WE WILL BE WATCHING THAT. RECENTLY IN FRONT OF YOU REPRESENTING TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL ON DAVIS ISLAND IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE CHANNEL AND GOT APPROVED FROM CITY COUNCIL OF A BUILDING OF 280 FEET, HIGHER THAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. PARK SIDE AT ONE BAYSHORE TOWER 235. GOING TO THE CDB, THE PENRY SITE, FORMALLY THE TRUMP TOWER BUILDING, FULL AT 409 FEET. OTHER TOWERS, RITZ-CARLTON AT 349 FEET. SOUTH OF THIS FURTHER AWAY FROM DOWNTOWN, VIRAGE AT 269 SOUTH OF IN ALTURA 2374. AND HYDE PARK HOUSE IN THE HYDE PARK DISTRICT AT 261 FEET. WE DO HAVE A LETTER ALREADY FROM FAA ISSUING A NO HEIGHT -- DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD FOR OUR PREVIOUS HEIGHT OF 330. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE COMING DOWN FROM THAT. THAT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE CONSISTENT. AND THEN LASTLY, WHAT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON. THIS IS A PD. IT IS A CUSTOM ZONING WHERE HEIGHTS ARE DETERMINED AS FAR AS WHAT YOU FEEL IS IT COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT. SUBJECT TO YOUR REVIEW AND BASED ON THE SURROUNDING VICINITY, THE FAA AND ALSO UTILIZING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS YOUR GUIDE. AND WHAT I'M SHOWING HERE AND WHAT IS HIGHLIGHTED ARE THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, R-83 IS WHAT WE ARE. AND WHAT IT STATES IN THE HIGHLIGHT IS THAT IN R-83, THAT IS THE HIGH INTENSITY HIGH-RISE DESIGNATION, IF PULL. AND BUILDING TYPES SHOULD TYPICALLY BE AROUND 24 STORIES. INTERESTINGLY, THE CATEGORY UNDER THAT RES-50, MENTIONS THAT THOSE BUILDINGS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE EIGHT-STORY RANGE. WE ARE ALREADY THREE. AND WE BELIEVE WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT, WITH THE 25 STORIES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. AGAIN, USING THAT AS A GUIDE. AND THEN THIS WILL BE HELPFUL JUST TO GIVE YOU CONTEXT OF RECENT HEARINGS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU ON TOWERS ON BAYSHORE AND WHAT THE CORRESPONDING COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS WERE. THE RELATED RITZ YOU HAVE TOER HIGHER THAN WE ARE PROPOSING IN THE RES-50. STATES THE EIGHT-STORY RANGE. HYDE PARK HOUSES MATCHES US 286. AND THE RODEF SHALOM WAS R-35 SITE. WE ARE NOT R-35. NOT R-50. R AND LOWER DESIGNATION APPROVED AT 349 FEET. SO I THINK THAT KIND MUCH IS OUR CASE WHY WE FEEL THAT THE HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT AND SHOULD BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL AND WITH THE REMAINING TIME, TURN IT OVER TO RICKY DECAMPS WITH CELLS SENT -- CRESCENT RESOURCES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> RICARDO DECAMPS WITH CROSSING COMMUNITIES. WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. AND AS YOU GUYS MAY KNOW, CELLS SENT -- WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF -- CRESCENT, WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF BUILDING HERE IN TAMPA AND HAVE DONE SO FOR 20 YEARS. INTEGRITY AND COMMITMENT AUTOMAKERS DOING WHAT WE SAY WE ARE GOING TO DO AND BUILDING THE BEST COMMUNITIES THAT WE CAN FOR THE CITY. MOST RECENTLY, NOVEL MIDTOWN TAMPA DID ONE BAYSHORE, TWO BAYSHORE AS WE MENTIONED MERE AND MOST RECENTLY NOVEL BEACH PARK. ONE OF THINGS WE CAME POOL IN THIS FROM THE GET-GO, OUR GOAL WAS TO BRING A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL COMMUNITY TO A PART OF THE CITY THAT IS COMPLETELY AND CONTROLLED BY MULTIMILLION DOLLAR SNFR CONDOS. THAT WAS OUR APPROACH HERE. WE START WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I SKIP DESIGN CONCEPT. WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE SET OUT TWO YEARS AGO TO START WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND START TALKING TO THEM REPRESENTING THAT YOU ARE PROJECT, LISTENING TO THEM OF WHAT THEY ASKED US TO DO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS PLEASE RELOCATE THE INGRESS AND EGRESS LOCATION, WHICH WE DID, OFF OF VERN AND ON CONTINUE TO BEACH PLACE. THEY -- 345 FROM THE GET-GO WERE CONCERNED OF THEIR VIEWS. ONLY THING THEY MENTION INLAND OUR FIRST MEETING WITH THEM WAS CONCERN OF BLOCKING VIEWS TO DOWNTOWN, WHICH WE HEARD AND PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION, WE MADE A CHANGE DURING THE PROCESS TO IMPROVE -- TO BASICALLY SWITCH OUR BUILDING ORIENTATION TO ALLOW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THOSE VIEWS. IN ADDITION, COUNCILMEMBER HURTAK, YOU MENTIONED WHY ARE WE SO HIGH WITH PARK SOMETHING IN WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS CONSTRAIN OUR SITE, WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE SOME GRAND TREELESS. PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY CONNECT CONNECTITVIY. ALL OF THOSE THINGS EAT INTO THE SETBACKS OF OUR BUILDING, SHRINKING THE BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT ON OUR SITE. .79 ACRES LOT LINE TO HOSPITAL LINE. AS WE START EATING INTO THAT, YOU HAVE TO GET HIGHER -- YOU KNOW THE HEIGHT HAS TO COME SOMEWHERE TO FIT WHAT YOU NEED TO FIT ON THE SITE. GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION WAS CRITICAL WHEN JUST BASED ON EXPERIENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE DONE. AS YOU HAVE SEEN, OUR PROJECTS ACROSS THE CITY. WE ARE VERY KEEN ON INTEGRATING LAND SCAPE AND INTEGRATING TREELESS INTO OUR COMMUNITY. SO WHEN THEY ASKED ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR A GRAND FLOOR ACTIVATION, WE SAW THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY OF PRESERVING THAT GRAND OAK AND BUILDING OUR COMMERCIAL THERE BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SAYING I DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO AND HANG OUT WHEN I AM ON BAYSHORE. AND THE LAST THING IS SAFETY. SAFETY IS AN ISSUE. AND THE COMMUNITY HAD ASKED FOR A PEDESTRIAN WEAKEN TO CROSS BAYSHORE THAT WE WILL GLADLY ABIDE BY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>LYNN HURTAK: YES, I HAVE A QUESTION OF MORE -- I HAVE THE QUESTION, HOW MANY CARS ON EACH FLOOR FOR PARK SOMETHING IN. >> OUR MATH WHIZ KID IS BEHIND US. 48 IS THE NUMBER. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO BASICALLY YOU COULD SAVE OFF TWO FLOORS -- TWO FLOORS JUST BY RIGHT SIZE PARKING THIS DEVELOPMENT? >> I WILL LET RICKY SPEAK GIVEN CRESCENT'S EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WHAT THEY NEED. I THINK THEY ARE OVERPARKED AND WILL BE FOLLOWING REDUCE THAT. >>LYNN HURTAK: WELL, AND THIS IS WHY. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU TRIED TO SELL US ON IS THE FACT -- IT IS TRUE. YOU ARE RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY PARKING MINI MINIMUMS. SO THE FACT YOU ARE SO OVERPARKED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE, I THINK IT WILL SETTLE WHITE A FEW THINGS. ONE, BRINGING SOME STORIES DOWN TO TRY TO FIND A SPACE THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN BE HAPPY WITH. AND THEN ALSO, RIGHT SIZING THE DEVELOPMENT FOR AUTOMOBILES. >> IF YOU WOULD, I -- THAT IS ABOVE MY PAY RAISE ON ACTUALLY COMMITTING TO THAT, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK TO RICKY ON THAT. AND I KNOW AGAIN THEIR EXPERIENCE, THEY HAVE A RATIO THAT THEY NEED. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE ARE OVERPARKED. REALLY KIND OF IN RESPONSE TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEM MENTIONING THERE IS A NEED FOR PARKING. THEY DON'T WANT TO CONFLATE THE PROBLEM, I CAN BE BACK ON WHAT THAT CAN REASONABLY BE AND MAKE THEIR DEVELOPMENT WORK. HE HAS ALREADY GOT IT. >> SO, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, YOUR 100% RIGHT. WE ARE SO CLOSE TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE -- I TELL YOU, ONE OF THE PRIMARY CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PARKING. THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE PARKING AND PARKING AND PARKING. SO TYPICALLY, A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY HAS TO PARK AT A RATIO THAT IS HIGHER THAN CITY CODE. 1.5 UNITS -- PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, OKAY. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE IS GOING TO BE -- IF YOU HAVE A ONE-BEDROOM UNIT, YOU KNOW, ONE-BEDROOM UNIT. IF YOU HAVE A ONE-PERSON RESIDENT THERE, THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAVE TWO CARS AND WE WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE CAR. BUT IF YOU HAVE A COUPLE SHARING A UNIT, MOST LIKELY THERE ARE TWO CARS INTO ONE BEDROOM. WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS HINT THAT 1.5 RATIO WHICH IS WHAT IS INDUSTRY NORM. WHAT HAPPENED WE ARE DOING ON THIS PROPERTY, WE ARE ACTUALLY AT 174 RATIO ON THIS PROPERTY AND BROUGHT THAT DOWN -- 1.4 RAY THEO ON THIS PROPERTY AND BROUGHT THAT DOWN LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE IS PARKING ON THE STREETS AND HEARING THEIR CONCERNS AUTOMAKERS. I WILL PAUSE THERE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. YOUR ANSWER -- SORRY, WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING LOOK AT HOW CAN WE REDUCE THAT. WE STILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO FINANCIALS A PROJECT, CONSTRUCTION LENDERS REQUIRE A CERTAIN RATIO AND CAN WORK THROUGH THAT. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT IS EXACTLY IT. LENDERS REQUIRE A RATIO, IN WALKING DISTANCE TO DOWNTOWN AND A GROCERY STORE. THIS IS THE AREA WE ARE TALKING OF DEVELOPING WALKABILITY. UP APPRECIATE -- IT JUST HELPS ME TO KNOW ABOUT HOW MANY SPACES PER FLOOR TO HELP LOOK AT REALLY WHAT THE OVERALL MASS AND SCALING FOR THE BLOCK IS. >> IN ADDITION, CBD IS IMPORTANT, BUT WE ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL. OUR RESIDENTS MAY BE LIVING THERE AND YES, THEY CAN WORK WALK THERE. AND THROUGHOUT THE NORTHEAST AND URBAN AREAS, WE INCENTIVIZE OUR RESIDENTS TO TAKE A CREDIT TO NOT HAVE A CAR. AND SO SOMETHING THAT WE DO IN OUR OPERATIONS. YOU ASKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW WE HANDLE DELIVERIES. AND I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THAT. OUR -- OUR COMPANY HAS BEEN VERY, VERY ADAMANT ON -- NO ONE HATES MORE THAN I DO -- OR MORE THAN OUR COMPANY AN AMAZON TRUCK DRIVER PARKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND I DID LIVING PACKAGES BETWEEN 2 P.M. DURING RUSH HOUR. EVERY PROPERTY HERE IN THIS, WE USE A THIRD PARTY SERVICE THAT CONSOLIDATES THAT IS OFFSITE, ALL OF THE PACKAGES FROM OUR RESIDENT GETS DELIVERED TO A THIRD PARTY SITE AND YOUR RESIDENTS CAN DICTATE WHEN THOSE PACKAGES CAN BE DELIVERED IN A C CONCIERGE SERVICE. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWEDED TO COME IN BOX TRUCKS OR BIG TRUCKS. A PACKAGE THAT IS TOO BIG TO FIT IN A SEDAN OR SUV, THE RESIDENT HAS TO GO TO THAT FACILITY AND PICK IT UP AND ARRANGE DELIVERY BY A THIRD PARTY GROUP AT A FEE. THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THAT OUT OF THERE. SOMETHING I WANTED TO CREATE. WE HAVE BEEN LEADING THAT. OUR MOST RECENT PROJECT NOVEL BEACH PARK THAT OPENED. AND YOU KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT IT HAS THAT -- HAS THAT PROGRAM IN PLACE. STAND HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL. EVEN OUR GARDEN-STYLE COMMUNITIES ARE MORRIS MASSEY SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES ARE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION. SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL. >>LYNN HURTAK: MY ONLY QUESTION AND YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THE EXACT FIGURE. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND YOU CAN CENT ME, BALLPARK FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE IS ABOUT $30,000 A SPACE? >> ABOUT $30,000 TO $35,000 SPACE. >>LYNN HURTAK: GONE UP. NOT SURPRISING. >> CONSTRUCTION GONE UP. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT IS A REAL -- I AM LOOKING AT THAT THE -- THAT HAS TO BE A COST FOR YOU. ANYWAY, SOMETHING I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> AGAIN, IT IS THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE SITE, THE TIGHTENING OF THE SITE TO PROVIDE EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN CYCLED TO PROVIDE IS WHAT IS LIMITING THAT. YES, IF WE CAN BRING THAT DOWN TO A RATIO THAT HE IS AGREEABLE THAT WE CAN GET FINANCED, YEAH, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY FOR IT. I THINK YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE -- YOU JUST CAN'T SLASH ONE THING. ALMOST LIKE YOU GOT TO CHIP AT IT IN MANY DIRECTIONS. THAT IS HOW WE DO IT AND THE APPROACH WE HAVE TAKEN AT CRESCENT COMMUNITIES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCIL MEMBER CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: FOR THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE, M MR. GARDNER. YOU HAD A SLIDE UP ABOUT PRESENTING A DEVELOPER'S ENTITLEMENT ON THIS. YOU HAD A FIGURE OF -- OF YOUR ENTITLED TO DEVELOP 309,329 SQUARE FEET ON THE PROPERTY. CAN YO CAN YOU PUT THAT IN CONTEXT OF THE TOTAL ENTITLEMENTS. WHAT YOU CAN BUILD -- YOUR INTERPRETATION WHAT YOU CAN BUILD UNDER THE CURRENT PD? SPSH. >> SO WHAT -- WHAT HAPPENED. I THINK I AM ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION PLEASE TELL ME IF I AM NOT. REALLY THINK OF THIS AS CRESCENT -- THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT. FIRST DEVELOPMENT IS ONE BAYSHORE. THAT IS THE TOWER. SECOND DEVELOPMENT IS TWO BAYSHORE. THEN WHAT HAPPENED, CRESCENT HAD A POOL OF ENTITLEMENTSES THAT LEFT US LAST SITE. WHAT WE DID DURING THOSE TWO SUB CHANGES AS MISS WELLS MENTIONED AND THE WORD IS CORRECT, WE ALLOCATED THOSE UNUSED ENTITLEMENTS TO THIS SITE, SO LONG WAY OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. BUT WHAT CAN BE DONE BECAUSE THROUGH THOSE SUB CHANGES, TIED TO THAT PD IS 309P, 329. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THOSE SUB CHANGES TRANS OFFICERED ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR AN ENTITLEMENT OF 309,329. BUT WHAT CAN YOU BUILD IN THAT -- BECAUSE SHE ALSO -- POLICE WELLS GAVE US A TALK OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. CAN YOU FIT 309,329 FEET INTO A BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR. >> THE ANSWER TO THAT S NO. WITH THE 98 FEET, THE 309,000 WE ARE ENTITLED TO JUST DOESN'T FIT WITHIN 98 FEET. WE ALWAYS KNEW WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT HEIGHT. BUT WHAT WE DID IS THROUGH THE SUB CHANGE DETERMINATIONS WHICH YOU NOTE ARE, ONE, NOTICED AND TWO, APPEAL PERIODS GIVEN FOR EACH. NOT DONE WITH THE DARKNESS OF NIGHT. BOTH INSPECTED. B -- BOTH NOTICED. THREE TIMES AUTOMAKERS AND WE KNEW WE WOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH ADDITIONAL CANDY AND THE ONLY AVENUE TO DO THAT WITH A REZONING REQUEST. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NOW WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP AND A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE SPEAKER WAIVER FORMS. FIRST SPEAKER IS MICHAEL SHEA WHO HAS A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM WITH SEVEN PEOPLE. SIR, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GIVE THAT SPEAKER WAIVER FORM TO THE ATTORNEY. THE ATTORNEY WILL READ THE NAMES AND SEE IF THEY ARE HERE. THERE WE GO. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF YOU CAN -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HOLD ON, MR. SHELBY. WHAT HAPPENED? IS ANYBODY GOING TO BE SPEAKING THAT WAS NOT SWORN IN EARLIER THIS EVENING WHEN WE ALL STOOD UP AND WERE SWORN? I SAW PEOPLE LEAVE AND COME BACK, BUT IT WAS THE SAME PEOPLE. THIS IS THE FIRST BATCH. SO AFTER THIS GROUP, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS TO ALLOW THE NEXT GROUP THAT IS WAITING DOWNSTAIRS TO SPEAK BECAUSE WE HAVE ONLY SO MUCH ROOM IN HERE. MR. SHELBY, GO AHEAD. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE DO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE. AND, ALSO, THANK YOU MR. SHEA. I NOTICED YOU PUT NUMBER ONE IN THE BOX OVER THERE. WHEN YOU COME UP WITH YOUR NUMBER, PLEASE BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU PLACE YOUR NUMBER IN THAT BOX SO WE KEEP ALL OF THEM FOR NEXT TIME. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE. IS IT JOE HARNIN? I DID SAY THAT -- HANNAH? >> ELSE RIGHT THERE IN SECURITY CHECK. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HE NEEDS TO BE HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: ARE THROUGH HANNAH? THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] >>MARTIN SHELBY: DEAN HOWSER. >> YES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. THOMAS HUGHES. >> PRESENT, SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. NICK CASHON. >> PRESENT. >> CINDY IN,ONIAK. >> HERE. >> RYAN L OHNMAN. AND CAPITOLY DIBOLD. >> HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: TOTAL OF TEN MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: STATE YOUR NAME. >> MY NAME IS MICHAEL SHEA, I LIVE AT 6301 BAYSHORE, BOULEVARD, TAMPA, 33611. I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT CHARLIE MIRANDA IS ONE YEAR OLDER THAN ME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THAT MAKES YOU 30 YEARS OLD. HE IS 29. >> I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE HYDE PARK SPANISH TOWN CIVIC CREEK CIVIC ASSOCIATION. AND I THINK IT IS GERMANE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND MY BACKGROUND. I WAS BORN IN SOUTH TAMPA I ATTENDED PLANT HIGH SCHOOL. I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA. I STUDIED POLITICAL SCIENCE. I MAJORED IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THE MOST NOTABLE THING I DID IN LAW SCHOOL WAS TO HAVE H.L. MOFFITT AS MY ROOMMATE. HOWEVER, AFTER GRADUATING FROM USF, I HAD A JOB WITH AN OUTFIT CALLED THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. I WAS A CITY PLANNER HERE WHEN WE WERE STARTING CITY PLANNING. I PARTICIPATED IN WRITING THE PARKS AND RECREATION STUDY OF THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN. I WAS ALMOST FINISHED WITH IT WHEN I WAS ACCEPTED TO F SU LAW SCHOOL. I WENT IN TO TELL MARTIN SMITH I WAS RESIGNING. AND HE WOULD NOT LET ME RESIGN. HE SAID YOU HAVE TO FINISH THE PARK PARKS AND RECREATION STUDY. I WILL PAY YOU WHILE YOU GO TO LAW SCHOOL. SO I WENT OFF TO HALL HAS-- TALLAHASSEE AND I FINISHED THE ORIGINAL PARKS AND RECREATION STUDY FOR TAMPA. IT WAS SUBMITTED IN 1967 AND ADOPTED. FROM THERE I GRANL I WAN-- GARA WANTED WITH A JURIS DOCK FOR RANT FROM F SU AND MUCH TO MY SURPRISE A FULL SCHOLARSHIP FROM URBAN REGIONAL PLANNING TO STUDY PLANNING IN A POST DOCTORAL PROGRAM. I DID. WHEN GARAGE I WANTED WENT TO MILE SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, CITY PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND WRITE PLANNING AND ZONING DOCUMENTS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. I WROTE AND PARTICIPATED WITH THE APPLICANTS TEAM THAT WROETE IN KEY WEST AND 27 CITIES IN BETWEEN. I WORKED ON THE TAMPA CITY ORDER NA -- ORDINANCE AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. I REPRESENTED CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS FOR MANY YEARS. I DID A LIFE CHANGE AND BECAME A MARATHON LAWYER AND MANY YEARS I REPRESENTED SHIPYARDS AND SEAMEN AND PEOPLE LIKE THAT. BUT I LIKE TO USE MY TRAINING AS A PLANNER. SOME YEARS AGO, I SEMI RETIRED WENT TO WORK FOR ST. MICHAEL'S LEGAL CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. I'M HERE AS PART OF THAT OUTFIT NOW. WE FEEL WE SHOULD HELP COMMUNITIES AND CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS IN THIS PLAN PROCESS. I WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT WROTE THE ORIGINAL BALLAST POINT NEIGHBORHOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I AM IN THE PROCESS OF HELPING THE RIVER BEND CIVIC ASSOCIATION WHICH YOU DENIED A PETITION ON LAST MONTH. I AM ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, REPRESENTING HERE TONIGHT THE HYDE PARK GROUP. SO I AM A PERSON THAT BELIEVES IN, FIRST OF ALL, GOULD CITY PLANNING. I AM GOING TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I THINK ARE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS PETITION. NUMBER ONE, THE STAFF HALLS -- THE STAFF AND THE CITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE SOME MARY O'CONNOR CYST T-- INCONSISTENCIES. THERE ARE SOME STRANGE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS GOING ON HERE. NUMBER ONE, I THINK THERE HAS BEEN TOO MANY CONTINUANCES. I WILL GO THROUGH THAT. I ALSO THINK THAT THERE ARE -- THERE IS -- THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE. A THIRD PHASE -- SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THIS WAY, LEGALLY. THE OTHER THING IS, THERE IS A REAL CONCERN ABOUT UNIFIED CONTROL. YOUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT BE DEVELOPED IN THE SAME DEVELOPER. THE PETITIONER IS NOT -- WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER. THAT IS A LEGAL PROBLEM. AND THE CITY -- AND THE CITY STAFF CAN'T WAIVE THAT. THAT IS STILL TODAY A LEGAL PROBLEM. NEXT ONE IS TRANS OFFICER OF DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. I THINK THAT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE. I WILL THINK ABOUT IT. HERE YOU HAVE -- MR. GARDNER SAID WE ARE THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER AND TRANSFERRING THESE FROM BAYSHORE ONE AND BARBIE TWO. THEY DON'T OWN BARBIE ONE. THEY DON'T OWN BAYSHORE TWO. BAYSHORE ONE. BAYSHORE TWO. ALL THOSE RESIDENTS STILL OWN THOSE TRANS OFFICER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. I WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER THIS IS AN ORIGINAL NEW PETITION AND IN WHICH CASE, YOU CAN'T TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR AN AMENDMENT TO A UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH CASE YOU GOT TO KNOW WITH WHAT YOU HAD WHICH IS AN EIGHT-STORY, MUCH SMALLER BUILDING, SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS BUILT IN PHASE TWO. WE LOOK AT ALL THIS, WE FIND THAT THE BACKGROUND OF? P -- OF THIS PLAN STARTED AT IT WAS ORIGINALLY 11. I THINK THAT IS STILL WHAT WE -- WHAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD. THE STAFF REPORT AND THE COUNTY SAY THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY OF R-3. IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. INCONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL GUIDANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE MAJOR CHANGES LIKE THIS, AT THE CONCLUSION OF READING ONE, YOU GOT TO GO BACK AND DO READING ONE ALL OVER AGAIN. SO ALL THESE CHANGES WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE STAFF FOR A RE-READ. AND WE WILL HAVE TO DO THIS OVER AGAIN. I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRES. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT ALL OF THIS, WE FIND THAT IT IS A REAL STRANGE APPLICATION. I CAN REMEMBER WHEN WE MET -- WE MET MANY TIMES WITH THE DEVELOPER. I PROBABLY HAVE 30 OR 40 HOURS OF TIME WITH MEETING WITH THEM, BOTH WITH THE PEOPLE AT BAYSHORE ONE AND THE PEOPLE AT 345. AND HYDE PARK PEOPLE. MR. DECAMPS SENT US A MESSAGE AND AN E-MAIL SAYING FOLLOWING OUR MEETING -- THIS WAS ON JANUARY 17. FOLLOWING OUR MEETING, WE CONVENED WITH THE CITY OFFICIALS YESTERDAY WHO REQUESTED WE HOLD IN RESERVE OUR SITE PLANS SUBMIT BETWEEN THE SECOND -- THE FIRST AND SECOND READING. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. I THINK THAT THAT IS A PROCEDURAL MATTER THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD ASK THIS GENTLEMAN OVER HERE WHO IS AN ATTORNEY AND ASK HIM WHAT THE PROCEDURE HURDLES ARE AS FAR AS THIS IS CONCERNED. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT. AS FOR THE -- AS FOR THE CONDITIONS THAT THE -- THE BUILDING -- THE THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE. THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING. INGRESS, EGRESS. WIDENING THE ALLEY. THE CROSSWALK ON BAYSHORE. PACKING SPA-- PARKING SPACE. AND A NUMBER OF PERTINENT ORDINANCES THAT I WILL SKIP THAT WILL ADDRESS ALL OF THESE THINGS. SOME I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT AND WE LOOK AT THE UNIFIED OWNERSHIP, WE HAVE REAL PROBLEMS HERE. YOU CAN'T COME IN AND SAY I WANT THE TRANS OFFICER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND, OH, YEAH, HE WAS THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER. NO THEY WEREN'T. THEY HAVE A NAME THAT IS THE SAME, BUT THESE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH A CHANGE OF TITLE AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT. SO THEY CAN'T CLAIM THAT. PETITION WAS ORIGINALLY FILED AS LIBERTY BAYSHORE LIMITED LCC. THEN WAS AMENDED TO 3179 BAYSHORE AND MAY HAVE BEEN AMENDED AFTER THAT. I JUST DON'T KNOW. THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, I DON'T THINK THOSE EXIST. AND I KNOW THAT STAFF SAID THAT, BUT THEY ARE NOT LAWYERS. MY TRAINING AS A LAWYER -- I USED TO OWN A TITLE COMPANY. UP WOULD SAYS THERE NO SUCH THING AS TRANS OFFICER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AAPPLICABLE KA TO HAVE THIS POSITION AND I WILL UPHOLD MY REPUTATION ON THAT. IN CONCLUSION, I WILL SAY THIS PETITION SHOULD BE EITHER CALLED OUT OF ORDER FOR PROCEDURALS MATTERS OR TURNED DOWN ON THE SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS. I WANT TO CLOSE BY QUOTING A VERY FAMOUS LAWYER, MORGAN AND MORGAN, WHO SAYS, FOR THE PEOPLE. I'M MIKE SHEA, FOR THE PEOPLE. [ APPLAUSE ] [GAVEL SOUNDING] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. RICH MILLER IS OUR NEXT SPEAKER. HE ALSO HAS A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. FULL PLEASE GIVE IT TO THE TONE AND WE WILL READ OFF THE NAMES. AUTOMAKERS. RIGHT UP THERE IN THE WHITE BASKET. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. MILLER HAS SIX NAMES. NICOLE MILLER. >> HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AMANDA PEC, JOSEPH PEC. >> HERE. >> HERE. >> KELLAN CAN. >> HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: ANDY VOREK. THANK YOU. AND JOSE CUEVO McNAMARA. >> HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. SIX NAMES FOR A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU MUCH, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD EVENING TO COUNCIL RICH MILLER, 45 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. I AM NOT A LAWYER. I AM NOT A DOCTOR OR AN ACCOUNTANT BUT I HOLD A MASTER'S DEGREE IN BUSINESS AEDA ADMINISTRATION, A LICENSED REALTOR AND ARE HE IS DENTS IN THE GREAT CITY OF TAMPA. IT DOESN'T TAKE HIGHER EDUCATION REVIEW TO DO BASIC THIRD GRADE MATH. SPENDING COUNTLESS HOURS UNDERSTANDING THE INTRICACIES OF THIS PROPOSAL THROUGH COUNTLESS MEETING AND CITY STAFF, INJUSTICE THAT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT THIS DEVELOPER HORSE TRIED TO PUSH THROUGH WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND NO PLACE ON THE 319 BAYSHORE LOT. THERE ARE TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS THIS DEVELOPER FAILS TO SHOW THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR APPROVED UNITS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE NECESSARY TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE. PUT TOGETHERING THIS FACTUAL PRESENTATION AND SIMPLE AND EASY CLARITY TO A VERY MESSY APPROVAL PROCESS. CONSIDER MYSELF A PASSIONATE PERSON AND ANALYTICAL PERSON. I'M HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO YOU, COUNCIL, TO BEST UNDER STAND HOW THIS DEVELOPER TRIED TO WIGGLE THEIR WAY TO AN APPROVAL THEY HAVE THINK THEY DON'T NEED AND IN FACT IS COMPLETELY WRONG. IN THE NATURE OF THE LARGE NUMBERS AND EASE OF UNDERSTANDING. UP TOOK THE LIBERTY TO ROUND THE NUMBERS TO THE THOUSAND BASIS POINTS. 2011, APPROVED IT PD Z 10-34. ORDINANCE 2011-27 CREATEDED INTO LAW WHICH CONSISTED THREE PHASE. PHASE ONE WAS COMPLETED AND PHASE TWO WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN. ACCORDING TO THIS DATA TABLE, 753,000 SQUARE FEET APPROVED FOR ALL THREE PHASES .THIS IS THE APPROVAL. NOTHING MORE THAN 153,000 SQUARE FEET. YOU CAN NOT GO OVER 153,000 SQUARE FEET. KEY NUMBER ED IN STONE WITH THIS PD. REFERENCING BACK TO THE DATA TABLE, PHASE ONE, 1789,000 SQUARE FEET. PHASE TWO OF 482,000 SQUARE FEET. TOTAL $661,000 SQUARE FEET AND PHASE TWO THE BALANCE OF 92,000 SQUARE FEET. NO ONE CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT THAT THE DEVELOPER AND CITY STAFF WITH THE OVERALL APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHERE THINGS GET A LITTLE FUNKY. 2015, SUB 15-28, 448,000 SQUARE FEET CONSTRUCTEDED WITH 168,000 SQUARE FEET REMAINING. 2017, SUB 17-09 BETTER TO DEFINE WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. CONSTRUCTION OF 165,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING WITH MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 98 FEET WAS APPROVED. NOT 309,000 SQUARE FIGHT. NOT 237 UNITS OR 27 STORIES. YET WE HAVE CARRY ON. 2022, APPROVAL FOR SUB 22-14 STATED NO REQUESTED INCREASE OF CUMULATIVE PROJECT ENTITLEMENT FROM Z 10-34 AND ADDITIONAL 149,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PHASE THREE TO BE APPROVED. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE ALL THESE SUB CHANGES WERE DONE ADMINISTRATIVE AND NOT APPROVED BY COUNCIL LIKE Z 10-24. WHERE 149,000 FEET COME FROM? WHERE DID IT APPEAR OUT OF THIN AIR? HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED. >> PROVIDED GUIDANCE OF HOW THE MATH WORKED. WHEN ASKED THE CITY STAFF, I RECEIVED THE SAME CALCULATION. 661,000 SQUARE FEET PHASES ONE AND TWO TO 140,000 SQUARE FEET. DEVELOPER SAID THEY DIDN'T USE THE ENTITLEMENT ONLY PHASE ONE AND TWO. FAIR. AS A CITIZEN, I LOOKED WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER STATED WAS BUILT, THE SAME THAT DETERMINES HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOT AND TO BILL US FOR OUR TAXES. PHASE ONE WILL HAD BEEN 15 3,000 FEET. PHASE TWO 445,000 FOR A TOTAL OF 588,000. 168,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD REMAIN. DATA TABLE ON THEIR OWN SITE SUBMITTED KNEW RES 24-29. AND 442,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PHASE TWO, WHICH WOULD MEAN A BALANCE OF 1 2,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD REMAIN. SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. FOR PHASE ONE AND TWO, PROPOSED SITE PLAN FROM -- THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IN FROM Z 10-34 DATA TABLE STATES 661,000 SQUARE FEET. PROPERTY APPRAISER USED THE TAXABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE STATES 588,000 SQUARE FEET AND MASTER SITE PLAN, 620,000 SQUARE FEET AND YET THE CONCLUSION IS STATING ONLY 444,000 SQUARE FEET HAVE BEEN BUILT. HOW CAN THIS BE? WHEN I ASKED CITY STAFF, THE RESPONSE THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER ISN'T ALWAYS ACCURATE. OKAY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? THE RESPONSE IS THAT IT CAN BE OFF A COUPLE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OR A COUPLE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR LARGER PROJECTS. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HOW ARE WE OFF BY THE 144,000 SQUARE FEET? DESPITE TRYING TO FIND THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, THERE WAS NO AS TO WHY IT WOULD BE OFF THAT. IF YOU WERE DOING THE MATH WITH ME, LET'S RECAP Z 10-34 PD PHASE ONE AND TWO 661,000 SQUARE FEET. PROPERTY AMAZER 588,000 SQUARE FEET HAS BEEN BUILT. DEVELOPER STABLE SAYS 629,000 SQUARE FEET HAS BEEN BUILT AND DUE TO ONE LETTER WRITTEN BACK IN 2015 FROM 15-28, THE CITY BELIEVES THAT 444,000 SQUARE FEET HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THIS MEMBERS I COME TO ONE OF TWO CONCLUSIONS. ONE, THE OWNERS OF PHASE LZ ONE AND TWO HAVE BEEN GREATLY OVERTAXED OVER THE LAST YEAR BY A TOTAL OF 144,000 SQUARE FEET AND SHOULD BE EXPECTING A NICE RETURN COMING SOON. ON OR THERE WAS A GRAVE ERROR MADE BY THE CITY WHEN THE CITY CITED ONLY 444,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE ZONING DEPARTMENT IS REFUSING TO ADMIT. UNFORTUNATELY, CITY STAFF IS CONTINUING TO REFERENCE THIS MILLS STAKE WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE REFERENCING SUB 15-28. THE LETTER SITES THIS EQUATION OF 440,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE BASED ON 3.49 ACRES. HOWEVER, ALL THREE PHASES HAVE A TOTAL OF 5.7 ACRES, 3.9 ACRES FROM ONE BAYSHORE AND 178 ACRE. AND WITH 19 BAYSHORE PART OF THE SET IN PLACE CALCULATION CON PRECIPITATIONSING OF .79 ACRES. THE CALCULATION WAS INCORRECT AS THE TOTAL OF ROUGHLY FIVE ACRES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED, NOT 3.9. THE SOUTHERN PARCEL BUILDING IN PHASE TWO WAS COMPLETELY MISSED IN THIS EQUATION. WHICH FURTHER CONTRIBUTES TO THE STAFF ELSE INCONSISTENT FINDINGS. REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE HAS BEEN BUILT WITH THE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF CITED SOURCES COMING UP WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS. DUE TO THE TIMELINE OF THIS PROJECT, THE MULTIPLE SUBS AND APPROVALS AND DIFFERENT HANDS THESE DEEDS HAVE CHANGED SORT OF US ALL GOING OUT THERE WITH A TAPE MEASURE AND REMEASURING THIS THICK, WE HAVE TO USE LOGICAL AND MATHEMATICAL REASONING. NO WAY TO HAVE 309,000 SQUARE FEET LEFT FROM PHASE LZ ONE AND TWO. DEVELOPER HAS LESS THAN 166,000 SQUARE FEET ACCORDING TO PROPERTY AIL PRAISER. THE MATH DOESN'T MATH, AND THEY KNOW IT. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. NO CLAPPING. [GAVEL SOUNDING] PLEASE KEEP THE CLAPPING DOWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GEORGE METLER IS OUR NEXT SPEAK WE ARE A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. AND IF WOULD YOU BRING IT UP TO THE ATTORNEY, HE WILL READ THE NAMES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WHO IS AFTER THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MARY SEVILLE IS THE NEXT SNEAKER AFTER IN GENTLEMAN. THIS GENTLEMAN UP HERE. COME ON UP HERE, SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. DR. METLER, IF YOU CAN PUT YOUR NUMBER BACK IN THAT LITTLE BOX ON THE TOP OVER THERE. THANK YOU. DAVID BOLES. >> HERE? >> JOANNE BOLES. ELIZABETH WINEGRAD. THANK YOU. AND DANIEL WINEGRAD. FOUR SPEAKER FOR A TOTAL OF SEVEN MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: GOOD EVENING, SIR. STATE YOUR NAME. >> GEORGE MEDDLER, 345 BAYSHORE. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS. LIKE MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS, I CHERISH TAMPA AND WISH TO SEE IT DEVELOP RESPONSIBLY WHILE PRESERVING ITS HISTORIC HYDE PARK AND BAYSHORE HISTORY. HOWEVER, I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 319 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND THE PROPOSAL FROM THE OUT-OF-STATE DEVELOPER. THEIR PROPOSAL HAS MANY INCON PRECIPITATIONS TEN CEASE THAT AFFECT OUR CITY -- INCONSISTE INCONSISTENCIES THAT AFFECT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. AS RICH MILLER WITH THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT THE DEVELOPER MISRECOMMENDED THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET BY 162,000 AND IN BUILDING CALCULATIONS. RESEARCHING THE PUBLIC RECORDS, I FOUND THE DEVELOPER ADDED 160 ENTITLEMENT TOTS 309 THAT WE HAVE. THESE CALCULATIONS AGREED WITH RICH, THE BUILDING INCREASED 92%. THESE ENTITLEMENTLESS ARE UNUSED FROM PHASE ONE OR TWO. ARE THEY THE OOVPS RIGHTFUL OWNERS? AND THESE RIGHTFUL OWNERS REQUEST NOT TO RELINQUISH THEM. IF I CAN SPIT IT OUT. SECOND POINT I WANT TO MAKE FOR INCON PRECIPITATIONS TEN CEASE. DISREGARD FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS. SETTLEMENT 24-27, HURRICANE HELENE FLOODED BAYSHORE BOULEVARD CAUSING HISTORIC FLOODING AND DAMAGE, WHICH WE ARE STILL DEALING WITH TODAY. TWO WEEKS LATER, HURRICANE MILTON HIT TAMPA BAY. THE FOLLOWING DAY ON OCTOBER 12, SOMEONE DISPATCHED WORK WORKER ANTS 78 A.M. ON SATURDAY AND UNLAWFULLY BEGAN CUTTING DOWN THE PROTECTED GRAND TREE ON THE 319 PROPERTY. THEY REMOVED TWO LARGE BRANCHES BEFORE LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVENED AND ORDERED THEM TO STOP. THE FACT THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO EXECUTE THIS OPERATION IN SECRET WOULDN'T PERMITS OR COMMUNITY NOTICE IS DEEPLY TROUBLING AND UNDERSCORES THEIR PRIORITIES. WHOEVER DISPATCHED THESE WORKER AND CUT DOWN THIS TREE ABUSED ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND HAVE OBVIOUS DISREGARD FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS ANOTHER INCONSISTENCY THAT OCCURRED ON THIS SMALL LOT. THIS DEVELOPER'S TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SEEMS TO ME FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED DOES NOT REFLECT THE REALITY OF WHAT OUR COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES EVERY DAY. I DON'T NEED A TRAFFIC STUDY, BECAUSE I CAN LOOK OUTSIDE AND OBSERVE THE CONGESTION THAT TAMPA RESIDENTS ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH. I-275 IS GRID LOCKED AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY. DAVIS ISLAND ONE-WAY BRIDGE LOCATED AJAY ESSENTIAL TO 319 PROPERTIES EXPERIENCE BACK-UPS FOUR TO FIVE TIMES A DAY, A SITUATION THAT WILL ONLY WORSEN ONCE THE TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL EXPANSION IS COMPLETED. BAYSHORE BOULEVARD TRAFFIC GRINDS TO A STANDSTILL EVERY EVENING FROM 4:30 TO 7:30 AND MORE DELAYS WITH HOCKEY GAMES AND CONCERTS. A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE. MY DAUGHTER WHO RESIDES ONE AND A HALF MILES FROM WATER STREET RECENTLY TOOK AN UBER ON SATURDAY EVENING. WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SHORT RIDE TURNED TO AN AGONIZING ONE HOUR AND 20 MINUTE JOURNEY DUE TO GRIDLOCK. AND BOB WILL PRESENT LATER THE TRAFFIC PRESENTATION -- THAT THE TRAFFIC FAILED IN 2005 AND 2016 FOR EVEN SMALLER PROJECTS THAN THIS BUILDING. TAMPA IS EXPERIENCED RAPID UNCHECKED GROWTH WITHOUT CORRESPONDING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. WE CAN NOT CONTINUE TO APPROVE HIGH-RISES, APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS WHILE NEGLECTING TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ROAD EXPANSION EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACCESSIBILITY AND FLOOD MITIGATION. BAYSHORE IS AN UNIQUE AND I.T. CONIC BOULEVARD WHERE TAMPA FAMILIES CAN ENJOY RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITH FIREWORKS, PARADES, WINNING, BIKING AND WATERFRONCALLYTURE. BAYSHORE SHOULD REMAIN THE CROWNOVER ON A TAMPA BAY AND NOT A GRIDLOCKED PARKING LOT. UNCONTROLLED OVERDEVELOPMENT RISK TURNING BAYSHORE INTO ANOTHER MIAMI, A CITY PLAGUED BY TRAFFIC CONGESTION, FREQUENT FLOODING AND OVERBUILT SKYLINE. GIVEN THE DEVELOPMENTERS PATTERN OF INCON PRECIPITATIONS TEN CEASE AND FAILURE TO CONSIDER COMMUNITY IMPACT, THEY SHOULD BE DISWALL FILED WITH PARTICIPATING THIS THIS PROJECT WILL. WE ASK THE COUNCIL REJECT IT IN ITS CURRENT FORM AND THE LONG-TERM WELL BEING OF TAMPA RESIDENTS OVER THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF AN OUT-OF-TOWN DEVELOPER. WE THE RESIDENTS OF TAMPA ENTRUST YOU WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SAFEGUARD OUR CITY'S FUTURE. VOTE NO AND STAND WITH US PROTECTING THE HISTORIC BAYSHORE BOULEVARD'S BROUGHT, LIVABILITY AND LEGACY. WE ELECT THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ITS CONSTITUENTS. OUR TRUST LIES IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO KEEPING TAMPA SAFE, BEAUTIFUL AND PROSPEROUS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. THE CHOICE' YOU MAKE TODAY WILL DEFINE TAMPA'S FUTURE. PLEASE JOINS US IN PRESERVES INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER THAT MAKES OUR CITY TRULY SPECIAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. [ APPLAUSE ] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY SEVILLE. FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL POBAT AND CHRIS HOWSER. EACH PERSON HAS A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. MARY SEVILLE HAS A FEW NAMES. MR. SHELBY, PLEASE READ THOSE NAMES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. J.D. STEWART. >> HERE. >> SARAH MUSIL. >> HERE. >> TWO ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. STATEMENT YOUR NAME. >> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MARY SEVILLE. PROPERTY OWNER AN RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF TAMPA AT 345 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD THAT IS NEXT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 319 BAYSHORE. I LIVED IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA FOR 27 YEARS. I HAVE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN BUNK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND I WORK FULL TIME 40 YEARS, APPROXIMATELY HALF OF WHICH WAS A STAFF PERSON IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. FOR 13 YEARS, I WAS EMPLOYED BY YOUR NEIGHBOR, SARASOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN A VARIETY OF ROLES, BUT ALL OF THEM REQUIRED ME TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING, FIRST AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES. I AM SERIOUSLY TROUBLED BY THE LACK OF COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY AND DETAIL IN THE REZONED 23-99 DOCUMENTS, THE SITE PLAN IN PARTICULAR OPINION THIS ESPECIALLY CONCERNS ME BECAUSE THIS AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDES A PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR A FIRST READING. AND THESE INCOMPLETE DOCUMENTS WOULD BECOME PART OF THE ORDINANCE AS EXHIBIT B. IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE, IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE IN PRESENTEE MUCH IT'S FINAL FORM. UP MIGHT MAKE SOME MINOR CHANGES, SOME SPELLING CORRECTION, SOME PUNCTUATION. MAYBE REPLACE A WORE OF WORD OR TWO TO CLARIFY YOUR MEANING. BUT YOU DO NOT ADD IN ALL THE CRITICAL DATA NEEDED TO PROVIDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DOCUMENT. THE STAFF REPORTS FROM BOTH THE CITY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF BY MY COUNT RECOMMENDS 41 CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCUMENTS, SUGGESTING THAT THOSE 41 CHANGES CAN BE MADE AFTER THE FIRST READING, KIND OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE FIRST READING. IN MY OPINION. THE ACCIDENTS OF TAMPA DESERVE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST READING. SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO READ THEM. THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE FIRST READING EXERCISE. IN ADDITION TO MY CONCERN ABOUT THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS, I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT ADDING 237 MORE FAMILIES TO THE MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE FOR HURRICANES. EVACUATION ZONAL A. DURING MY EMPLOYMENT WITH SARASOTA COUNTY, ONE OF MY ROLES WAS FINANCE MANAGER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES WHICH INCLUDES EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. AS YOU KNOW, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 319 BAYSHORE IS IN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. ACCORDING TO THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVE 1.1, ON PAGE 245 OF THE ADOPTED PLAN, ARE, THE OBJECTIVE FUTURE POPULATION CONCENTRATIONS AWAY FROM THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. OPINION THE NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE AND LIMIT PUBLIC EXPENDITURES IN AREAS US IS SETTLEMENTABLE TO DELLS CONSTRUCTION BY NATURAL DISASTERS. ALSO IN YOUR PLAN AND THE OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL PLANNING AREA SECTION, IT STATES THAT OBJECTIVES ARE TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC EXPENDITURES DO NOT ENCOURAGE GROWTH IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. AND THIS PUBLIC DECISIONS WILL INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL HAZARDS IN EACH LAND USE AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. THESE 237 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA WILL TRIGGER A NECESSARY EVALUATION OF EVACUATION ROUTES, AS WELL AS AN ANALYSIS OF SHELTER SPACE CAPACITY. THIS MAY RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN BUDGETS TO MAINTAIN LEVELS OF SERVICE. IN FLORIDA, NOT A MATTER OF IF A STORM WILL HIT. A MATTER OF WHEN AND WHERE. SOMETHING THAT LOCAL LEADERS AND EMERGENCY MANNERS STRUGGLE WITH TO GET RESIDENTS OF AN EVACUATION ZONE TO LEAVE. I ALWAYS HAVE MY BAG PACKED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HURRICANE SEASON AND I ALWAYS EVACUATION I WANT WENT I AM ORDERED TO DO SO. I TAKE MY CIVIC OBLIGATIONS SERIOUSLY AND FOLLOW EVACUATION ORDERS, NOT ALL RESIDENTS IN EVACUATION ZONES DO. FOUND IT AN INTERESTING STATISTIC IN THE 2024 RESULTS OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION COME CONSUMER SURVEY, 27% OF FLORIDIANS SURVEYED STATED THEY WOULD NOT EVACUATE THEIR HOMES IN THE EVENT OF A HURRICANE EVEN WHEN TOLD TO EVACUATE. THAT 27% OF RESIDENTS TO CHOOSES TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES ARE PUTTING NOT KNOT ONLY THEM 70s AND THEIR FAMILIES AT RISK BUT ALSO THE FIRST RESPONDERS DISPATCHED TO HELP WHEN THOSE RESIDENTS FIND THEMSELVES IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE. SO YOU THINK THE AAA SURVEY RULES ARE CREDIBLE, THEN IN ADDITION -- THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MIC MICHAEL POBAT FOLLOWED BY CHRIS HOWSER AND PAT CIMINO. MR. POWANT HAS A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. PLEASE GIVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY -- HE ALSO HAS MODELS. >>MARTIN SHELBY: HANNAH MURRAY. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE. I SEE, THANK YOU. ONE ADDITIONAL MINUTE FOR FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: LET'S JUST WAIT A SECOND AS THEY SET UP THE TABLE HERE. OKAY, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. ANY NAME IS MICHAEL POBAT AND PRESIDENT OF THE HYDE PARK SPANISH TOWN CREEK CIVIC ASSOCIATION. BOARD ASKED TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL MECHANICS TO VOTE NO FOR RES 23-99 LOCATED AT 19 BAYSHORE AVENUE. AFTER GREETING THE 2040 AND 20 45 45 COMPREHENSIVE PANEL WILL AND ATTENDING NUMEROUS S CITY COUNCIL EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES, I CAME TO APPRECIATE THE NEED FOR SMART GROWTH AND THE DESIRE TO MAINTAIN A TAMPA CULTURE SUCH AS THE BRICK ROADS, OUR FABULOUS RIVERWALK AND BEAUTIFUL BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. THESE ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED IN LAND USE POLICY 9.1.2, WHICH STATES ENCOURAGED SENSITIVE DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING AND URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT MITIGATES THE SCALE OF LARGER BUILDINGS THROUGH CAREFUL USE OF BUILDING MASSINGS, SETBACKS, FACADE ARTICULATION, FEBRUARY OPERATION, ROOF PLAINS AND PEDESTRIAN ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. 20.1, CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE BAYSHORE BOULEVARD FROM BRREIN TOO ET TO GANDY BOULEVARD AS A REGIONAL ATTRACTOR AND MAJOR ASSETS TO CONTINUE TO PRESERVE AND EN HANDLES THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS ALONG BAYSHORE BOULEVARD IN A MANNER THAT WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE CITY RESIDENTS, REGIONAL NEIGHBORS AND NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL VISITORS WITH THE UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE IN THE CORE URBAN AREA. WHEN RESIDENTS FROM 345 BAYSHORE MET WITH THE CRESCENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPER ON 6th APRIL, 2024 TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED BUILDING, WE WERE TOLD BY THE DEVELOP THEIR THEY WOULD BE LEVERAGING -- DEVELOPER THAT THEY WILL BE LEVERAGING A CURRENT BUILDING FROM THEIR CURRENT DALLAS DEVELOPMENT. NOVEL AT TURTLE CREEK. AS A RELATIVE NEW COMER TO TAMPA, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT THE DEVELOPERS WOULD DESIGN BUILDINGS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CULTURE OF TAMPA AND THE BROUGHT OF BAYSHORE BOULEVARD INSTEAD OF TAKING THE EASY WAY OUT. A 27-STORY BUILDING ON BAYSHORE IS AGE INAPPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THAT THE NORTHERN SECTION OF BAYSHORE IS A GATEWAY TO DOWNTOWN. BE SUBSTANTIAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO DAVIS ISLANDS, A MAJOR CONCERN DURING HURRICANE EVACUATIONS FROM THE EVACUATION ZONE A AND TERRIBLE SHADOWING ON THE VERN STREET COMMUNITY. PLEASE NOTE, BOTH OF THESE SLIDES CAME FROM CRESCENT COMMUNITIES. MANY OF NEWS THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRIED TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER TO COME WITH A COMPROMISE SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE. WE MET FACE TO FACE OR BY ZOOM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE DEVELOPER WAS INNINGS TO COME TO A REASONABLE SOLUTION THAT WILL SATISFY THEIR NEEDS AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES. THESE TWO MODELS ARE BUILT TO SCALE. ONE INCH EQUALS TEN FEET. THIS IS 300 FEET. IT IS 30 FEET SHORT OF THREE INCHES BECAUSE I RAN OUT OF FOAM BOARD. THE SMALLER BOARD -- THE SMALLER BUILDING IS THE DESIGN THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2011. AND IT IS THE ONE THE LOCAL RESIDENTS ALONG BAYSHORE UNDERSTOOD WALLS BEING BUILT WHEN THEY PURCHASED THEIR HOMES AND COME DOES. THE LARGER BUILDING IS WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS CALLING A MINOR CHANGE TO THE DESIGN. I HOPE MY FINANCIAL PORTFOLIO HAS THAT MINOR CHANGE. BOTTOM LINE, I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT TO MIAMI TAMPA. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, PLEASE DO NOT DALLAS BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF YOUR TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU, CHRIS HOWSER, PAT CIMINO, DEBBIE ZAMERMAN AND JEN JENNIFER ZERITSKY. AFTER THAT A TEN-MINUTE RECESS. IF YOU GO DOWNSTAIRS AND WATCH THE MEETING BECAUSE WE NEED TO BRING MORE PEOPLE FOR THE NEXT SECTION OF PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH. PLEASE READ THE NAME, SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU PUT YOUR NUMBER THIS WILL THERE. >> I DID RIGHT THERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: JAIL SMITH AND JOHN MURRAY. >> HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU ARE BOTH HERE. TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: GO AHEAD, MA'AM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> ESTEEMED CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CHRIS HOWSER. LIVED AT 345 BAYSHORE FOR EIGHT YEARS. AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT FOR A CONSTRUCTION FIRM WITH OVER 55,000 EMPLOYEES, I HOLD A SENIOR HR PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION. AND MY EXPERIENCE IS PLACING THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT POSITIONS. WHEN A MISMATCH HAPPENS, IT CREATES COSTLY AND AVOIDABLE PROBLEMS. SOMETHING I LEARNED FIRST HAND. TONIGHT, YOU FACE A SIMILAR CHALLENGE ENSURING THE RIGHT PROJECT FITS THE RIGHT LOCATION. JUST AS I ASSESS THE RIGHT FIT FOR MY JOB, YOU MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT SITE FITS -- THE PROJECT FITS THE SITE. FOR MY 16th MACHINE FLOOR CONDO, I LOOK DOWN ON 319 BAYSHORE. IT IS SO SMALL THAT IT -- IT RESEMBLES A POSTAGE STAMP COMPARED TO THE OVER THREE ACRES OUR 20-STORY HIGH-RISE OCCUPIES. YET THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO FORCE A TOWERING 27-STORY BUILDING INTO THIS TINY THREE-QUARTER-ACRE SPACE. IT IS AN MILL-FITTING, OVERSIZED PROPOSAL THAT DEFIES LOGIC. DURING HURRICANE HELENE, HE WATCHEDED FROM MY CONDO AS FLOODWATERS SURGED FROM THE CHANNEL. COMPLETELY ENGULFING THE TINY LOT NEXT DOOR. FIVE FEET UNDER WATER. ALSO NOTABLE, EVEN HEAVY TAMPA RAINS HAVE LEFT A THIRD OF THAT HOSPITAL SUBMERGED. 345 BAYSHORE WAS BUILT ON A 14-FOOT KNOLL, YET OUR PARKING GARAGE STILL FLOODED TOTALING SEVERAL CARS. NOW THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO STACK A 27-STORY TOWER ON THIS FLOOD-PRONED SLIVER OF LAND. I ASK YOU TO PLEASE RECOGNIZE THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AS RECKLESS AND ILL-SUITED FOR THIS LOCATION. BEYOND FLOODING, I WANT TO STRESS THE CAREFUL DUE DILIGENCE I DID BEFORE PURCHASING MY CONDO IN THE SUMMER OF 2022. I RENTED FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE YEARS AT 345 BAYSHORE. THIS WOULD BECOME MY VERY FIRST HOME PURCHASE. I WAS SO EXCITED TO FINALLY HAVE SAVED ENOUGH MONEY FOR A DOWNPAYMENT TO BUY IN THE SAME BUILDING AS SOMEFUL MY FRIENDS, AS WELL AS MY PARENTS. I HAD ALREADY RENTED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING, FIRST OVERLOOKING THE BAY AND THEN THE CITY SIDE. AFTER -- I PURPOSEFULLY CHOSE A UNIT WITH A STUNNING VIEW OF DOWNTOWN TAMPA. CONFIDENT IT WOULD BE BUILT -- CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULD BE BUILT NEXT DOOR. AFTER ALL, THE LAND OWNER PUNIT SHAW PRESENTED AND ASSURED OUR COMMUNITY HE WOULD CONSTRUCT A BOUTIQUE TEN-STORY HOTEL WITH A ROOFTOP BAR, AN EXCITING REASONABLE ADDITION. NOW THAT PROMISE HAS BEEN ABANDONED FOR AN OUTSIZED 27-STORY TOWER. BUT I DIDN'T STOP THERE. WAITING TO BE A BABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, I TALKED TO OF A RESPECTED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY WITH 27 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT HAPPENED TO BE THE LANDLORD'S SISTER AND FORMER RESIDENT AT 345 BAYSHORE. KATHY HAD DONE HER OWN DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE PURCHASING REFERRING WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ZONING OFFICIALS THAT THE LOT NEXT DOOR WAS DES IG NATED FOR A EIGHT-STORY, LOW-DENSITY BUILDING CAPPED AT 98 FEET. CONFIDENT IN MY RESEARCH AND MY INVESTMENT, MY GOAL WAS TO SECURE A CONDO ABOVE TEN STORIES KNOWING EACH ADDITIONAL FOUR CAME AT A 10,000-PLUS PREMIUM. I CHOSE THE 16th FLOOR BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO PRESERVE MY BRAEPTTAKING VIEW OF -- BREATHTAKING VIEW OF DOWNTOWN TAMPA AND PROTECT WHEN I WORK FROM HOME. I COULD BE YOUR DAUGHTER. IF I ASKED FOR YOUR INSIGHTS BASED ON MY DUE DILIGENCE, WOULD YOU HAVE GUIDED ME IN THE CORRECT DECISION? I HOPE SO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PAT CIMINO, DEBAR ZAMMARMAN, JENNIFER ZURITKI. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YOU DON'T HAVE A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM? >> NO, I DON'T. YOU ARE STUCK WITH ME FOR ONLY THREE MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, SIR. >> MY NAME IS PATRICK CIMINO. LIVE IN HYDE PARK HYDE PARK. I WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH SPANISH TOWN CREEK WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THIS PROJECT IS IN. I WANT TO RECOMMEND -- I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE -- ABOUT THE WAIVER REQUEST FOR LOADING BAYS, WHICH IS NEAR AND DEAR TO ME LIVING IN HYDE PARK. I AM NOT HERE IS TO REMEDY THAT, BUT I'M HERE TO SAY TO TRY TO AVOID MISTAKES OF THE PAST. WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH TRUCKS BLOCKING OUR RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. IT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. AND THE POLICE AND FIRE REGULARLY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. AND TRUCKS PARK ON THE STREET CAUSE A LOT OF NUISANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW THAT THIS HAS SOME COMMERCIAL, IN IT IS FOOD SERVICE, MAGNIFY EVERYTHING HERE. WE ALREADY HEARD FROM ZONING ON THESE TWO CODES ABOUT THREE LOADING SPACES REQUIRED AND THE ABILITY TO MANEUVER ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. THESE TWO SPACES, WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN BEFORE, SHOW TWO LOADING BAYS. ONE IS 30 FEET DEEP. THE OTHER IS 35 FEET DEEP AND INCLUDES THE REFUSE MANAGEMENT. THEY SAY FOR LOCAL TRUCK DELIVERY, AND I AM NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THE AMAZON AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS EXACTLY, YOU LOOK AT A STRAIGHT TRUCK WHICH IS THE ONE ON THE TOP AND A THEY ARE STARTING AT 50 FEET. THESE ARE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF TRUCKS AND STREETS. I THINK THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS IN FRONT OF A SMALL FOOD SERVICE PLACE. THEY ARE DEFINITELY BLOCKING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS ONE I TOOK FROM GOOGLE MAPS ON HYDE PARK PLACE I BELIEVE BEHIND ONE BAYSHORE. HOW IS THE FIRE ENGINE SUPPOSED TO GET BEHIND THERE IN AN EMERGENCY? THIS IS A TRACTOR TRAILER PARKED ON SWANN WHICH IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN THREE LANES WIDE. AGAIN, HOW IS THIS MANAGING THE DELIVERIES? I WILL SAY WE HAVE SOME GOOD EXAMPLES, EXCELLENT PRACTICES. THIS IS BURNS AND EPICUREAN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT HERE WHERE THE TREE IS, THERE IS AN INGRESS/EGRESS FOR TRUCKS THAT WILL EVEN ACCOMMODATE A SEMI WHICH WILL ENTER, PARK, DELIVER, TURN AROUND AND COME OUT. THAT'S WHAT THE SECOND CODE MEANS. SO IT DOESN'T TAKE PLACE ON THE STREET. I WOULD RECOMMEND DENYING ANY KIND OF LOADING BAY WAIVERS OR YOU'LL SUBJECT THE COMMUNITY TO A LOT OF HARDSHIP AND NUISANCE AND PUBLIC SAFETY DANGER. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. DEBBIE ZOMERMAAND FOLLOWED BY JENNIFER ZARISKI AND THEN WE'LL TAKE THE RECESS. YES MA'AM. YOU HAVE A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. >>MARTIN SHELBY: [INAUDIBLE] MEDDLER. >> HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MICHELLE SABAN. TOTAL OF TEN MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> I'M DEBBIE ZOMERMAAND. 192 CORSICA. I HAVE BEEN SWORN. THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, I'M A REGISTERED MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND PRINCIPAL. I SERVE IN THE AREA OF HOUSING. I WORK FOR A LARGE COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY AND BEEN THERE OVER 21 YEARS. FOR OVER 12 YEARS, CAROL WILSON WITH THE WILSON COMPANIES AND THE WILSON COMPANIES WERE MY CLIENT HERE IN TAMPA. I COULD GO ON AND ON BUT THAT COVERS THE LAST QUARTER CENTURY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF THE SCOPE OF THE DEALS I DO, I JUST PULLED SOME QUICK NUMBERS BEFORE I CAME HERE TODAY. I WORK WITH BOND PROGRAMS. SO IN 2023, WE ISSUED BONDS THAT FUNDED 890 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. PROBABLY THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS WERE AROUND 375 MILLION. IN 2024, WE BUILT -- OR WE ISSUED BONDS FOR 580 UNITS OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS WERE PROBABLY 245 MILLION. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE WHAT I DO WITH REGARD TO WE HAVE SUBORDINATE LOAN PROGRAMS, LINE OF CREDIT FOR BUILDING SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL HOMES, THINGS LIKE THAT. I WORK IN THIS AREA ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. THAT'S MY DAY JOB. SO YOU'VE HEARD ME UP HERE BEFORE SAYING THAT PDs ARE A WORK AROUND OF THE CODE. YOU HEARD THAT A MILLION TIMES FROM ME. I'M HERE TO SAY I STILL BELIEVE PDs ARE A WORK AROUND THE CODE. WHAT OPENED MY EYES WITH THIS ONE IS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPLICATIONS ARE AN ADMINISTRATIVE WORK AROUND OF THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE WHEN YOU DO A PD. WHAT I'VE DONE IS WALK YOU THROUGH KIND OF WHAT I FIND IS A LITTLE BIT ALARMING WITH THIS PROCESS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST GROUPING OF PAPERWORK, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL HERE, BUT I ALWAYS THINK A BIG SITE PLAN HELPS ME LOOK AT THINGS. SO I'VE GOT A SITE PLAN OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. THE SECOND ONE IS WHAT WAS APPROVED FROM THE PD REZONING OF 1709. AND THEN I BLEW UP THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN FOR THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT. AND THEN ALSO, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PART HERE, I KIND OF TAB THE ELEVATIONS BUT I'VE GOT THE SITE PLAN AND THE CORRESPONDING ELEVATIONS THAT TIE BACK TO THESE SITE PLANS. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH REGARDS TO THIS REQUEST. SO IF WE GO INTO THE NEXT TAB, WHICH IS THE ENLARGED DATA TABLE, CERTIFIED SITE PLAN BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND ELEVATIONS INCLUDES TYPICAL FLOOR PLANS WITH USE AND SQUARE FOOT PER FLOOR, YOU WILL SEE A DATA TABLE IN THERE. I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE DONE A SECOND ONE SO THE PUBLIC CAN KIND OF SEE. IT LOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL DATA TABLE FOR THE PD, PLAN Z 1034, THERE WERE 11 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN PHASE THREE. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WAS CLEARLY SPECIFIED AS 8 STORIES. YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT IT SAYS SEE BUILDING ELEVATIONS ATTACHED. AND THEN DOWN HERE BELOW YOU'LL SEE TWO MORE REFERENCES TO 11 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. I DID READ THE TRANSCRIPTS ON THAT HEARING. IT WAS A HIGHLY DISCUSSED MATTER. AND THIS WAS -- THE PUBLIC INPUT WAS SIGNIFICANT WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE. SO THEN I WANT TO TAKE YOU TO THE NEXT PAGE OF THIS PACKET. YOU CAN SEE THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN WHICH AGAIN SAYS EIGHT STORIES AND 11 RESIDENTIAL UNITS HAD A COURTYARD THAT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS FOOTPRINT RIGHT HERE. COURTYARD IS ALSO IN THE TRANSCRIPTS. I FOUND THAT AS WELL. I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THEM WITH ME. MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT. YOU CAN SEE ALL THIS AREA AROUND HERE. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, YOU ACTUALLY DID QUESTION THE GREENSPACE QUITE A BIT ON THIS APPLICATION. SO I COULD TELL YOU ARE REMEMBERING VERY VIVIDLY WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS. THE GREENSPACE WAS DISCUSSED AND THIS COURTYARD WAS DISCUSSED AND THE FOOTPRINT WAS DISCUSSED. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, IT KIND OF GIVES YOU A LOT OF INFORMATION WITH REGARDS TO THE MATH. AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS AGAIN IT IS AN EIGHT-STORY BUILDING. YOU'VE GOT SIX STORIES THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TWO FLOORS OF PARKING WHICH RESULTS INTO ABOUT 138,000 SQUARE FEET. ALL THE MATH IS KIND OF TYING BACK TO THAT 753 NUMBER, 753,000 NUMBER THAT YOU SEE OVER HERE THAT WAS ON THE FRONT PAGE. IT GETS CALCULATED, 753,198 SQUARE FEET. IN THE FIRST PLAN, IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT THESE THREE PHASES WOULD HAVE A THIRD PHASE AND THAT WAS THE LESS INTENSE PHASE WITHIN THIS SITE PLAN. WHAT I ALSO DID HERE, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE SITE DATA TABLE, THIS IS PRETTY CONCERNING TO ME. THIS IS WHAT IT ORIGINALLY LOOKED LIKE. AND THEN, SORRY, I WASN'T A TEACHER AND I DON'T MAKE VERY GOOD HANDOUTS, WHAT I DID FOR YOU IS I TRIED TO GO BACK IN SO YOU COULD SEE THE FIRST SITE PLAN -- OR DATA TABLE, THE SITE DATA TABLE CHANGED TO THIS SITE DATA TABLE OVER HERE WHICH WAS THE 1709 REZONING. SO HOW STAFF WAS ABLE TO TAKE OFF AND CHANGE DATA INFORMATION AND YOU GO FROM 11 UNITS TO 113 IS A VERY BIG QUESTION. ALSO, IF YOU COME OVER HERE, HERE IS THE DATA TABLE THAT I HAD TAKEN AND KIND OF FIT IT ON THE SHEET FROM THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SENT TO ACCELA FOR THIS TRANSACTION, FOR THIS PROPOSAL. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE THAT TO SEE ADMINISTRATIVELY HOW MUCH THIS DEVELOPMENT CHANGED. SO I PROVIDED THAT FOR YOU. NOW, A BIG PART OF A SITE PLAN, AND REMEMBER, MY CAREER HAS A LOT TO DO WITH DEVELOPMENT AND I'VE WORKED WITH DEVELOPERS AND THAT'S BEEN MY CAREER -- I'VE BEEN IN REAL ESTATE SINCE THE MID '80s. GENERAL NOTES ON THE SITE PLANS ARE THERE FOR A REASON. AND THEY SPECIFY CONDITIONS THAT ARE VERY SPECIFIC. AND IF YOU LOOKED ON PAGE 2 OF THESE GENERAL NOTES, YOU WILL SEE, AND THIS IS FROM THE ORIGINAL ZONING, THE FINAL BUILDING FOOTPRINTS WILL BE DETERMINED DURING FINAL DESIGN PHASE AND SHALL BE CONFIGURED WITHIN THE PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPES. WELL, I JUST SHOWED YOU THE ENVELOPE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, AND IT HAD THAT COURTYARD IN IT, RIGHT? IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT YOU HAD TO BUILD WITHIN THIS ENVELOPE. THAT WAS ON THE SITE PLANS. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THIS BUILDING ENVELOPE CHANGED FROM KIND OF, LET'S SAY, I DON'T KNOW, C KIND OF OR A U, IT BECAME A BIG RECTANGLE. IN CONFLICT, SOMEHOW VIA STAFF THEY CHANGED THAT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS A VERY IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT TIED BACK TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND THEN WHEN YOU GO IN AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT WAS WRITTEN HERE, I WANT TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE THAT IN THE FOOTNOTES IT SAYS FINAL BUILDING FOOTPRINTS WILL BE DETERMINED DURING THE FINAL PHASE AND SHALL BE CONFIGURED WITHIN THE PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPES. WELL, SHALL, WITH REGARDS TO YOUR CODE IS MANDATORY AND I PUT THE CODE REFERENCE HERE. I PULLED IT FROM THE CODE AT THE TIME THIS DECISION WAS MADE. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE SITE PLAN NOTES CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN TO THE 1709 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, AND THEN NOW, YOU STILL GET THE SAME WORDING IN THE REZONING 2399 -- EXCUSE ME, IT WAS THE SAME IN 1709 BUT NOW IN 2399 IT SAYS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND MAY BE MODIFIED SO LONG AS IT COMPLIES WITH THE SETBACKS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE SITE DATA TABLE. WHEN THIS PD WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED, THAT FOOTPRINT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT. NOW IT'S ALL OUT THE WINDOW. IT'S MUCH MORE INTENSIVE. IT IS A BIG RECTANGLE. THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THE PD AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. AT EVERY MEETING, WE HEAR THAT THE PD SITE PLAN CONTROLS. WELL, IT'S NOT CONTROLLING ANYMORE. THROUGH THESE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, IT'S BASICALLY BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. SO THERE WILL BE SOME REFERENCES TO REVISIONS. I PUT IN THIS -- OH, WOW. OKAY. THAT WAS TEN MINUTES? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NINE AND A HALF. >> OH, OKAY. I PUT IN CONFLICT PROVISIONS. I'VE GOT TO DOT PROJECT DO THE T NARRATIVE. THE WARRANTY DEED. SORRY. JUST SO MUCH IN HERE. WITH REGARDS TO THE MATH, THE WARRANTY DEED BETWEEN CITADEL DEVELOPMENT AND BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, IT SAYS 11 RESIDENTIAL UNITS -- WELL, IT'S REFERENCED HERE AND THEN 160,000 SQUARE FEET AND -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. THANK YOU. OUR FINAL SPEAKER FOR THIS SURROUND JENNIFER ZARITSKY WHO HAS A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. AFTER THIS SPEAKER, WE'LL TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS. WE HAVE ABOUT 30 SOME ODD PEOPLE DOWN STAIRS THAT WANT TO COME UP. IF YOU HAVE SPOKEN, IF YOU GO DOWN STAIRS TO THE FIRST FLOOR, WE HAVE THE TVs ON. YOU CAN WATCH THE MEETING JUST THE SAME. >>MARTIN SHELBY: BOBBIE O'BRIEN. DON ROBERTS. JAN LOWRY. THREE NAMES. SIX MINUTES, PLEASE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> MY NAME IS JENNIFER ZARITSKY. ATTORNEY, INVESTOR AND WORK AT A SMALL REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE. TAMPA NATIVE, BORN AND RAISED HERE. ATTENDED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT ACADEMY OF HOLY NAMES. HIGH SCHOOL AND MIDDLE BERKELEY. I LIVE IN A CONDO OVERLOOKING THE SUBJECT LOT. SINCE I MOVED BACK TO TAMPA AFTER LAW SCHOOL AND PURCHASED MY HOME OVER 12 YEARS AGO, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE WHERE I LIVE AND TRULY NO PLACE I'D RATHER BE. I'M HERE TO VOICE MY OBJECTIONS TO THE LIBERTY GROUP'S RECENT PROPOSAL TO REZONE THE FINAL PHASE OF A MULTIPHASE PROJECT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 26 OR 25 STORY LUXURY HIGH-RISE APARTMENT WITH A SIX-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 319 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF'S RECENT FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I ALSO AGREE WITH THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSED PD IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY ANTICIPATED UNDER THE R 83 DESIGNATION IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL POLICY GUIDANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AS SUCH I WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM ITS CURRENT PD TO A DIFFERENT PD, RES 23-99. PROPOSED BUILDING DOES NOT BELONG ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. ACCORDING TO 9.22, THE IMPACTS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON THE EXISTING PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL FRAMEWORK AND CHARACTER OF THE AFFECTED AREA SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND DISCUSSED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. THE BUILDING CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED IS AN ABSOLUTE EYESORE COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS BAYSHORE BOULEVARD ITSELF. MULTIPLE CITY STAFF DEPARTMENTS HAVE FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED LOCAL CODES AND STANDARDS. I REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THEM BASED ON THREE STAFF FINDINGS BEING INCONSISTENT. HERE ARE SOME QUOTES FROM THE STAFF REPORTS THEMSELVES. FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION STAFF. THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN WILL NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE FOR STAFF'S INCONSISTENT FINDINGS. PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. THE CURRENT PD HAD PHASE 3 AT 11 UNITS AND MAXIMUM OF EIGHT STORIES OR 98 FEET. PROPOSED HEIGHT IS OUT OF CHARACTER AND EXCEEDS THE SCALE AND MASSING WHICH EXISTS IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. SCALE AND HEIGHT EXCEEDS CURRENT BUILT DEPARTMENT. FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THREE LOADING SPACES. ONLY TWO ARE BEING PROVIDED. TRANSPORTATION ALSO FOUND IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LOADING SPACE TO BE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND TO BE ACCESSED IN ONE CONTINUOUS MOVER. PLAN DOES NOT DO THAT. FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PHASE THREE WAS 11 UNITS AND 8 STORIES. HEIGHT PROVIDED A SENSITIVE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE LOWER RESIDENTIAL TO THE SITE'S EAST AND HIGHER USES TO THE NORTH. DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY IN THE COMP PLAN DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS AND IT REFERS TO THE SENSITIVITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND IS NOT MITIGATING THE IMPACTS THROUGH EFFECTIVE MASSING AND SCALE. IT IS ALSO OUT OF SCALE WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF PHASE THREE WHICH SOUGHT TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION IN DENSITY ON THIS PARCEL WHICH WAS THE FURTHER FOREST DOWNTOWN TAMPA AND HIGHER INTENSITY LOSES. THE COMP PLAN SEEKS TO BALANCE HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY WITH THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. PROPOSAL OF 25 STORIES WOULD STILL BE OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. BUILDING PARKING DIRECTLY ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. THE PROPOSED LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEX INCLUDES A SIX STORY GARAGE LOCATED DIRECTLY ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. DIRECTLY ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. IT'S GOING TO BE ILLUMINATED 24 HOURS A DAY AND ALLOWING A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET LET ALONE BEING BUILT ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD IS GOING TO BE A HUGE MISTAKE. ACCORDING TO LAND USE POLICY 15.3.1 DEVELOPERS ARE SUPPOSED TO DESIGN PARKING STRUCTURES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO RESEMBLE ADJACENT BUILDINGS PARTICULARLY AT PEDESTRIAN LEVELS. THE CURRENT PARKING STRUCTURE SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATES FROM LOCAL DESIGN STANDARDS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO DEVELOPER HAS EVER BEEN ALLOWED TO BUILD A PARKING STORY MORE THAN TWO STORIES HIGH IN A LOCATION THAT DIRECTLY FRONTS BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. MANY HAVE PROPOSED IN THE PAST BUT NONE MANAGED TO SECURE APPROVAL FOR SUCH A STRUCTURE AS FAR AS I'M AWARE. THUS ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE AN OFFICIAL ROLE THAT THEY CAN'T BE LOCATED DIRECTLY ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD FRONTAGE, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED DESIGN STANDARD THAT ANYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE SIMPLY BY DRIVING FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER. EVEN THE NEW HIGH-RISES UNDER CONSTRUCTION TOOK CARE TO PLACE PARKING GARAGES AS FAR OUT OF SIGHT AS THEY COULD MANAGE. I HOPE THE CITY REALIZES THAT THE PARKING STRUCTURE CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED IS A FAR WORSE EYESORE THAN THE PARKING GARAGE THEY ALREADY BUILT DURING PHASE TWO BECAUSE UNLIKE THE PHASE TWO GARAGE WHICH WAS ONLY ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS GOING TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM ALL FOUR SIDES. IT'S GOING TO BE ILLUMINATED 24 HOURS A DAY AND PEOPLE HAVE LIGHTS STREAMING ON TO THEIR PROPERTY. DON'T ALLOW THIS TO FIND A HOME ON OUR QUAINT RESIDENTIAL STREET. IN ADDITION TO MY CONCERNS OF THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX, MUCH OF THE DOCUMENTATION PUT FORTH TO SUPPORT THE BUILDER'S -- NUMBER OF STANDARDS. A LOT OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MISSING CRITICAL FACTUAL DETAILS. CITY STAFF NOTED THE EXISTENCE OF MORE THAN 40 DIFFERENT ITEMS ON THE SITE PLAN. FURTHERMORE, SOME OF THE INFORMATION ALSO APPEARS IN CONFLICT. UNIT BREAKDOWNS OF WHAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN PRIOR PHASES DEPENDS TO VARY DEPENDING ON WHICH ITERATION YOU LOOK AT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL BREAK FOR A TEN-MINUTE RECESS. WE NEED ABOUT 30 SOME ODD SEATS. IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE SECOND FLOOR, WE HAVE THE TV SCREENS AND EVERYTHING DOWN THERE AND THOSE THAT BROUGHT THE MODELS, PLEASE TAKE THEM WITH YOU AND PUT THE TABLE BACK. WE ARE IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. [ SOUNDING GAVEL ] [RECESS] >> CARLSON? HURTAK? CLENDENIN? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: HERE. >>GWEN HENDERSON: PRESENT. >> VIERA? MIRANDA? >> HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>THE CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH THE GENTLEMAN AT THE LECTERN, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SPEAKING THIS EVENING AND HAVE NOT BEEN SWORN IN -- WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW FACES -- PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAPPENED AND WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN. IF YOU ARE SPEAKING THIS EVENING, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. [OATH ADMINISTERED] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ROBERT LEENETTIE. CARROLL ANN BENNETT, STEPHANIE POYNOR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: SEVEN NAMES. [INAUDIBLE] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. GO AHEAD. >> SURE. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. ROBERT LEONETTI. RESIDENT OF 345 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. JUST FOR MY CV, 45 YEARS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE, MASTER'S DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING FROM MANHATTAN COLLEGE, FORMERLY A TRAFFIC ENGINEER WITH THE CITY OF YONKERS IN NEW YORK, AND I PROVIDED WITNESS TESTIMONY IN ZONING BOARDS OVER 500 CASES IN MY HUMBLE CAREER. SO LET'S GET STARTED. PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT WERE DENIED BY FORMER CITY COUNCILS DUE TO THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON TRAFFIC. SINCE 2016, MOST RECENT CASE, TAMPA'S POPULATION AND TRAFFIC HAS ONLY INCREASED AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NEARLY DOUBLE THE ALLOWED DENSITY FOR THIS THREE-QUARTER ACRE SITE. SO LET'S GET INTO THE TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION FOR THIS PROJECT. WE GENERALLY DON'T DISAGREE WITH EITHER THE METHODOLOGY FROM EITHER THE TRIP GENERATION OR DISTRIBUTION PRACTICES, ALL WITHIN INDUSTRY STANDARDS. IN GENERAL, WE FIND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE FOLLOWED THAT WE OFFERED TO JONATHAN SCOTT AND STAFF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT BEFORE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WAS ACTUALLY PREPARED. BUT WE DID FIND SOME INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE COMPUTER DOCUMENTATION AND THE ASSIGNMENTS OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS TO THE STREET NETWORK THAT SHOW UP AS INACCURATE CAPACITY ANALYSES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. SO IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DIAGRAMS THAT I HAVE PROVIDED, AND IF YOU LOOKED AT THE FIGURES IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WERE ACTUALLY SOME TRIPS LOST ON THE NETWORK. IF YOU ARE COMING OFF OF THE DAVIS BRIDGE, DAVIS ISLAND BRIDGE AS YOU'RE COMING INTO VERN STREET TO MAKE THAT RIGHT TURN, THERE WERE 444 VEHICLES PROPOSED TO MAKE THAT RIGHT TURN THAT AS THE TRAFFIC REPORT INDICATES, ONLY 402 TRIPS WERE ACTUALLY COUNTED FOR THE FOLLOWING INTERSECTION. WITHIN THAT 200-FOOT PERIOD OR DISTANCE, ALMOST 40 SOME ODD TRIPS WERE LOST. THESE ARE THE TYPES OF INACCURACIES THAT A PERSON LIKE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER LOOKING AT A REPORT WOULD SAY, YOU'RE STARTING TO LOSE SOME CREDIBILITY IN TERMS OF HOW THESE ASSIGNMENTS WERE MADE TO THE NETWORK. SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES ARE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION WAS TAKEN OUT TO THE BUILD YEAR OF 2028. WE LOOKED AT THE INTERSECTION ANALYSES FOR EACH OF THE KEY INTERSECTIONS, BUT MOST NOTABLY THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS PERFORMED WERE FOR ONLY FOUR KEY INTERSECTIONS. SEVERAL INTERSECTIONS REQUIRE MITIGATIONS TO ACHIEVE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE. AND JUST FOR THE COUNCIL'S EDIFICATION, LEVEL OF SERVICE A GOOD. LEVEL OF SERVICE F, NOT SO GOOD, FAILS. JUST LIKE A STUDENT'S REPORT CARD. SO WE TOOK A LOOK AND BASED ON INDUSTRY RECOGNIZED PRACTICES, WE SEE THAT SEVERAL OF THE INTERSECTIONS ARE ACTUALLY FAILING AND THEN SOME MITIGATIONS OFFERED TO CORRECT THOSE DEFICIENCIES. HOWEVER, IT'S USUALLY A GOOD PRACTICE FOR WHEN YOU'RE DOING AN IMPACT ANALYSIS NOT TO JUST LOOK AT THE 2028 BUILD YEAR FOR THIS PROJECT. MOST PROGRESSIVE CITIES LOOK AT A 10-YEAR WINDOW OR A 20-YEAR WINDOW BEYOND THE BUILD YEAR BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THE TRAFFIC JUST TO WORK THE DAY THE BUILDING OPENS. YOU WANT TO BE SURE IT HAS AMPLE CAPACITY FOR FUTURE YEARS. THEN WE LOOKED AT THE INTERSECTIONS THAT THE DEVELOPER AND THE CONSULTANT REVIEWED. PLANT AVENUE AND PLATT, SELECT MOVEMENTS FAIL AND EXCEED THE TRAFFIC VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO OF ONE. SO THE GLASS CAN'T BE MORE THAN FULL. IN AN ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE LEVEL OF SERVICE, THE CONSULTANT RECOMMENDED CONVERTING AN EXISTING NORTHBOUND RIGHT-TURN LANE ON PLATT THAT RIGHT NOW YOU MAKE THAT RIGHT TURN, THERE IS A BICYCLE LANE THERE AND THEN THE TWO THRU TRAFFIC LANES AS YOU GO TOWARD THE LEE ROY SELMON. IT'S A MITIGATION MEASURE, OBVIOUSLY, WHAT THEY ARE FAILING TO REALIZE IS THERE IS A TRAFFIC ISLAND. AS YOU CAN SEE, I'M ON I THINK PAGE 2. THERE IS A RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND THERE, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE ITS REMOVAL WITH THE STREETLIGHT POLE THAT'S ALSO ON THAT ISLAND. IT CREATES MORE OF A SAFETY ISSUE FOR THE BICYCLE LANE AND PEDESTRIANS IF THAT'S A THRU MOVEMENT. AS YOU GO DOWN NORTH PAST THE INTERSECTION, THAT CONTINUES INTO ANOTHER RIGHT-TURN LANE TO GO ONTO THE SELMON AND A WEAVING SECTION BETWEEN BICYCLISTS, OTHER CARS GOING NORTH TOWARDS KENNEDY BOULEVARD, SO WE SEE THAT AS A MITIGATION THAT REALLY DOESN'T REALLY FIT IN TERMS OF THE CAPACITY ACHIEVEMENTS AS WELL AS THE ISSUES OR THE DECREASE IN SAFETY TO PEDESTRIANS AND TO MOTORISTS. MOVING ON DOWN TO PAGE 3, ALSO, THERE WERE SOME MITIGATIONS AT BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND PLATT STREET. WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC, LEVEL OF SERVICE B AND C CAN BE ACHIEVED DURING THE PEAK HOURS, BUT MODIFICATIONS TO THE SIGNAL TIMING IS A PROPOSED SOLUTION WHICH IS A SHORT-TERM SOLUTION FOR A LONG-TERM PROBLEM. SO THE MITIGATIONS THAT ARE OFFERED THERE, ALTHOUGH THEY WILL WORK, ARE NOT GOING TO BE VERY EFFECTIVE IN YORES TO COME. AT THE INTERSECTION OF BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND VERN STREET, THERE IS THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. THIS CURRENTLY IS UNSIGNALIZED FOR THRU TRAFFIC NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND AND IS CONTROLLED BY A CENTER RAISED MEDIAN ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. YOU HAVE DEDICATED BIKE LANES ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND RIGHT TURNS ARE ONLY ALLOWED FROM VERN STREET. VERN STREET EASTBOUND RIGHT ONTO BAYSHORE BOULEVARD RIGHT NOW IS CALCULATED TO OPERATE AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE F BECAUSE OF THE SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD, YOU'VE GOT THAT HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME COMING OFF OF DAVIS ISLAND BRIDGE ONTO VERN. SO THAT TRAFFIC BACKS UP DURING THE KEY PEAK HOURS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AFTERNOON. TO MITIGATE THIS CONDITION, A TRAFFIC SIGNAL IS PROPOSED TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION'S OPERATING CAPACITY FROM A LEVEL OF SERVICE TO C AND D DURING THE A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOURS. HOWEVER, THE TRAFFIC STUDY -- LET ME GET TO THE NEXT PAGE FOR YOU -- IS SILENT ON THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF IMPLEMENTING THIS TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURE. I'LL GO INTO A COUPLE OF THOSE POINTS. THE MOST UNFORESEEN NOT MENTIONED IN THE STUDY IS THE IMPACT OF REDISTRIBUTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS ONTO BAYSHORE BOULEVARD MEDIAN WHICH IS NOW CLOSED. IF YOU OPEN THAT FOR A NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN LANE, THE ANALYSIS AT BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AT NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN LANE WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. BAYSHORE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC NOW WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A LEFT-HAND TURN ONTO VERN STREET AND THAT WOULD NOW CREATE A CUT-THRU STREET WHICH IS CURRENTLY RESTRICTED. STOPPING MAIN LINE TRAFFIC ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD, NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC WITH LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE ALSO CAN CAUSE SOME GEOMETRY CURVATURE ISSUES AND THE PROBABILITY OF INCREASED RREAR-END COLLISIONS, IF YOU HAD A CYCLE OF A LIGHT CHANGE AND STOPPING TRAFFIC GOING NORTHBOUND TOWARDS THE CITY, YOU HAVE THE BRIDGE RIGHT THERE, THE PEDESTRIAN ROADWAY BRIDGE OVERPASS ON A CURVE. IT'S GOING TO HAVE LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE TO SEE THE QUEUE OF CARS THAT MAY BE STOPPED AT THE LIGHT. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LEFT-TURN LANE WILL INTRODUCE A CONFLICT MOVEMENT WITH BAYSHORE BOULEVARD TO INDUCE ACCIDENTS AT THAT LOCATION. AGAIN, A DECREASE IN SAFETY. WHEN YOU ADD ALL OF THIS UP AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU WOULD NEED AND THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THESE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE CONSULTANT'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATIONS, IN ORDER TO FIT THAT LEFT-TURN LANE GOING ON A NORTHBOUND DIRECTION, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO INCREASE OR DECREASE -- INCREASE THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT BUT RELOCATE THE CURB, DRAINAGE, AND ALL OF THE STREETLIGHT POLES ALONG THAT SIDE, THE WATERSIDE OF THE CHANNEL LOOK BAYSHORE BOULEVARD IN ORDER TO FIT THAT IN. LET ME GO TO OUR SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. EFFORTS TO DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FAILED TO GET PRIOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MANY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS RELATED TO TRAFFIC CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN. WE RECOGNIZE THIS HEARING IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING THAT RELIES ON SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY IMPORTANT IS THE JUDGMENT USED WHEN APPLYING REASONABLENESS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CARROLL ANN BENNETT. OUR CLOSER THIS EVENING IS STEPHANIE POYNOR. BOTH HAVE SPEAKER WAIVER FORMS. THAT'S ROUGHLY 20 MORE MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE PUBLIC COMMENT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE. COREY DESAI. JIM FALCON. JENNY FALCON. DANIEL LOUIS. HOLLY MURPHY, BILL MURPHY, MIKE WALLACE. SEVEN NAMES, TOTAL OF TEN MINUTES PLEASE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND GO AHEAD. >> CARROLL ANN BENNETT, LIFELONG RESIDENT OF SOUTH TAMPA. I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR SEVEN YEARS. YOU ARE MY THIRD CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS THE MOST COMPLICATED, CONVOLUTED, CONFUSING REZONING I'VE EVER SEEN. IT ALSO HAS THE MOST MISTAKES I'VE EVER SEEN. I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. I HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS ON IT. I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT WE ARE NOT EXPLAINING EVERY DETAIL BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT YOUR HEADS TO EXPLODE. SO, PLEASE, IF YOU GET CONFUSED, ASK ME QUESTIONS. ASK ME NOW. CALL ME BACK UP LATER. ASK STAFF IF MY ANSWERS ARE CORRECT, WHATEVER, BUT PLEASE ASK. YOU DENIED ZONINGS FOR ALL TEN OF THESE REASONS. NUMBER ONE, PROPERTY OWNERS CAN BLEND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BUT ONLY IF THEY OWN THE WHOLE PROPERTY. SECTION 27 AND THE COMP PLAN BOTH REQUIRED UNIFIED CONTROL FOR A PD REZONING. BY 2014, CRESCENT HAD SOLD BOTH PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. THEREFORE, IN 2015, WHEN THEY APPLIED TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN, IT WAS FOR PROPERTY THEY NO LONGER OWNED. IT WAS A BLENDING OF PARCELS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE UNIFIED CONTROL OF. DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS RUN WITH THE LAND. WHEN THEY SOLD IT, THEY SOLD THE RIGHTS TO IT. STAFF DIDN'T KNOW THEY NO LONGER HAD UNIFIED CONTROL. THEY DON'T DO TITLE SEARCHES. IT WAS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS TO PROVIDE UNIFIED CONTROL OF PROPERTY THEY HAD SOLD TO OVER 100 DIFFERENT ENTITIES. AND THEY MUST PROVE IT, THEY MUST PROVE THAT, QUOTE, IT SOUND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE TO ANY COMMITMENTS MADE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR REZONING. SOME OF THESE SUCCESSORS AND TITLER ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BEING BOUND TO THE COMMITMENTS OF THAT REZONING OR RELINQUISHING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. IN ADDITION, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE CITY IS VERY LIMITED AND PRIMARILY GRANTED BY THE CITY TO PRESERVEG SYSTEM. CRESCENT SOLD THEIR LAST PIECE 319 BAYSHORE IN DECEMBER 2016. THEY NO LONGER OWN THIS. THE NEW OWNER WAS NOT PART OF THE 2010 PD. THEY NEVER HAD UNIFIED CONTROL OF THE 2010 PD. THEY NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE 2010 PD. LOOK AT THESE DATES. THEY SIMULTANEOUSLY CAME UP -- SORRY, AND THEY KNEW THE LIMITATIONS WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT. THERE WERE OVERLAPPING APPLICATIONS FOR CHANGES, WHICH I BELIEVE IS INAPPROPRIATE. LOOK AT THESE DATES, THEY SIMULTANEOUSLY CAME UP WITH DIFFERENT SITE PLANS JUST BEFORE THE CLOSING IN DECEMBER OF 2016. WHY? WHY DRAW TWO SITE PLANS AND SUBMIT TWO APPLICATIONS? WAS IT BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE ASKED FOR AN INCREASE OF 12 STORIES ON 122 FEET AND THE SECOND WAS A COMPROMISE, AT TEN STORIES? IN ACCELA, THERE WERE 41 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION TO THE BIGGER ONE. IT WAS WITHDRAWN IN JANUARY. AND THE COMPROMISE OF 10 STORIES WAS APPROVED. WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? IN DECEMBER 2016, LIBERTY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY. THIS DEED SAYS 11 UNITS. FROM OCTOBER THROUGH JANUARY, TWO SITE PLANS AND TWO APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED. THE BIGGER ONE WAS WITHDRAWN AND THE COMPROMISE WAS APPROVED. LIBERTY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE BUYING. A 98-FOOT BUILDING. THE NEIGHBORS NEW IT, CITY NEW IT. THE GOVERNMENT PASSED THAT INFORMATION ALONG. IS THE CITY TRACKING THIS AS REQUIRED BY THE COMP PLAN? DECADES FROM NOW IS THE CITY GOING TO PREVENT DOUBLE DIPPING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS? ARE THEY TRACKING PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS? EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THIS ABSURDITY, YOU MUST DENY THIS BECAUSE THEIR MATH IS WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN TODAY'S AGENDA. IT'S HARD TO READ BUT THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS. SUBTRACT THESE NUMBERS FROM 753 AND IT LEAVES APPROXIMATELY 92,000 FOR PHASE THREE. AND THEY KNEW THAT BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN HAS THE PHASE THREE RESIDENTIAL AS 94,000 SQUARE FEET. THE STAFF REPORT ALSO SAYS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS IN THE CBD PERIPHERY. THAT IS WRONG. PHASE THREE AND PART OF PHASE TWO ARE NOT IN IT. THE NUMBERS ON EVERY DOCUMENT ARE WRONG. FIRST WAS THE NUMBER OF UNITS. Z-10 ASKED FOR 490 UNITS. THEY SAID THE ENTITLEMENT WAS 73 BUT THEY ONLY PROPOSED 490. HERE IS THE CITY STAFF REPORT THAT SAYS 490 FOR Z 10. HERE -- THAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS THE CITY STAFF THAT SAYS 490. BOTH STAFF REPORTS FOR Z 90 SAID -- FOR Z 10 SAID 490. HERE IS THE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE SITE PLAN THAT SAYS 490. HERE ARE THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE HEARING WHERE THE APPLICANT'S PLANNER ETHEL HAMMER SAYS THEY ARE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 490. I READ EVERY WORD OF THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR ALL OF THE HEARINGS. 753 UNITS WAS NOT ASKED FOR OR APPROVED. ONLY 490 UNITS WERE APPROVED. FIVE YEARS LATER, THEY SAID THEY APPROVED -- THEY HAD APPROVAL FOR 753 UNITS AND STAFF DIDN'T CATCH IT. BY 2014, FOUR BUILDINGS HAD BEEN BUILT. ONE TWO THREE FOUR. 2015 HAS AN APPLICATION BASED ON 3.9 ACRES, AND IT SAYS THAT PHASE THREE IS THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT REMAINS UNDEVELOPED. SO THEY ARE TRANSFERRING 160,000 TO PHASE THREE. HERE IS THE 3.9 ACRES. HERE'S PHASE 3. THE ONLY PORTION THAT WAS UNDEVELOPED. SO THEY WERE TRANSFERRING 160,000 TO PHASE THREE. WHAT ABOUT THIS BUILDING? STAFF TOOK THEM AT THEIR WORD AND USED THE TOTAL AND SAID, YEAH, 160,000 FOR PHASE THREE. THIS MISTAKE WAS CARRIED OVER TO 2017. THIS IS THE 2022 APPLICATION. IT SAYS PHASE ONE IS 178,000. PHASE TWO IS 482,000. IT SAYS THAT IS UP TO 443,000. CALCULATORS SAY IT ADDS UP TO 661,000. THE TOTAL SAYS 753,000. AND THEY HAVE 309 LEFT. CALCULATORS SAY THEY HAVE 91,000 LEFT. THEY ADMIT IN THIS APPLICATION THAT IT'S ONLY PART OF PHASE TWO, BUT IT'S NOT IN THEIR MATH. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL 2010 DATA TABLE FROM THE REZONING. IT SAYS THAT RMU 100 ALLOWS SQUARE FOOTAGE OR UNITS. RMU 100. RMU 100 ALLOWS DENSITY OR SQUARE FOOTAGE, ONE OR THE OTHER. THAT'S WHY IT SAYS THAT. THERE IS NO SQUARE FOOTAGE OPTION FOR R-83. SO IT ONLY SHOWS UNITS, NO SQUARE FOOTAGE. BUT IN ADDITION, THEY CALCULATED THE UNITS WRONG. R 83 GIVES YOU 75 UNITS PER ACRE BY RIGHT. THAT MAKES IT ONLY 135. THEN 753,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE APPEARS WITH NO EXPLANATION WHERE IT CAME FROM. THAT GIVES THEM AN EXTRA 149,000 EXTRA SQUARE FEET FOR NO REASON. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY TOOK THE 149 UNITS OF R 83 AND MADE UP AN EQUATION OF A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND GAVE THEMSELVES THE EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE. THAT IS NOT AN OPTION IN R 83. AND THERE IS NO SUCH EQUATION. ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY KNOW FUTURE LAND USE LIMITATIONS. SO THE DENSITY IS WRONG AND THEY GAVE THEMSELVES AN OPTION FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT DOES NOT EXIST. THIS 149,000 SQUARE FEET WAS A MISTAKE ON THE 2010 SITE PLAN THAT NO ONE CAUGHT BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED AT THE HEARINGS. NO ONE SAW IT. NO ONE SPOKE ABOUT IT. COUNCIL DIDN'T CONSIDER IT. I READ ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS. BUT EVEN IF YOU GIVE THEM THAT, THE MATH STILL DOESN'T WORK. EVEN AT 753,000, WHEN YOU SUBTRACT WHAT HAS BEEN USED, THEY DON'T HAVE 309 LEFT. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, ASK THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. HAVE THEY BEEN COLLECTING TAXES ON THIN AIR FOR TEN YEARS? THIS IS THE 2022 APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE CITY. EVERY DOCUMENT SUBMITTED FOR 15 YEARS HAS BEEN RIDDLED WITH MISTAKES. IT IS MIND-BOGGLING. PLEASE NOTICE THE APPROVALS DON'T SAY THEY HAVE 309 LEFT. THEY SAY YOU MUST DEDUCT WHAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND CALCULATORS SAY THAT DOESN'T LEAVE 309. THERE ARE -- NUMBER FIVE REASON TO DENY THIS, DEVELOPMENT STAFF SAYS EVEN IF YOU DO ALL THE REVISIONS IT IS STILL INCONSISTENT. TRANSPORTATION SAYS IT'S INCONSISTENT. PLANNING COMMISSION SAYS IT'S INCONSISTENT. THEY WANT A WAIVER FOR LOADING BAYS. A WAIVER FOR TRUCKS TO TURN AROUND. A WAIVER FOR BUFFERS BECAUSE IT'S TOO BIG. IT DOESN'T FIT THE SITE. DENY THE WAIVERS, DENY THIS REZONING FOR THESE TEN REASONS. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OUR LAST SPEAKER IS STEPHANIE POYNOR AND SHE HAS A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. FROM THERE WE WILL GO TO REBUTTAL. YOU HAVE A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM. >> HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: [INAUDIBLE] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS STEPHANIE POYNOR. WHEN I WAS IN THE GLASS BUSINESS WORKING FOR MY DAD, HE USED TO TELL ME YOU NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWER BEFORE YOU PUT IT IN THE CALCULATOR. TAUGHT -- THIS ISN'T THIRD GRADE MATH. THIS IS FOURTH GRADE MATH WITH A LITTLE BIT OF FIFTH GRADE. GOOD EVENING. I GAVE YOU THE POOP-COLORED PAPER BECAUSE I SEE A LOT OF POOP HERE. BUT THE NUMBER ONE THING I GAVE YOU WAS THIS IS THE MEETING FROM NOVEMBER THE 14th. AND IN THAT MEETING, THE APPLICANT SAID, WE WANT MARCH 13 AND IT WOULD GIVE US TIME UNTIL JANUARY 15 TO MAKE REVISIONS AND ALSO GIVE STAFF THE ABILITY TO REVIEW AGAIN. THEY NEVER GAVE THEM ANYTHING. AGAIN, THEY NEVER GAVE THEM ANYTHING. THEY CAME IN HERE TONIGHT WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF PROMISES. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU -- IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE IN THAT MEETING THEY WERE GIVEN AN EXTRA 180 DAYS BECAUSE THEY WERE WAIVING IT, WHATEVER. THIS IS MY LITTLE TIME, THIS IS MY WASTE OF TIME AND MY DUMPSTER FIRE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THIS REZONING, NOTICE IT'S GOT 2399 ON IT. THIS WAS FILED 596 DAYS AGO. 596 DAYS. WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING? YET THERE WAS NO NEW SITE PLAN IN OnBase OR IN ACCELA. THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN ACCELA IS 274 DAYS OLD. THE APPLICANT HAS HAD INCONSISTENT REPORT FOR 161 DAYS, YET THEY DID NO REVISIONS. YOU DO THE MATH. THEN, OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A LONG CONTINUANCE TO MAKE THE REVISION 119 DAYS AGO. YET THEY ARE NOT IN OnBase AND NOT ON ACCELA. THEY WANTED TO COME PARADING THROUGH HERE TONIGHT AND PLANNING IT IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THEY DID NOT MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGAIN UNTIL THE DAY THAT THEY WERE DUE. THE PLANS WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE ON JANUARY THE 15th. THAT'S IN AN E-MAIL FROM MR. DICK -- I DIDN'T MAKE THESE UP. I JUST GOOGLED IT. BUT HERE'S WHAT IS INTERESTING TO ME. IN ACCELA, THE LAST THING IN ACCELA WAS PUT IN THERE IN OCTOBER. OCTOBER 29. THOSE ARE THE CANCELLATIONS AND RESCHEDULING. THEY HAVE GIVEN THE CITY OF TAMPA ZERO SINCE THEY ASKED FOR THE CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THEY NEEDED TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BUT YET THEY'VE DONE NOTHING, JUST LIKE SOME OF MY STUDENTS DID IN FOURTH GRADE. SO WE HAD THIS LITTLE THING AND LEFT OFF 177,000 SQUARE FEET. NOW, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN ACCELA AND IN ONBASE. I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS AGAIN IN A SECOND. BUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS CORRECT THE APPROVED ENTITLEMENTS TO 753,000 SQUARE FEET FROM 880,000 SQUARE FEET. WELL, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. IT SAYS, 880,000 SQUARE FEET. BUT YET, HERE WE ARE, 119 DAYS THEY'VE HAD THE STAFF REPORT TO FIX THIS AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN FIX THAT LITTLE SIMPLE THING. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. NOW, HERE WE GO AGAIN. WE'LL DO SOME FOURTH GRADE MATH. THE ENTITLEMENTS PER STAFF, I JUST SHOWED IT TO YOU IN THE STAFF REPORT, 753,198 SQUARE FEET. PHASE ONE, WHICH IS BAYSHORE ONE, CONSTRUCTED I HAVE TO DO THIS TWICE. DID IT IN INK. SHOULDN'T DO MATH IN INK. AFTER THAT ENTITLEMENT THEY ARE DOWN TO 574,000 SQUARE FEET. RIGHT? THEN PHASE TWO COMES ALONG. NOW, PHASE TWO IS SPECIAL. IT HAS AN A AND A B OR A NORTH AND A SOUTH, WHATEVER. BUT 265, 177, THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO 444,000. THIS IS SIMPLE MATH. I CAN GET FOURTH GRADERS THROUGH THIS. THEY MIGHT STRUGGLE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY NUMBERS. BUT THE ENTITLEMENT REMAINING IS 132,151 SQUARE FEET. THE SITE PLAN CLAIMS AND STILL CLAIMS BECAUSE NOBODY BOTHERED TO TURN ANYTHING IN IN THE LAST 119 DAYS, IT STILL CLAIMS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE 309,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE. I'M SORRY, BUT THERE ARE SOME REALLY, REALLY SMART PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED ON THIS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT GETS IN FRONT OF COUNCIL LOOKING LIKE THIS. THEY SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED. MORE THAN TWICE WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED. MR. MILLER DID A GREAT JOB COVERING THE MATH AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE. THE NEXT THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, I OWN MINERAL RIGHTS. MINERAL RIGHTS ARE KIND OF LIKE SOUP. YOU CAN'T SEE THEM. YOU HAVE TO HAVE DOCUMENTATION. IF YOU WANT TO TRANSFER MINERAL RIGHTS THAT BELONG TO A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHETHER YOU OWN IT OR NOT, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY EITHER A QUITCLAIM DEED OR A BILL OF SALE JUST LIKE IF YOU BOUGHT AND SOLD A PIECE OF LAND OR A HOUSE. WELL, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS, IT CAME TO ME, I SAID ARE LAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THE SAME? WOW. LOOKED IT UP. THIS IS FROM HER DOCUMENTS. YOU GUYS HAVE A COPY OF THIS IN YOUR HAND. THEY PURCHASED IT, LIBERTY GROUP, LIBERTY BAYSHORE HOLDINGS, PURCHASED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IN DECEMBER OF 2016. AND AS PART OF THE WARRANTY DEED, WHICH THE ORIGINAL DEED IS UNDER THIS, DEBBIE BLEW IT UP SO YOU COULD SEE IT ON THE OVERHEAD. IT SAYS THEY HAVE 160,000 SQUARE FEET. CAN I LIVE WITH A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM THERE BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT 309. THAT'S FOR DAMN SURE. UNIFIED CONTROL. IT SAYS THAT THE APPROVED SITE PLAN WILL BIND THE SUCCESSORS IN TITLE. I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT SURE SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE TO STICK WITH -- THEY KNEW WHAT THEY BOUGHT WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT. WAH WAH WAH WAH. THEY DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB PUTTING TOGETHER WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN. TONIGHT THEY EXPECT TO YOU APPROVE SOMETHING WHO ARE EXPERTS THAT WORK FOR THE CITY HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN. THEY WANT YOU TO APPROVE SOMETHING THESE EXPERTS HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION EXPERT HAS NOT SEEN THE PLAN THESE PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT. THEY HAVE THIS VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE THEY HAD THE STAFF REPORT FOR 119 DAYS AND DID NOTHING BECAUSE THEY WANT YOU TO BE INTIMIDATED INTO DOING SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER DO, WHICH IS MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT ALL THE PROPER INFORMATION. NOW, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS IS DEBBIE Z. SHE RAN OUT OF TIME. NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT DEBBIE Z'S DOCUMENT TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO. BUT IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE MR. GARDNER DID THIS DOCUMENT OR SOMEBODY WHO WORKS FOR HIM. ANYWAY, SUB17 HAPPENED AFTER THE PROPERTY SOLD. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND START ALL OVER AGAIN IF YOU HAVE A NEW OWNER. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I DON'T KNOW. DEBBIE Z TOLD ME TO SAY SOMETHING, SO I'M GOING TO. OH, LET ME TELL YOU THIS. THIS IS REALLY, REALLY STINKIN' IMPORTANT. THE APPLICANT GOT UP HERE AND SAID WE'RE SAVING TWO GRAND TREES ON THE SITE. THEY TRIED TO CUT ONE DOWN ILLEGALLY AFTER THE STORM. THEY SENT THE GUYS OVER THERE, THE NEIGHBORS SAID WHAT ARE YOU DOING? THEY SAID WE'RE CUTTING THE TREE DOWN. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, IF MR. DE CAMPS DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT, I WOULD HAVE BEEN PISSED, MAD SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW HEARING ABOUT IT. YOU JUDGE. I'LL TELL YOU THIS, THEY WEREN'T PROTECTING TWO TREES. TPD HAD TO COME OUT AND TELL THEM TO STOP CUTTING THE TREES. TPD CAME OUT AFTER THE HURRICANE. THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION WITH THE HURRICANE AND TRIED TO REMOVE ONE OF THEIR GRAND TREES. CUT OFF BRANCHES THAT HAD TO HAVE PERMITS JUST FOR THE BRANCHES. I'M TELLING YOU I CUSSED OUT SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY BECAUSE THEY BROKE A BRANCH OFF OF ONE OF MY TREES THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BEEN TAKEN OUT WITH A PERMIT. I LIT THEM UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRESPONSIBLE AND TOOK THAT BRANCH OFF MY TREE. I WOULD BE MAD AS HELL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE GO TO REBUTTAL. LET'S DO QUESTIONS FIRST SO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE REBUTTAL. COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I THINK SOMEBODY TALKED ABOUT OUR HEAD EXPLODING. I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS MANY FIGURES SINCE HIGH SCHOOL GEOMETRY. I THINK WE HAVE TO RESOLVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP. MAYBE I'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEN I'LL SPEAK TO CITY STAFF ABOUT THE SAME QUESTIONS. THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL, WHICH I THINK ARE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE WE CAN EVEN MOVE FORWARD TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION. ONE OF THEM IS A SINGLE SITE CONTROL AND THE APPLICABLE CODE, WAS IT SECTION 27 -- GOSH, I HAVE IT ALL HERE SOMEWHERE. I'M SURE YOU ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH IT. CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR RESPONSE TO YOUR APPLICANT AND THE APPLICABLE CODE THAT REQUIRES SINGLE SITE CONTROL? UNIFIED SITE CONTROL? >> SURE. TWOFOLD. ONE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT CRESCENT WAS THE MASTER DEVELOPER ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT HEADY FOR YOU, BUT IN DOING THIS FOR 28 YEARS, THIS IS MORE AKIN TO A DRI WHERE YOU HAVE A POOL OF ENTITLEMENTS AND UNLESS THERE IS SOME DOCUMENT THAT DETERMINES HOW THAT IS DROWN DOWN, THEY ARE ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS. AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE. SECONDLY, AGAIN, HAVING DONE THIS FOR 28 YEARS, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, I'VE HAD PD SITE PLANS WITH MULTIPLE OWNERS WITHIN THE SITE PLAN, AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO REQUIRE EVERY PROPERTY OWNER TO AGREE TO THAT REZONING. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SITUATION NOW. WE DID ASK FOR THIS AS AN INDEPENDENT PD, BUT THAT IS TRUE TO STATE THAT THE WAY THAT THESE ENTITLEMENTS WERE REALLOCATED AND WE GOT TO THE ADDITIONAL NUMBER WAS THROUGH THOSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. IF WE WERE HOLDING THIS FOR REBUTTAL BUT MR. LOBE IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE AND THE RIGHTS GAINED THROUGH THOSE, BUT THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION THERE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THE TRANSFERABLE RIGHTS FOR DEVELOPMENT. >> SO I HEARD THAT NUMEROUS TIMES. I THINK OUR LAW FIRM IS ACTUALLY THE ON ME LAW FIRM THAT HAS USED THE TDR PROVISION IN THE CODE. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING TONIGHT. AS MS. WELLS STATED AND WE STATED, WE REALLOCATED AND BLENDED ENTITLEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY BUT NEVER DID WE USE THE TDR POLICY IN THE CODE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DID AND NOT WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO DO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: OKAY. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE FIGURES? 309 329. I'VE HEARD SO MANY FIGURES I CAN'T BOIL DOWN TO IT. BUT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE IS DEFINITELY A DISCREPANCY FROM YOUR PHASE TWO THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE DATA THAT I'VE BEEN SEEING. THAT SEEMS SELF-EVIDENT TO ME LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION AS PRESENTED BY EVIDENCE TONIGHT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? >> YES. I'LL DO IT IN AN OVERSIMPLIFIED WAY BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE SPREADSHEET AFTER SPREADSHEET AFTER SPREADSHEET AND HAD TO PROVE UP WHEN WE GOT THE FIRST TRANCHE, I'LL CALL IT, OF ENTITLEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE SECOND. BUT I BELIEVE WHAT EVERYBODY, AGAIN, IT IS A SIMPLIFICATION, WHAT EVERYBODY IS CONFLATING IS WHEN WE DID PHASE TWO, SORRY, WHEN CRESCENT DID PHASE TWO, THERE WAS NO BLENDING ALLOWED ON THE SITES. SO, YES, WE WERE DRAWING DOWN ENTITLEMENTS. THOSE ENTITLEMENTS WERE ONLY NORTH OF THE SOUTHERN PHASE TWO BLOCK, BUT IN ORDER TO GET THE UNITS, WE WERE DRAWING DOWN UNITS ON A DENSITY BASIS ON THAT SOUTHERN BLOCK. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE MATH GETS DISTORTED IS THEY ARE TAKING THE OVERALL POOL AND DRAWING DOWN AND NOT USING WHAT WE HAD TO PROVE UP ON A UNIT COUNT ON TWO BAYSHORE SOUTHERN BLOCK. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I KNOW YOU SAID WHAT YOU SAID, BUT CAN YOU INTERPRET HOW I'M HEARING THAT? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. [ LAUGHTER ] [ SOUNDING GAVEL ] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING AND OTHER NOISES. THANK YOU. >> THAT MAY BE TRUE. I ASSURE YOU THE MATH DOES ACTUALLY WORK. I THINK WHAT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO THAT AND WHAT MR. LOBE IS HERE TO SPEAK TO, THERE WERE THREE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPROVALS. ONE APPROVED THE 140,000 SQUARE FEET. THE OTHER APPROVED THE 160 TO GET US TO THE 309. I'M USING ROUND NUMBERS. BOTH OF THOSE WERE NOTICED. THERE WERE APPEAL PERIODS FOR BOTH. IT'S DONE. IT'S OVER. THE MATH IS CORRECT. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE COY ABOUT THIS. THAT RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT IS OVER. THE LAST ONE WAS 2022. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YOU CAN SAY THAT PART. THAT'S ACTUALLY PART OF MY QUESTION FOR CITY LEGAL STAFF. >> THE POINT IS THE APPEAL PERIOD HAS ARRIVED. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, KIND OF NOT RELATED. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WE HAD TESTIMONY FROM CITIZENS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, EGRESS AND INGRESS FROM THE PROPERTIES. THE CONSTRUCTION AT THIS DENSITY, HOW WILL RESIDENTS MOVE FROM THE RESIDENT NORTHWARD, TOWARDS DOWNTOWN OR TOWARDS PLATT? >> DE CAMPS. COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN, YOU ASKED HOW THE INGRESS AND EGRESS AND HOW RESIDENTS WOULD GO TO THE NORTH. I DON'T HAVE A REGIONAL OR MORE MAP HERE THAT I CAN SHOW OVERALL. I CAN EXPLAIN THE INGRESS AND EGRESS. LET ME -- LET ME SPECIFICALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THE SITE AND WHY IT IS WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW. ORIGINALLY, WE WANTED TO BE ON VERN STREET. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I THINK WE UNDERSTOOD THAT FROM PREVIOUS TESTIMONY. >> IT WAS ADAMANT FROM 345 -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE UNDERSTOOD THAT FROM PREVIOUS TESTIMONY. >> WE MOVED IT. WE ARE RESTRICTING ACCESS OFF OF VERN. >> STEVE HENRY, LINCKS & ASSOCIATES. AS INDICATED, THE ACCESS FOR THE PROJECT IS OFF OF BEACH PLACE. SO YOU'RE ASKING HOW DOES SOMEBODY GET DOWNTOWN? THE WAY THEY WOULD COME OUT, IF YOU LOOK, COME OUT BEACH PLACE, DOWN BEACH PLACE TO PLANT, AND THEN DOWN PLATT TO BAYSHORE AND THEN INTO DOWNTOWN. THAT WOULD BE THE WAY THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD GO INTO DOWNTOWN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY LEFT TURNS ON BAYSHORE? >> NO. PART OF WHAT WE HAD TO DO, PART OF THE PROCEDURAL MANUAL, ANY INTERSECTION THAT HAS MOVEMENT THAT IS LEVEL OF SERVICE F OR VC GREATER THAN ONE, MEANING IT IS FAILING, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO FIX THAT. PART OF THEN IS OUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE TO THE CITY. NOT THAT WE'LL NECESSARILY DO THE IMPROVEMENT. ON VERN STREET HERE, WHICH WE ONLY HAVE, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS NUMBER, TWO CARS IN THE A.M. AND P.M. VERY LOW VOLUME, BUT WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT THAT AS A PART OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY. WE LOOKED AT THE INTERSECTION AND IT IS DURING THE PEAK HOURS BECAUSE OF THE VEHICLES COMING OFF OF DAVIS ISLAND, THAT MOVEMENT DOES FAIL. SO THE FIX FOR THAT OR A POTENTIAL FIX WAS TO PUT A SIGNAL IN. ALL WE DID WAS THEN PAID OUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO DO THAT. NOT THAT WE WERE PROPOSING THAT. THAT WAS JUST A POTENTIAL FIX FOR THE INTERSECTION. AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO ON ALL THE TRAFFIC STUDIES WE LOOK AT A POTENTIAL FIX. NOT THAT IT NECESSARILY IS GOING TO GET DONE BUT WHAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD FIX IT AND THEN WE HAVE TO PAY OUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN YOU POINT OUT TO COUNCIL WHICH STREETS ARE ONE WAY AND WHICH STREETS ARE TWO WAY AND ALSO HOW WIDE IS PLANT? >> HOW WIDE IS PLANT? ONE WAY NORTHBOUND. IT'S TWO LANES AS IT GETS UP TO PLATT IT TURNS INTO THREE LANES WITH TWO THRU AND ONE RIGHT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: VERN IS A TWO-WAY STREET BUT WITH TWO LANES? >> CORRECT, YES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: BAYSHORE OUT OF YOUR PROPERTY IS ONE WAY SOUTHBOUND. >> THERE IS A MEDIAN THERE, CORRECT. SO BOTH BEACH PLACE AND VERN ARE RIGHT-IN, RIGHT OUT ACCESS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THIS PROJECT, YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING CHANGING ANY TRAFFIC FLOW OR PATTERNS. >> WE ARE NOT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR OUR LEGAL STAFF, MS. WELLS. REVISITING THE SAME QUESTIONS I JUST ASKED THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT SITE CONTROL AND THE PD HAVING SINGLE CONTROL OVER THESE PROPERTIES. I LOOK AT THE CODE AND IT DEFINITELY SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE CODE REQUIRES UNIFIED CONTROL TO BE ABLE TO TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT. WHAT WOULD BE THE CITY'S OFFICIAL POSITION? >>CATE WELLS: I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR LaCHONE DOCK. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. >>LaCHONE DOCK: LaCHONE DOCK, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. UNDER THE CODE, WHEN AN APPLICANT SUBMITS AN APPLICATION, WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT WHAT IS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN WE ASK FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE APPLICANT FROM THE OWNERSHIP. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THERE'S NO QUALITY CONTROL OR QUESTIONS TO ENSURE THAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE? >>LaCHONE DOCK: TYPICALLY WHAT WE WILL DO IS STAFF REVIEWS AND THEY COMPARE IT TO SUN BIZ. LOOK AT THE CORPORATIONS. MAKE SURE THE CORPORATION IS LISTED OR THE LLC IS AN ACTIVE ONE. IF THEY ARE NOT, WE HAVE THEM CORRECT THAT. THEY HAVE TO BE ACTIVE WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. WE DO VERIFY THAT WHEN IT'S SUBMITTED. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: GIVEN THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED TONIGHT THAT THERE IS NOT UNIFIED CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE AREA WITHIN THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN DISTRICT, WHAT WOULD STAFF'S POSITION BE ON THIS TONIGHT KNOWING THERE'S NOT UNIFIED CONTROL? >>LaCHONE DOCK: THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE VERY FIRST TESTIMONY THAT THIS ENTIRE SITE PHASE ONE, TWO, THREE IS ONE PD. >>LaCHONE DOCK: IT'S ONE PD, CORRECT. BUT THE APPLICANT IS COMING IN WITH PHASE THREE. THE APPLICANT DID NOT COME IN WITH THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY. LET'S SAY IF THE APPLICANT CAME IN, REQUESTED A PD TO PD AND DID THIS WHOLE, AND THIS WAS ALL UNDER CONSIDERATION TODAY, WE WOULD NEED AUTHORIZATION FROM ALL OF THE OWNERS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THIS IS PART OF WHAT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT. THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS I ASKED BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE 2010 DECISION AND THIS ONE BIG PD VERSUS THE APPLICANT COMING. ASKED MS. WELLS EARLY ON THIS EVENING ABOUT THIS PHASE THREE PROPERTY. IS THIS A SEPARATE PD OR IS THIS A COMBINED OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND IT WAS PRESENTED AT THE TIME THAT THIS REQUEST THIS EVENING WAS PART OF -- IT WAS BASICALLY JUST A CHANGE OF THE EXISTING PD CONSISTING OF THIS ENTIRE ZONED PARCEL. I WOULD ASSUME THAT PART OF OUR CODE WOULD APPLY, THEY DON'T HAVE UNIFIED CONTROL, THAT THIS WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE JUST BASED ON THAT ALONE. >>LaCHONE DOCK: LaCHONE DOCK, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. JUST TO HELP CLARIFY, SO THE APPLICANT IS IN FOR JUST PHASE THREE. THAT IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THIS IS WHAT IT TAKES US TO, THIS PHASE. JUST THIS BLOCK. LET'S SAY THIS IS APPROVED AND MOVES FORWARD, THIS WOULD CHANGE AND THIS WOULD BE A SEPARATE PD, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE A PD. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I GET THE RAMIFICATIONS OF AFTER THE DECISION IS MADE. CLEARLY, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN PROVIDING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF RIGHTS, THE TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT IT WOULD BE IMPLUS AABLING OR -- IMPLAUSIBLE TO DIVIDE THESE ISSUES THAT WE'D HAVE TO BE WORKING ON THE 2010 PLAN AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON AND THAT PROVISION OF 271382 D 6 ABOUT UNIFIED CONTROL WOULD BE AN OVERRIDING FACTOR. I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IF THE APPLICANT JUST CAME IN AND WAS REQUESTING A PD EXCLUSIVELY JUST FOR THIS PARCEL AND NOT TYING ANYTHING TO THE REST OF THE PARCELS, BUT WHEN THEY BROUGHT THOSE OTHER PARCELS IN, PROVE ME WRONG, THAT THERE IS THIS CONNECTION THERE. >>LaCHONE DOCK: SO WITH THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT DID NOT BRING IN THESE PARCELS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WHEN THEY SAID THEY WERE TRANSFERRING THEIR RIGHTS? >>LaCHONE DOCK: THIS IS WHERE THE ANALYSIS CAME INTO PLAY BECAUSE IN THE PAST THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REVIEWS AND THAT'S WHEN ENTITLEMENTS FROM THIS PHASES, FROM THESE PHASES WERE PLACED ON TO PHASE THREE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: -- IRREVOCABLE. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXISTING PD AND THE PROPOSAL THIS EVENING HAS BEEN MADE AND PART OF THE PLAN. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME. >>LaCHONE DOCK: WE DIDN'T REQUIRE THEM TO GET THE AUTHORIZATION FROM ALL THE OTHER OWNERS WITHIN THIS BOUNDARY JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO COME IN AND JUST DO THE SPACE. WE'VE HAD PDAs IN THE PAST THAT HAVE COME IN AND THEY WILL REZONE A PARCEL OR FOUR PARCELS WITHIN AN OVERALL AREA. SO THIS APPLICANT CAME IN TO REZONE JUST THIS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I GET IT. I GET A LOT OF TIMES THESE QUESTIONS ARE SILENT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T RAISE THEM. TONIGHT IT WAS RAISED AND SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE. THE CODE HAS BEEN PROVIDED. AGAIN, BLACK AND WHITE TO ME. I'M NOT A LAND USE ATTORNEY, BUT I PLAY ONE ON TV ONCE A WEEK. [ LAUGHTER ] IT SEEMS SO SELF-EVIDENT. I THINK I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION FOR MS. WELLS AND THEN I'LL BE DONE. SORRY GUYS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I TOLD MY WIFE I WOULD BE HOME BY TOMORROW MORNING. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: AND YOU CAN CLAIM IT ON ME. MS. WELLS, I HAVE A QUESTION, I THINK I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS AND PROBABLY THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT, THAT THE REMEDY FOR LIKE 1709 HAS KIND OF COME AND GONE, IS THAT CORRECT? IF THERE WERE ERRORS IN THIS DOCUMENTATION, APPEALS TIME HAS COME AND GONE OR IF, IN FACT, WE FIND THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGES WERE WRONG, WHAT IS THE REMEDY? IS THERE A REMEDY? >>CATE WELLS: CATE WELLS, LEGAL DEPARTMENT. ONE THING I'D LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPLICATION WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE APPROVED IN 2015 UNDER SUB 15-28, THE ABILITY TO REALLOCATE UNUSED SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT SHOWED ON THE 2010 SITE PLAN FOR PHASE THREE, WHICH MADE REFERENCE TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. SO WHILE -- SO THE DECISIONS ARE FINAL. IT'S NOT APPEALABLE. WE DON'T GET TO REVISIT THE NUMBERS IS MY POSITION BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN PROCESSED. IT WAS A NOTICED PROCEDURE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A 2022 APPLICATION FOR SUB CHANGE THAT WAS EVENTUALLY WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN SOME OPPOSITION BY THE NEIGHBORS. THERE WAS ALWAYS THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS WITHIN THE NOTICE AREA TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. SEPARATE FROM THE FINALITY OF THOSE DECISIONS, THOSE DECISIONS WERE ALWAYS QUANTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE 2010 REZONING LIMITED THE FOOTPRINT AND MASSING OF DEVELOPMENT FOR PHASE THREE. SO WHILE WE HAD THE CITY APPROVE THE ABILITY TO REALLOCATE UNUSED SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT WAS SUBJECT TO THOSE CONDITIONS. IN THE LETTER -- WHEN MR. GARDNER SUBMITTED THE REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPLICATION FOR THE 2015 ONE, PART OF THE QUESTION THAT IS ASKED IN THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE APPLICATION IS -- LET ME FIND IT HERE. IF THERE IS AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN TWO STORIES, NUMBER OF FLOORS OR 24 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, IF THE ANSWER IS YES, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND STAFF WOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED IT. MR. GARDNER'S RESPONSE WAS, CRESCENT PROPOSES TO BUILD EIGHT STORY BUILDING AS PERMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING TWO BAYSHORE PD. EVEN IN THE APPLICATION REQUESTING THE ABILITY TO REALLOCATE UNUSED SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE APPLICANT RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS A LIMITATION ON THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. THAT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE 22017 SUB CHANGE APPLICATION. STAFF'S APPROVALS ALWAYS MADE REFERENCE TO THOSE CONDITIONS. AGAIN, THE ONE FOR 2015, SAME QUESTION. IF THERE IS AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN TWO STORIES AND THE NUMBER OF FLOORS OR 24 FEET IN HEIGHT OF -- SAYS NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OR. MISSING A PAGE. BUT THE APPLICANT ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THOSE LIMITATIONS ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF FROM 2010 OR 2011 WHEN IT WAS FINALLY APPROVED, THE Z 10 THAT'S BEEN REFERENCED. I SEE THE ABILITY TO REALLOCATE THOSE ENTITLEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF, HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY. IT'S 309,000 PLUS. IT'S SUBJECT TO -- IT WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO YET ANOTHER APPLICATION TO ACTIVATE THOSE ENTITLEMENTS. AND I BELIEVE THEY TRIED TO DO THAT THROUGH THE 2022 SUB CHANGE APPLICATION WHEN THEY WANTED TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND THEN WITHDREW IT AND THEN REALIZED THIS IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH YOU ACTIVATE THE 309,000 SQUARE FEET -- OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATED TO PHASE THREE. IN THE REZONING, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF TONIGHT'S HEARING, YOU REVIEW THIS AS YOU WOULD WITH ANY OTHER REZONING APPLICATION. YOU LOOK AT THE CRITERIA IN YOUR CODE. YOU LOOK AT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND YOU DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE YOU SHOULD BE APPROVED BASED ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. IT'S VERY CLEAR. I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. I'VE GOT ONE LAST QUESTION. THAT IS, THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. I LIED. I MAY HAVE A FOURTH. SO BE QUIET. THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, HOW DOES THAT TIE INTO WHAT YOU JUST SAID? WE HAVE 309,329 THAT WE'LL GO WITH BECAUSE THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, HOW DOES THAT TIE INTO WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT FOR THE DECISION THAT THIS COUNCIL MAKES ON THIS LAND USE WITH THAT 309,329 STICKING WITH THAT BUILDING ENVELOPE? >>CATE WELLS: I THINK THAT'S PRECISELY THE QUESTION BEFORE COUNCIL. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE SCALE AND MASSING FOR THIS SITE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY USE UP TO 309,000 SQUARE FEET OF UNBUILDABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHAT IS THAT APPROPRIATE SCALE? I DON'T SEE THIS AS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO REALLOCATE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, SO THE APPROVAL IS AUTOMATIC. THAT REALLOCATION OF ENTITLEMENTS WAS NEVER AUTOMATIC IN THE 2015 APPLICATION OR THE 2017 APPLICATION. IT WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO AND THE APPLICANT HIMSELF RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS AN EIGHT-STORY LIMITATION ON THE ABILITY TO BUILD. SO I THINK THE QUESTION BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY IS WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE -- YOU'VE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT THE SCALE IS NOT APPROPRIATE, AND THAT IS AT 27 STORIES. THAT IS THE APPLICATION THEY REVIEWED. THAT IS THE STAFF REPORT THAT IS BEFORE YOU. BUT THAT -- I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE FOR COUNCIL TO DETERMINE BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU CAN DEVELOP UP TO 309,000 SQUARE FEET, WHAT IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION? IS THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU APPROPRIATE? IF COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT IT IS NOT, THEN IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO DECIDE HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY WANT TO MODIFY? DO THEY WANT TO ASK -- HATE TO SAY THIS -- A CONTINUANCE TO LOOK AT THAT? I KNOW THAT IT WAS A LITTLE STRANGE TO ME THAT THE APPLICANT GOT UP AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE HEARING AND PRESENTED, WE'RE GOING WITH 274 FEET WHEN THE APPLICATION HADN'T EVEN BEEN PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE YOU THAT WAS NOTICED FOR A MEETING BACK IN AUGUST OF 2024 AND HAS BEEN CONTINUED AND HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME. THANK YOU. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT MY COLLEAGUE, MR. CLENDENIN BROUGHT UP. BEFORE WE WENT TO RECESS, I WROTE ONE THING ON MY NOTE HERE, SINCE I WAS HERE IN 2010 AND STARTED THINKING MORE AND MORE ABOUT IT. THE QUESTION BECOMES IN MY MIND, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN 2010 GAVE THE TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO AN EIGHT-STORY BUILDING, AND THAT WAS CODIFIED BY THE VOTE BY THE RECORD, AM I CORRECT? >>LaCHONE DOCK: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, THAT IS CORRECT. THE EIGHT STORIES WOULD APPLY TO PHASE THREE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HOW COULD WE TRANSFER THE SAME RIGHTS TO A 27 STORY BUILDING? >>LaCHONE DOCK: PART OF WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED FOR YOU IS A REPORT AND ANALYSIS. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THAT IS A QUESTION I ASKED MYSELF JUST BEFORE WE WENT ON BREAK. MY NEXT QUESTION, HOW MUCH REALLY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND CREDITS DO WE HAVE? THERE WERE SO MANY NUMBERS THROWN AROUND THAT I THOUGHT I WAS IN YBOR CITY LISTENING TO A BOW LINA GUY PLAYING DRUMS OUTSIDE THE COLUMBIA RESTAURANT. NOTICED I SAID OUTSIDE, NOT INSIDE. I DON'T WANT THE PEOPLE AT THE COLUMBIA GETTING MAD AT ME OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN YBOR CITY. >>LaCHONE DOCK: YES, IT IS 309,329 SQUARE FEET WITHIN 98 -- WITHIN A 98-FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT. ON THE REZONING PLAN, PD PLAN, IT LIMITS THE HEIGHT FOR THAT PHASE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THOSE RIGHTS WERE PUT ON THE PERMANENT PAPERS, WHAT THE COUNCIL DID IN 2010, SPECIFYING ONLY AN EIGHT STORY BUILDING OR ANTICIPATED AN EIGHT STORY BUILDING. >>LaCHONE DOCK: ANTICIPATED. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THAT'S ALL I GOT TO ASK. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCIL MEMBER HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. MS. WELLS. I'M SORRY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'M BEATING A DEAD HORSE BUT I WANT TO REALLY MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS. SAY WE STARTED FROM SCRATCH WITH THIS SITE PLAN AND THERE'S ONLY A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. ENTIRE SITE PLAN, BACK IN 20 WHATEVER 10. I'M USING NICE ROUND NUMBER. 100,000 THEN, FINE. YOU BUILD THE FIRST ONE AND IT'S 20,000. AND THEN YOU BUILD THE NEXT ONE AND IT'S TEN AND BUILD THE NEXT ONE AND IT'S 10. YOU STILL HAVE 50,000. I'M SORRY, I'M TRYING TO MAKE AN ANALOGY OUT OF THIS. YOU'VE USED MOST OF THE LAND. YOU HAVE HALF OF IT LEFT. YOU HAVE 50,000 LEFT. AND THE NEW PARCEL OR ONE SMALL PIECE OF THE PARCEL LEFT. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW TO BUILD ALL OF THAT IN ONE SPACE. IT'S NOT WORKING AS AN ANALOGY. I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT. LET ME PULL A MAP AND WE'LL JUST USE THE NUMBERS WE HAVE. I'M REALLY TRYING TO FORMULATE THIS QUESTION. IF IT WASN'T 309 THAT WERE LEFT, SAY IT WAS 600 THAT WERE LEFT, WOULD THEY HAVE THE RIGHT THEN TO ASK FOR A 54-FOOT -- 54 STORY BUILDING? >>CATE WELLS: CATE WELLS, LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I'M NOT THE PLANNER. I'M HOPING THE PLANNERS ARE LISTENING TO THIS IN THE EVENT THEY WANT TO ADD TO THAT. LEGALLY MY APPROACH WOULD BE ANY REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE, WHETHER IT IS A 27 STORY BUILDING OR A 50 STORY BUILDING, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CRITERIA FOR A REZONING IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I THINK WHAT WE HEARD IN THE STAFF REPORT, THIS ALL BOILS DOWN TO AN ISSUE OF COMPATIBILITY SCALE AND MASSING. THE ABILITY TO REQUEST TO BUILD UP TO THAT AMOUNT IS JUST THE ABILITY TO REQUEST. IT'S NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. THIS COUNCIL STILL GETS TO DECIDE, DOES THIS APPLICATION MEET THE CRITERIA IN THE CODE? DOES IT COMPLY WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? DOES THAT HELP? >>LYNN HURTAK: YES, I THINK IT DOES. BASICALLY WE'RE TREATING THIS LIKE ANY OTHER PD. >>CATE WELLS: THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION. >>LYNN HURTAK: I'M CLEAR NOW. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE FOR RE-ASKING YOUR QUESTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: IT'S TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF NO ONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS. MR. GARDNER, IF YOU WANT TO KICK IT OFF. THERE IS A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL TIME. >> TRUETT GARDNER. 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED FIRST BECAUSE I WAS PART OF THE 2010. THIS IS JUST THE EXAMPLE OF HOW CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE. IN 2010, WHAT WE AGREED TO WAS THE PARCEL TO THE NORTH WAS GOING TO BE HIGH-RISE TOWER. THIS PARCEL WAS GOING TO BE 98 FEET. FAST-FORWARD TO NOW, WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT NORTH PARCEL, WE DOWN-ZONED IT TO EIGHT STORIES AND WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR YOU TONIGHT IS TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2010 OF THAT SOUTHERN PARCEL. THAT IS THE HEIGHT COMPONENT OF IT. THE DENSITY COMPONENT IS WHAT WAS ACHIEVED AND MR. LOBE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS, THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF THE SHIFTING OF THE -- OR REALLOCATING OF THE 309,000 TOTAL SQUARE FEET TO THAT PARCEL. NEXT AND WE HAVE TO MOVE FAST AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT. NEXT, A LOT WAS RAISED ON US BEING DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A NEW SITE PLAN. THE ANSWER IS WE THOUGHT WE WERE NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE FOLKS AT PARK SIDE AND WITH 34537 THE PERSON AT PARKSIDE WE WERE NEGOTIATING WITH TURNED OUT TO BE A PHANTOM. MR. CHEZ WAS HERE TONIGHT. HE SAID HE REPRESENTS SPANISH TOWN CREEK. WE WERE TOLD THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS THAT HE REPRESENTS 345. WE WERE CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WANTING TO BRING BACK A CLEAN SITE PLAN. IN THE END THE RUG WAS PULLED OUT FROM UNDER US AND TURNED OUT WE WERE DEALING WITH A PHANTOM AND SOMEBODY ELSE PURPORTING TO REPRESENT SOMEBODY ELSE. WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE SPEAKERS AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED SPEAKER WAIVER FORMS, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF 345 RESIDENTS. CONNECTING DOTS HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING THEIR VIEW. I'M NOT A LITIGATOR, BUT THE ONE CASE I DO REMEMBER, THE EDEN ROCK CASE, WHICH IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO A VIEW. IF YOU WANT A VIEW IN FLORIDA, YOU BUY THE VIEW. THEN WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE HAVE PLANNED, IT WAS MENTIONED, DOES IT COMPLY? IF IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE HERE AT THIS SITE, WITH THOSE ENTITLEMENTS ALREADY IN PLACE, THEN WHERE IS IT APPROPRIATE? AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS R 83. R 83 MENTIONS HEIGHTS IN THE RANGE OF 24 STORIES. MS. WELLS JUST SAID THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT. WE'RE PROPOSING 25 STORIES IN THAT RANGE. THERE'S BEEN APPROVALS BEFORE, THE RITZ THAT HAD R 50, THAT SHOULD BE EIGHT STORIES. WE HAD OVER 300. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMP PLAN, THIS IS THE EXACT PLACE WHERE THIS DENSITY SHOULD GO. I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT THIS IS, IS THE OPPOSITION WANTS TO DENY US SOMETHING THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN THINGS OVER -- WE HAVE TWO MINUTES. WE BETTER GO TO RICKY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> RICARDO DE CAMPS, CRESCENT COMMUNITIES. MRS. WELLS SAID WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU IS WHAT IS APPROPRIATE HERE. I THINK WE HAVE SHOWN AND DEMONSTRATED THAT WE HAVE TRIED AND TRIED FOR TWO YEARS TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP WHO HAS IN ALL REGARDS TOLD US US, HEY, YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THIS PERSON. GUESS WHAT, THIS PERSON IS A PHANTOM. THEY DON'T REPRESENT US. SO WE'RE NEGOTIATING GOOD FAITH AND TRYING TO MOVE THIS ALONG. EVERY TIME WE TRY TO GET TO A SOLUTION THAT IS APPROPRIATE WHERE WE'VE SHOWN THAT WE'VE MODIFIED OUR PLANS, MODIFIED OUR INGRESS, MODIFIED OUR BUILDING ORIENTATION, IT'S, NO, YOU HAVE TO BE AT 98 FEET. SO WHAT I SAY IS, WHAT IS APPROPRIATE? WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS HAVE SAID, HEY, CAN WE TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO? WE HAVE MOVEMENT. WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO MOVE OUR BUILDING OR SHIFT OUR BUILDING HEIGHT. IT WAS LIKE, NO, WE'LL SEE YOU AT CITY COUNCIL. WE WILL NOT CONTINUE ANYMORE. THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE THAT IS DURING THE CONTINUANCES. SO THOSE -- I HOPE THAT EXPLAINS THE LAPSE AND THE DELAYS IS THE INABILITY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH AN ACTUAL PERSON. NUMBER TWO, NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH. WE'RE NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST US. I WOULD LEAVE THIS TO YOU GUYS AND SAY, WE HAVE -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE GOING TO PROPOSE IN A CONTINUANCE WAS WE WOULD KEEP IT TO THE SAME HEIGHT, THE 272 FEET OF HEIGHT THAT THEY HAVE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT IN THAT AREA. IN ADDITION, IT ALLOWS US TO BRING RESIDENTIAL RENTAL HOUSING TO BAYSHORE WITH A SLEW OF SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT JUST TO THE BENEFIT OF 345. IT IS A BENEFIT TO THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP A SITE THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT DEVELOPED IN THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS. THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE TRIED TO COMMUNICATE AND COULDN'T GET IT WITH THE 345. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBERS. >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. MR. GARDNER TALKED ABOUT 24 STORIES IN R 83. IS THAT THE MAX THAT'S ALLOWED IN R 83? I'M SORRY. >>JENNIFER MALONE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE VERBIAGE SAYS "TYPICALLY." >>LYNN HURTAK: THERE'S NO RANGE -- >>JENNIFER MALONE: TYPICALLY UP TO 24. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO MAX OF 24. >>JENNIFER MALONE: WELL, TYPICALLY. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: A WAIVER IS REQUESTED. IS THE ISSUE ABOUT THE LOADING BERTHS, BUT THEN A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WAIVER OF GOING FROM 5 TO 2 AND NOW A WAIVER GOING FROM 3 TO 2. WHAT AM I MISSING THERE? >>LaCHONE DOCK: I BELIEVE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING THAT WAIVER WOULD BE REMOVED. THEY WORKED WITH MOBILITY. GIVEN THAT THAT WAIVER WAS PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY, IT'S ALREADY GRANTED. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DISREGARD THAT. >>LaCHONE DOCK: IN THE REVISION SHEET, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE CHANGES MADE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE TWO LOADING BERTHS. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL? WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CLENDENIN. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT. I THINK IT'S NOT A SECRET. I'M SURE TO THE DISPLEASURE OF FOLKS THAT I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AS BIG A PROBLEM WITH HEIGHT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. I STILL CONTEND THAT HEIGHT IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING I GO INTO. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. IT'S MOSTLY ABOUT THE MASS AND SCALE OF THE BUILDING AND THEN A COUPLE OF OTHER SECONDARY ISSUES. IT IS AN EXTREMELY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO I UNDERSTAND THE FLEXIBILITY OF BEING ABLE TO GET THE RETURN THAT THE INVESTORS ON THIS PROPERTY WANT OUT OF THE SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY IS PROBABLY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT MATH WORK TO THE DEGREE THEY WANT TO BECAUSE AGAIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THIS PROPERTY IS SO DARN SMALL. THE APPLICANT ITSELF BROUGHT UP ONE BUILDING ON BAYSHORE, HYDE PARK HOUSE AND I THINK IT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF MASS AND SCALE WHERE THEY STAGGERED THAT BUILDING. WEDDING CAKE TYPE OF APPROACH FROM BAYSHORE BOULEVARD SO YOU'VE ONLY GOT A COUPLE OF STORIES IN THE FRONT AND THEN IT STAGGERS BACK. THE SIDES FACE THE STREET SAME WAY, STACKED UP. YOU DON'T HAVE A LARGE SCALE VERTICAL BUILDING JUTTING RIGHT FROM THE GROUND AND STRAIGHT UP INTO THE SKY. IN THESE NONBUSINESS DISTRICT AREAS. I GET THE FACT THAT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE MASS AND SCALE IS TO GO VERTICAL RIGHT FROM THE SIDEWALK. BUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE BRING THIS UP ALL THE TIME, BAYSHORE IS ONE OF TAMPA'S CROWN JEWELS. SO IT IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY. WE HAVE SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD. IT IS A VERY DISTINCTIVE AREA AND VERY UNIQUE. I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. IN ALL OF MY REMARKS I WILL SAY I HAVE NOTHING BUT THE GREATEST ADMIRATION FOR CRESCENT AND THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDINGS THEY BUILD. I THINK THE EXAMPLES THEY BUILD AROUND THE CITY ARE NICE. I THINK THE ADJACENT BUILDING IN THEIR PHASE TWO. I'M AN ADMIRER OF THAT AND WHAT THEY DID. THE WAY YOU'VE GOT THE POOL AND SCALE OF THE BUILDING, IT IS A NICE PROJECT. PHASE TWO OF THAT PROJECT IS REALLY NICE. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. I GET HOW YOU ALL CAME INITIALLY BACK IN 2010 WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY THINKING IT WOULD BE A MUCH BIGGER PROJECT AS YOU GET THE PLAT IN THAT VERY BIG INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR AND DO THE STAGGER AND DROP-DOWN AND THEN YOU GET INTO 345, I THINK IT CAME UP IN EVIDENCE TODAY, A MASSIVE PIECE OF PROPERTY CONSIDERING IT IS ONE BUILDING. THERE IS A LOT OF GREENSPACE. THEY HAVE THE DOG WALK. THE BUILDING IS SET BACK FROM BAYSHORE. THEY HAVE THE BIG DRIVE PULLING UP TO IT. IT DOESN'T COME VERTICAL RIGHT OUT OF THE GROUND. IT'S GOT A HUGE GREEN SCAPE BUFFER AROUND IT. THE BUILDING ITSELF, ENH. BUT IT'S ON A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY. AGAIN, YOU GUYS ARE COMING TO THE TABLE WITH A POSTAGE STAMP. I GET IT. THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE OF HOW DOES THIS INTERFACE? SOMEBODY CAME UP AND TALKED ABOUT THE GARAGES. I THINK THAT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO TALK ABOUT ARE THE GARAGES AND HOW THEY ARE SCREENED AND THE PRESENCE ON BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND HOW THAT COMES DIRECTLY OUT OF THE GROUND. FOR THE LIFE OF ME, NO SECRET, I KIND OF LIVE IN THIS GENERAL AREA, SO I'M PRETTY EXPOSED AND FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT. MAYBE THERE IS ONE, BUT I CAN'T THINK OF ONE THAT WE HAVE THESE STRUCTURES LIKE THAT AGAIN, COMING STRAIGHT OUT OF THE GROUND RIGHT ON TOP OF YOU, ESPECIALLY BAYSHORE BOULEVARD, STROLLING BOULEVARD. PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, TAMPA CROWN JEWEL. WE DO THE GASPARILLA RUN, WE DO PARADES, ALL THE THINGS. IT IS A HIGH PROFILE LOCATION FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WHICH YOU GUYS BUILT, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT IN THE SCOPE AND THE SCALE OF HOW THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN BUILT OUT. I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND AGAIN GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING, HAD THIS PROPERTY -- HAD THE PROPERTIES BEEN DEVELOPED THE WAY THEY WERE INITIALLY PLANNED, I PROBABLY WOULD BE THINKING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH THE REALITY OF WHAT'S BUILT NEXT DOOR, NORTH AND SOUTH, PARCELS ABOVE THAT, ALL THE WAY UP TO PLATT AND TRANSITION TO THE BRIDGES, BANK OF TAMPA AS WE GET FURTHER SOUTH. I REALLY SEE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, HOW IT DIDN'T STAGGER BACK, I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT TONIGHT. I THINK WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE MASS AND THE SCALE AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE ADJOINING BUILT-OUT PROPERTIES AND HOW IT'S RELATED TO BAYSHORE BOULEVARD COMING DIRECTLY VERTICALLY OUT OF THE GROUND. I THINK IF WE KEEP THAT IN MIND, MAYBE WHEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AT A FUTURE CITY COUNCIL, WHETHER I'M HERE OR NOT, I THINK -- OBVIOUSLY THIS PROPERTY WILL GET DEVELOPED. I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. HOW THAT INTERFACES WITH YOUR ALL PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY. INTERFACES WITH PROPERTIES SOUTH OF YOU AND HOW IT INTERFACES WITH THE CROWN JEWEL WE HAVE OF BAYSHORE BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF TAMPA. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCIL MEMBER HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. I AGREE COMPLETELY. TO ME IT IS ABOUT MASS AND SCALE. 8 STORIES IS TOO SMALL. IT JUST IS IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF BAYSHORE. 27, PROBABLY A LITTLE TOO HIGH. LOOKING AT MASSING AND SCALE OF THE BLOCK AND THE AREA, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING BETWEEN 16 AND 20. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. BUT, AGAIN, I KIND OF AGREE, LET'S NOT TALK HEIGHT -- OR STORIES BUT MASS AND SCALE. AND YOU DON'T WANT SUPER TALL NEXT TO SUPER SHORT. THAT IS A NICE BREAKDOWN. I THINK COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN EVEN SAID IT NICER WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVEN BUILDING OUT IN BACK AND FRONT. I DON'T THINK ABOUT THAT AS OFTEN BUT AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES THERE, I CAN SEE THAT. THE OTHER PART THAT CONCERNED ME IS I FEEL -- YOU WERE TRYING TO REALLY APPEAL TO BOTH SIDES AND KIND OF TALKING OUT BOTH SIDES OF THE MOUTH IN TERMS OF PARKING. MEANING, WE WANT TO OVER-PARK THIS, BUT WE ALSO WANT PEOPLE TO BE RENTING AND WALKING ACROSS TO TAMPA GENERAL. YOU GOT TO CHOOSE ONE THING AND JUST GO WITH IT AND HOLD YOUR GROUND. THE REASON I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE SUCCESSFUL EVEN HERE NOW, IF IT WAS BUILT AS IT WAS, IS BECAUSE THE SIZE OF YOUR PARKING OR YOUR BIKE STORAGE IS BARELY THE SIZE OF ONE PARKING SPACE. I'M A BIKE PARKING PERSON, BUT IF YOU LIVE THERE, IF I LIVED IN THIS BUILDING -- AND I WORKED AT TAMPA GENERAL, I WOULD 100% GET AN E-BIKE, PARK IT THERE, SECURE STORAGE. YOU NEED TO TRIPLE THAT. EVEN IF YOU DON'T WORK AT TAMPA GENERAL, YOU CAN HOP ON THAT TO GET TO AMALIE ARENA. THEY WILL BIKE VALET PARK YOUR BIKE FOR FREE. YOU'VE GOT TO INCORPORATE WHERE YOU ARE. THIS IS NOT A NO FOR ME. THIS IS A BRING BACK SOMETHING BETTER. THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A NO. I REALLY THINK YOU ARE IN THE AREA YOU NEED TO BE. I JUST THINK -- OH, AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL. LOVE THE COMMERCIAL BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING PEOPLE WANT. COMMERCIAL. I UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS, AND I WISH WE COULD GO BACK AND CHANGE WHAT SITE PLANS WERE APPROVED. UNFORTUNATELY, WE WILL NOT WIN THAT BATTLE. I AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S WRONG, BUT THOSE HAVE BEEN APPROVED, MISTAKES AND ALL. ALL WE CAN DO IS MOVE FORWARD. I BELIEVE MS. WELLS WHEN SHE SAYS LOOK AT THIS AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD HAVE ALMOST PREFERRED IF YOU HAD COME TO US WITH A COMPLETELY BRAND-NEW PROJECT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF ENTITLEMENT AND JUST SAID, HEY, WHAT CAN WE BUILD HERE? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S REALLY -- I THINK THIS COULD BE A REALLY, REALLY GORGEOUS CROWN JEWEL OF BAYSHORE. I REALLY DO. I BELIEVE THIS COULD BE REALLY LOVELY. I'M ABSOLUTELY NOT IN FAVOR OF 8 STORIES HERE BECAUSE OF THE TALL TOWER TO THE SOUTH. IT STILL LOOKS WEIRD. BUT I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE COMING FORWARD WITH SOMETHING THAT'S MORE MEET IN THE MIDDLE. THAT'S MY SUGGESTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. SIR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I JUST WANT TO SAY AGAIN, THE PROJECT IS VERY WELL INTENDED. THE DEVELOPER, I WAS HERE WHEN THEY DID THE ONE TO THE NORTH OF IT. IT WAS NEVER A PROBLEM. NEVER RECEIVED ANY PROBLEMS FROM THEM. AND WHEN 345 CAME ON, THAT WAS ANOTHER THING. BEAUTIFUL, DONE VERY WELL FOR EVERYBODY. BUT I STILL -- THE DENSITY IS TOO HIGH FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, IT'S STILL IN MY MIND, FROM BEING HERE IN 2010, THAT THE INTENT WAS NO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WENT ONLY TO THE HEIGHT OF THE 8th FLOOR OF THE BUILDING TO WHATEVER IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS R 35. THE HIGHER LAND USE LOCATED TO THE NORTH SIDE IS WHAT IT IS THERE NOW. IT DEVELOPED BEAUTIFUL. DID A GREAT JOB THERE AND ANOTHER PROJECT I KNOW CRESCENT, NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT OF CRESCENT. NEVER ONE. BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S JUST TOO MUCH FOR TOO LITTLE SPACE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE? IF NOT, I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION? COUNCIL MEMBER HENDERSON. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I THINK I'M GOING TO PASS ON THE MOTION. THIS IS VERY INTERESTING WHEN IT COMES TO SOUTH TAMPA. YOU ALL DEFINITELY KNOW HOW TO FIGHT WHEN STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION SAYS IT'S CONSISTENT AND DON'T NEED WAIVERS, THIS BOARD WILL VOTE IT DOWN. NOW, THIS ONE IS INCONSISTENT AND ACROSS THE BOARD IT HAS WAIVERS AND THERE ARE PEOPLE UP HERE SAYING, HEY, I WOULD SUPPORT IT. IT'S VERY CONFUSING, PARTICULARLY WITH SOUTH TAMPA BECAUSE YOU ALL SAY NO TO ALMOST EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WANTS TO BE BUILT, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I'M FIEDGED. FINDING. FOR ME, I'LL PASS MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE WAIVERS. I'LL PASS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCIL MEMBER VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: I WANTED TO GIVE A RATIONALE FOR MY VOTE. FOR ME, COUNCILWOMAN HENDERSON TALKED ABOUT THE FINDINGS OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF. I ALWAYS PAY A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DEFERENCE TO THAT. NOT CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIVE BUT SOME REASONABLE LEVEL OF DEFERENCE. I LOOK AT THINGS THROUGH MY OWN LENS. FOR ME, BEING CONSISTENT IS SOMETHING I VALUE. I DO. I REALLY, REALLY DO. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF UNPOPULAR VOTES I'VE TAKEN ON THINGS, WE HAVE A CLEAN PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, WE HAVE A CLEAN CITY STAFF REPORT. NO WAIVERS AND SO FORTH AND I GO, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST A DENIAL BECAUSE OF THAT. THIS HAPPENS TO BE THE OPPOSITE. FOR ME, AND, BY THE WAY, I'M NOT POINTING FINGERS AT ANYBODY OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. FOR ME I LOOK AT THIS AS A MATTER OF CONSISTENCY AND FOR ME CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY CONSISTENT WITH MY PRIOR VOTES IN VOTING TO OPPOSE THIS. SOMETHING COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK SAID I THINK IS VERY, VERY TRUE, THIS IS SOMETHING ON A BUILD BACK BETTER, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IN TERMS OF COMING BACK. BECAUSE THE 330 FEET IN HEIGHT VERSUS 270 FEET IN HEIGHT, FIRST WHEN I HEARD THAT, WELL, MAYBE THE REPORTS WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WITH THAT. UPON HEARING FURTHER TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, I DON'T KNOW IF BECAUSE OF THE MASS AND SCALE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT. JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE MAYBE FOR NEXT TIME. AGAIN, EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I ALWAYS BELIEVE IN EXPLAINING MY VOTE. I LIKE TO BE CONSISTENT IN THE WAY I APPLY THINGS. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. NOT POINTING FINGERS AT ANYBODY. FOR ME THAT'S SOMETHING I TRY TO DO ALWAYS. >>LYNN HURTAK: I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO GET ANY SUPPORT, BUT I'M GOING TO THROW IT OUT ANYWAY. I WON'T GET ANY SUPPORT IN THE CROWD. I KNOW THIS. IS THERE ANY -- ANY -- ANY INTEREST IN A CONTINUANCE? >> NO. >> NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: EXCUSE ME. >>LYNN HURTAK: I'M ASKING MY COUNCIL MEMBERS -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I ASKED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. I ASKED THE ATTORNEY TO COME UP. >>LYNN HURTAK: I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK SOMETHING COULD COME BACK. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I THINK THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE -- >>LUIS VIERA: IF I MAY, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, I JUST WANTED TO SAY BRINGING THAT UP TOOK A LOT OF WHAT OUR JEWISH BROTHERS AND SISTERS SAY, CHUTZPAH. I MEAN THAT. WHEN THAT CAME UP IN THE BEGINNING, I HAD MY THOUGHTS ON THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT IS AN UNREASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I'LL VOTE NO ON THIS TONIGHT BUT I WOULD SUPPORT A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING. YOU WOULD HAVE MY SUPPORT WITH THAT SHOULD YOU WISH TO MAKE THE MOTION. >>LYNN HURTAK: I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND SEE WHERE IT GOES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT WOULD -- OF THE RULES BY A SUPERMAJORITY, FIVE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. >>LYNN HURTAK: I DON'T HAVE THOSE VOTES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO READ THE RULE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >>MARTIN SHELBY: BEFORE YOU DO THAT JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, I WANT COUNCIL AND PUBLIC TO KNOW I HAVE PROVIDED YOU AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY, THE PD CRITERIA 27-136, THE PURPOSE AND THE CODE CRITERIA FOR 27-139 AS TO THE WAIVERS WHICH ARE ALSO BEING CONSIDERED. AGAIN, COUNCIL, YOU BASE YOUR DECISION ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, STAFF REPORT, PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS, THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE HEARD. I SUGGEST THAT YOU CITE THE PROVISIONS AS YOU SEE THEY ARE NUMBERED AND AS THEY APPLY AND IF YOU HAVE FOLKS THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE IN EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THAT, IN ADDITION, TO WHAT'S TAKEN PLACE OVER THE FEW HOURS, BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU APPLY THE FACTS TO THE CODE WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL MEMBER CLENDENIN, GO AHEAD SIR. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I WAS ALMOST GOING TO ASK FOR A 15-MINUTE RECESS TO GATHER OUR THOUGHTS. MAYBE WITH THE HELP OF OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS FILLING IN THE BLANKS, WE CAN KNOCK THIS OUT. AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY -- I CONCUR WITH COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. I THINK THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES HERE BUT THIS JUST ISN'T IT. IT IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR. THANKS TO THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH TAMPA. I HAVE WAY TOO MANY PIECES OF PAPER IN FRONT OF ME. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO DENY FILE REZ 23-99 BASED ON THE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING, PERTAINING TO THE MASS AND SCALE OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON WHAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS PHASE THREE OF THIS PD PROJECT. I CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT IT DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSITION IN DENSITY ON THE PARCEL WHICH WAS FURTHEST FROM DOWNTOWN TAMPA AND THE HIGHER DENSITY LAND USE POLICIES IN ONE, TWO, THREE, 922, 938, AND ANY POLICY 139 .AGAIN, JUST AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED THAT THE TRANSITION FROM WHAT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY DEVELOPED IN THE FIRST TWO PHASES, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP TO THE SAME DENSITY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A TRANSITION. THEY ARE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT DOWN, DOWN, AND THEN GOING BACK UP. SO THE TRANSITION IN THAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE POLICY, DOES NOT EXIST IN THE PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. I ALSO FIND THAT THIS PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED TO US THIS EVENING DOES NOT PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE WITH CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. 23-136. I FIND THAT THE, AGAIN, THE MASS AND THE SCALE AND THE IMPACT THIS HAS ON THAT PARTICULAR VERY SMALL PARCEL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN COMING STRAIGHT VERTICALLY FROM THE GROUND, IT DOES NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF GUARDING AGAINST THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE SURROUNDING IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS. I ALSO FIND THAT AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING THAT THIS DOES NOT ALLOW THE INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT LAND USE AND DENSITIES AND ONE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED UNDER GENERAL ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED IN THIS CHAPTER WHICH ENCOURAGE COMPATIBILITY AND OVERALL SITE DESIGN AND SCALE BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TO THE PROJECT SITE. I BELIEVE THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES. AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT MASS AND SCALE OF THE PROPERTY, THAT THIS DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OVERALL SITE DESIGN. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 27-1362 WHICH IS WHAT I JUST READ. ALSO ACCORDANCE WITH 27-136 DOES NOT PROMOTE OR ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATE LOCATION CHARACTER COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDED IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS, BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND EXISTING GEOGRAPHY. I THINK, AGAIN, REPEATING THE EXACT SAME THING, SCOPE AND MASS, SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE PROJECT ON THE VERY TINY PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WITHOUT ANY KIND OF STAGGER, WITHOUT ANY SETBACKS COMING VERTICALLY RIGHT FROM THE GROUND. I ALSO IDENTIFIED LAND USE POLICY 122 -- NO. I'M SORRY. 211, SAME REASON THAT THE PROPOSED 27 STORIES WOULD BE OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THAT'S WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S ALL I HAD. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. LET'S GET A ROLL CALL VOTE. >>LYNN HURTAK: YES. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YES. >>GWEN HENDERSON: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH CARLSON ABSTAINING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. SHELBY, ANYTHING? NO. ALL RIGHT. PREEMPTIVE DON'T CLAP. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, NEW BUSINESS? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NO, SIR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: REALLY QUICK. I WANTED TO TELL COUNCIL ON SATURDAY I'LL BE GIVING TO THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: PLEASE LEAVE QUIETLY. WE'RE STILL IN THE MEETING. >>LUIS VIERA: JUST SATURDAY, AGAIN, YOU ALL GOT A MEMO. I WANTED TO GIVE A COMMENDATION TO THE HAITIAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PRIDE MONTH. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. >>LUIS VIERA: I WANTED TO DO A LETTER. S.W.F.W.M.D., THEY DEAL WITH CONTROLLED BURNS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW WHAT HAPPENED IN NEW TAMPA WHERE THEY APPARENTLY DID A BURN AT FLAT WOODS PARK AND -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY WENT OUT OF CONTROL BUT REALLY, REALLY BAD IN PARTS OF HUNTER'S GREEN. I REACHED OUT TO PASCO COUNTY AND SO FORTH. I WANT TO BE EMPOWERED TO WRITE A LETTER ON BEHALF OF CITY COUNCIL TO THEM ASKING THAT WHENEVER THEY DO THIS -- I KNOW THERE IS A WEBSITE WHERE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS CAN GO AND ASK FOR A NOTICE AND SO FORTH, THAT THEY WOULD AT LEAST CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND COUNTY COMMISSION KNOW OF THIS SO THAT WE CAN AT LEAST TELL THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW. IT GOT INTO MY HOUSE. I WOKE UP AT 3 A.M. AND THOUGHT MY HOUSE WAS ON FIRE. KIND OF FUNNY. THAT'S ALL. IF YOU NEED ME TO RETURN THE LETTER FOR APPROVAL -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CLENDENIN. ALL IN FAVOR? >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU, COUNCIL. >>GWEN HENDERSON: THIS IS ONE THAT'S GOING TO SHOW OUR SOCIAL ACTION DOLLARS WORKING. I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE ON-SITE COMMENDATION ON MAY 15, 2025, AT OUR REGULAR SESSION TO SLIGH MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL ROBOTICS CLUB FOR BEING PRESENTED WITH SPORTSMANSHIP AWARD DURING THEIR COMPETITION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HENDERSON. SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? >>GWEN HENDERSON: THANK YOU. I ALSO MOVE THAT THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP DRAFT DESIGN STANDARDS AND DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR A LARGE FORMAT DIGITAL SIGN MEDIA FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND PRESENT THE DRAFTS AT THE MAY 22nd WORKSHOP. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HENDERSON. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER VIERA. VIERA. PLEASE SAY THAT AGAIN. >>LUIS VIERA: I DON'T KNOW WHAT I SECONDED. REPEAT IT. LONG WEEK. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I MOVE THAT THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP DRAFT DESIGN STANDARDS AND DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR LARGE FORMAT DIGITAL MEDIA FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND PRESENT THE DRAFTS AT THE MAY 22nd, 2025 WORKSHOP. >>LUIS VIERA: I'LL SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION. MY QUESTION, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS WITH THE IDEA -- >>GWEN HENDERSON: IT'S JUST A DRAFT. >>LUIS VIERA: HAVE WE SPOKEN TO THEM? >>GWEN HENDERSON: OF COURSE. I WOULDN'T MAKE IT -- >>LUIS VIERA: BUT, AGAIN, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE, WHICH IS I TAKE A LOOK AT THE SIGN ISSUE AND KIND OF WHERE IT WENT LAST MEETING, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SIDES TALK, HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DE-ESCALATION ON THIS. I'LL SUPPORT THIS AND MOVE THIS FORWARD BECAUSE I DO WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING WORK. I WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF YOU BUT I ENCOURAGE ALL THE PARTIES TO COME FORWARD BECAUSE MOVING FORWARD ON THIS, GOING TO ONE EXTREME WHILE HAVING ESCALATING RHETORIC, I DON'T WANT THAT ON THIS ISSUE. IT'S NOT SUCH A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE THAT WE NEED CONTINUING ESCALATING RHETORIC. >>GWEN HENDERSON: I AGREE. STAFF INITIALLY WHEN THE MOTION WAS MADE THEY PROVIDED US A MEMO INDICATING THEY DO NOT SUPPORT DIGITAL SIGN MEDIA. THAT WAS NOT THE MOTION. THAT WASTED A LOT OF TIME. WE CAME UP WITH THE NEXT INDICATION FOR THEM TO BRING SOMETHING BACK, AND IT WAS EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE, VERY LIMITED, AND THEN THE THIRD TIME THEY WAS LIKE, WELL, LET'S GET CRA TO PAY FOR IT AND THEY WERE VERY VAGUE ABOUT GATEWAYS AND THEY USED CITIES THAT DID NOT NECESSARILY RELATE TO TAMPA IN TERMS OF DIGITAL SIGN MEDIA, DENVER BEING UNLIMITED AND ATLANTA DOUBLE THE SIZE. THERE WERE THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND WHAT HAVE YOU. YEAH, THERE ARE SOME KEY INDICATORS THAT THERE IS PUSH-BACK, BUT IT IS OUR JOB. WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS JUST A DRAFT. IT'S A WORKSHOP. IT REQUIRES OUR INPUT, OUR INTAKE TO RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION. IT PROVIDES THE PARTNERSHIP TO WORK NOT JUST IN ISOLATION WITH PARTNERS, WITH COMMUNITY DPEAMENT. I HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP. I HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE STRAZ. I HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE ART MUSEUM, OF THE FLORIDA AQUARIUM, OF VISIT TAMPA BAY. AND I ALSO RECENTLY CONFIRMED THE SUPPORT OF SBP. IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE DOING THIS IN ISOLATION. I WANT IT TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT. IT WILL PERMIT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IT WILL GET THE BALL ROLLING. THE ONE THING CITY STAFF WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT IS THEY WANTED TO USE PUBLIC DOLLARS AND CRA DOLLARS AND PUSH IT EVEN FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD BY FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS, AND THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I HAD TO GET TO WORK. THIS IS WHAT I'VE COME UP WITH, ASKING FOR A DRAFT. I STARTED IT LAST WEEK. THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE. I ASKED COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK TO MOVE THE SALARY TO -- THAT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. SO IT SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE TO YOU. >>LUIS VIERA: I'LL SUPPORT THIS UNDER MY INTERPRETATION OF FEASIBILITY I GUESS IF YOU WILL. ONE THING, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL DO THIS, WHICH IS MAKE SURE TO ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOLKS THAT LIVE THERE. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE AND OBVIOUSLY DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES AS WELL AS RESIDENTS, THAT HE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, BUT AGAIN YOU TALKED ABOUT SOME GOOD COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND EVERYTHING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS SOMETHING DONE AS A MEANS OF BRINGING PEOPLE TO THE TABLE. >>GWEN HENDERSON: ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PIECE COMES NEXT. IT'S NOT JUST THEM. THAT THOUGHT IS FOLLOWED WITH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND NOT JUST ONE TIME BUT THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. THIS IS JUST THE START. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY. WE'RE AT THE END OF THE ROAD HERE, AND THIS IS JUST A DRAFT AND IT'S JUST GETTING US STARTED. I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF INPUT AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT IT IS GETTING THE BALL ROLLING. ONE THING IS CLEAR IS THAT THE STAFF COULD ACTUALLY WRITE THESE DESIGN AMENDMENTS BUT THEY HAVE REFUSED TO DO THAT. SO THIS IS THE OPTION THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US. AND THAT IS A FACT WE CAN'T DANCE AROUND. >>LUIS VIERA: TO FINISH UP, IF I MAY, AGAIN, I SEE THIS, THANK YOU, AS A FEASIBILITY TYPE OF AN ISSUE. LIKE I SAID ON DE-ESCALATION -- >>GWEN HENDERSON: YEAH, BABY, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. >>LUIS VIERA: LIKE I SAID, I HOPE THIS CAN BE USED AS A MEANS TO PUT A COUPLE OF ICE CUBES IN THE CAPPUCCINO, SO TO SPEAK. A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE TO COME TO THE TABLE. SOMETHING I WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF. WANTED TO GIVE MY THOUGHTS AND INTERPRETATION. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I DON'T VOTE FOR THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST AT THE END. I'M SAYING TO MYSELF, SAYING TO THE PUBLIC, I REMEMBER WHEN WE WENT THROUGH SIGN PROBLEMS AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS. I UNDERSTAND THAT ON THE EXPRESSWAY. WENT A YEAR OR TWO HAD TO TAKE DOWN FOUR OR FIVE SIGNS, ONE DIGITAL SIGN TO CLEAN UP WHAT WE HAD -- >>GWEN HENDERSON: WE HAVEN'T UPDATED THE SIGN CODE -- 16 YEARS, THE SIGN CODE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED. ANOTHER REASON TO GET STARTED. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BUT PROVIDE CLARIFICATION. AGAIN, NO SURPRISES. I DO NOT SUPPORT, IF WE MOVE ON THIS ISSUE, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF GIVING WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER INHERENTLY GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS TO THE PARTNERSHIP OF LIKE MANAGING THIS PROCESS IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS. I DON'T SUPPORT THAT. I DIDN'T WANT ANY SURPRISES IF THIS MOVES FORWARD. I THINK THOSE FUNCTIONS ARE INHERENTLY GOVERNMENT. >>GWEN HENDERSON: CAN I READ EXACTLY THE VERBIAGE FROM THE STAFF? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION NOW. I DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE A SURPRISE IF I OBJECT SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? >> AYE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: FIVE YESES AND A NO. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH MIRANDA VOTING NO -- SORRY, MIRANDA VOTING NO AND CARLSON ABSENT AT VOTE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILMAN CLENDENIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I HAVE NOTHING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. >>LYNN HURTAK: BEAR WITH ME. I'VE ALREADY WRITTEN THIS DOWN. I'VE ALREADY WRITTEN THIS, LADIES, DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU. I HAVE A MOTION COMING FORWARD ON APRIL 3rd, 2025, THAT STATES MOBILITY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A REPORT ON DETAILING PERSONNEL THIRD PARTY MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS AND EQUIPMENT PAID FOR BY THE STORMWATER SERVICE ASSESSMENT. I WANT TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS TO THAT. TO THE PRIOR MOTION, I MOVE TO SCHEDULE THE NEXT IN-PERSON MONTHLY STORMWATER MAINTENANCE REPORT TO BE PRESENTED ON APRIL 3rd WITH THIS. ADDITIONALLY, I MOVE TO HAVE STAFF ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WHICH WOULD ASSIST THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT FACILITIES MORE? ADDITIONAL FTEs OR ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR ASSISTANCE? TWO, WHICH IS MORE COST-EFFECTIVE FOR PARADE ROUTE BARRIER SETUP AND REMOVAL? STORMWATER TRANSPORTATION STAFF OR CONTRACTORS? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YEAH, GOOD. >>LUIS VIERA: SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. I THINK THAT'S GREAT. >>LYNN HURTAK: WE'VE GOT TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT STORMWATER. AND THEN, MULTIPLE NEWS SITES REPORTED YESTERDAY THAT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY SHAWN DUFFY HAS ORDERED OFFICIALS TO STOP ACTION ON ALL BIDEN ERA DISCRETIONARY GRANTS TO BUILD BIKE LANES. A MEMO STATED THAT D.O.T. HEADS ARE BEING ASKED TO UNDERTAKE A PROJECT BY PROJECT REVIEW TO IDENTIFY PROPOSALS WHOSE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE. PROJECT TEAMS WILL CONDUCT A REVIEW TO FLAG ANY PROJECTS FOR POTENTIAL REMOVAL IF THE PROJECTS INVOLVE EQUITY ANALYSIS, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND/OR EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. SO IN 2020, THE CITY OF TAMPA RECEIVED NOTICE OF $24 MILLION AWARD FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE BUILDING BETTER UTILIZING INVESTMENT TO LEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT BUILD GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE WEST RIVER DISTRICT MULTIMODAL NETWORK AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS BUILD SEGMENTS ONE THROUGH SIX MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS WEST RIVERWALK PROJECT. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION I MOVE TO HAVE STAFF APPEAR IN PERSON APRIL 17, 2025, TO ANSWER THREE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE WEST RIVER DISTRICT MULTIMODAL NETWORK AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS BUILD SEGMENTS ONE THROUGH SIX PROJECT. IF THE BUILD GRANT IS CANCELED, ONE, WHAT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES COULD BE PURSUED TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED? TWO, WHAT SCOPE REDUCTION WOULD NEED TO BE MADE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS OF $24 MILLION BUILD GRANT? THREE, TO DATE, WHAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN SPENT ON THIS PROJECT? THIS IS NOT TO CANCEL THE PROJECT. THIS IS TO REALISTICALLY SAY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE LOSE THIS MONEY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'LL SECOND IT. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT'S ALL I WANT. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, BUT I'M TERRIFIED. WE DON'T GOT 24 MILLION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NOW WE PUBLICLY SHOW ALL OF OUR CARDS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. BY MIRANDA. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? YES, MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THIS IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. THOSE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY COMING DOWN TO CITY COUNCIL EACH THURSDAY, COUNCIL IS NOT MEETING NEXT WEEK, MARCH 20th. IT IS THE SPRING BREAK RECESS OF CITY COUNCIL. YOUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS ON MARCH 27. >>GWEN HENDERSON: MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>LUIS VIERA: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA ASKED ME THAT SATURDAY FOR YOUR STAFF, 5621 HARNEY ROAD, IVW. LET ME KNOW. BRANDON MAY BE OUT. WHO IS PLANNING TO COME? >>LYNN HURTAK: I ALREADY TOLD BRENNAN. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HENDERSON. SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED. [ SOUNDING GAVEL ]