Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

Thursday, November 18, 2010

9:00 a.m. session


DISCLAIMER:

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


09:04:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to

09:04:18 order.

09:04:19 Chair will yield to the honorable Mary Mulhern.

09:04:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:04:23 It's my honor to introduce Gary Gibbons.

09:04:26 This morning Gary will give our invocation.

09:04:29 He is a fourth generation native of Tampa, raising his

09:04:33 two children here and works for the law firm of

09:04:37 Gibbons, Newman, et al.

09:04:40 Thank you, Gary.

09:04:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Stand and remain standing for the

09:04:45 pledge of allegiance.

09:04:46 >> I'm not a member of the clergy.

09:04:49 I was born and raised here.

09:04:51 In fact, every Sunday morning from the time I was about

09:04:56 this high until I graduated from high school, I was

09:05:00 down at the first Presbyterian church, and my family

09:05:03 was down on the front row in the fourth PEW every sun.

09:05:08 In fact people would call if we weren't there to find

09:05:10 out where we were and if something was wrong.

09:05:15 In the spirit that I have learned how to pray, but

09:05:18 after I accepted the invitation to come here this

09:05:20 morning, I was furnished with a pamphlet that discussed

09:05:25 how to give an inclusive prayer, one that wouldn't be

09:05:31 offensive to people in attendants. and while that

09:05:36 pamphlet is well written and well-intentioned, it

09:05:39 struck me that it's very difficult, if not impossible,

09:05:43 to give an audible prayer that would not be offensive

09:05:48 to somebody who is here today.

09:05:51 I'm also aware that there has been an inordinate amount

09:05:57 of time spent before this council where of people




09:06:00 arguing about whether or not a prayer should even be

09:06:03 given.

09:06:04 And as I look out at the faces of my fellow citizens

09:06:08 this be morning, I know that we all have different

09:06:11 backgrounds and different religious beliefs.

09:06:15 And the only thing that we have in common this morning

09:06:18 is that we are here to do the business of the City of

09:06:20 Tampa.

09:06:23 Certainly no one came here to give me a prayer the way

09:06:27 that I was taught to pray at the first Presbyterian

09:06:30 church.

09:06:30 So instead I am going to ask everyone to join in a few

09:06:33 moments of silence during which if you would like to

09:06:37 pray, I ask that you do so silently, and if you choose

09:06:41 not to pray, that you engage in a moment of silence and

09:06:49 find something that will be of benefit to you with the

09:06:51 goal that each of us will begin this public meeting

09:06:54 ready to tackle the issues that face our city with a

09:06:59 renewed spirit of good will and cooperation.

09:07:03 Please join me in a moment of silence.

09:07:07 (moment of silence)

09:07:09 Thank you.




09:07:37 (Pledge of Allegiance)

09:07:38 >> Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to dedicate

09:07:53 today's meeting to it would be young soldiers who are

09:07:56 fighting this morning on behalf of our country in

09:07:58 Afghanistan.

09:08:01 The mothers of these two young men work in my office.

09:08:05 Let me tell you a little bit about these brave young

09:08:08 men.

09:08:10 Corpsman first class Brian Edward motley is a field

09:08:14 medic.

09:08:16 He treats wounded marines on the battlefield often

09:08:18 doing his job saving other people's lives without

09:08:23 carrying a weapon for his own protection.

09:08:26 His reports to his mother are always sad because he

09:08:30 sees the worst part of combat.

09:08:32 The dead and the wounded.

09:08:35 Sadly, Brian will not be home with his family for

09:08:38 Thanksgiving or Christmas this year.

09:08:40 They will likely miss his son's tenth birthday in

09:08:44 January.

09:08:45 Brian's wife Heather, also being deployed to

09:08:49 Afghanistan in January for a year.




09:08:51 So there's a possibility that their ten-year-old son

09:08:54 will be without both mother and father on his tenth

09:08:58 birthday.

09:09:00 I'm proud to work with Brian motley's mother, Beth.

09:09:08 Staff sergeant Dominick Lewis the fourth doesn't tell

09:09:15 his mother what his assignments are like.

09:09:18 She only knows that his missions are endless brutal

09:09:21 confrontations in a very bad area of the country.

09:09:24 He recently told his mother, don't bother to send me

09:09:27 any shampoo or soap, because I can't remember the last

09:09:31 time that I took a shower.

09:09:34 On November 1st, his company lost another soldier,

09:09:38 the third since June.

09:09:40 Dominick is a father as well, and his children and his

09:09:44 wife and parents and siblings are anxiously

09:09:51 returning -- his return home.

09:09:53 He will not be home for Thanksgiving or Christmas

09:09:55 either, but I'm proud to work with his mother Patti

09:09:58 Holland and his sister moody.

09:10:04 I call attention to these brave young men today not

09:10:06 only to honor them but also to honor their mothers,

09:10:09 fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, and children whose




09:10:14 lives have been literally turned upside down by this

09:10:18 endless war.

09:10:20 And although the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are daily

09:10:24 burden to those families, to the rest of us who don't

09:10:28 have people that are involved, sadly, we pretty much

09:10:33 ignore.

09:10:35 Frankly, it's disgraceful until little attention is

09:10:39 paid to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by the media

09:10:43 and the rest of us who don't have anyone there.

09:10:47 If there's a story in the paper, it's usually on the

09:10:50 last page.

09:10:51 So I ask you to remember these young men.

09:10:56 And if you think anytime today, or for the next week or

09:11:00 month, or year, that you are having a bad day, we don't

09:11:05 even know what a bad day looks like.

09:11:09 Let's bring these people home.

09:11:15 It's time.

09:11:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

09:11:17 And Thursday the 11th, as now, is Veterans Day and

09:11:25 I had a chance to go out to the -- actually on the

09:11:31 30th, the veterans hospital, to participant in the

09:11:34 veterans parade honoring our veterans.




09:11:37 So we do appreciate you recognizing those two gentlemen

09:11:40 today, and certainly as we dedicate this day towards

09:11:43 them, they will be in our heart and our prayers, and we

09:11:46 appreciate all what they are doing for this country and

09:11:50 for this nation.

09:11:51 Thank you, Mr. Gibbons, very much.

09:11:53 Roll call.

09:11:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.

09:11:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Present.

09:11:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

09:12:03 >>CURTIS STOKES: Here.

09:12:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.

09:12:07 We will have now the review of the agenda.

09:12:12 Before we do that -- I'm sorry, before we do that, Mr.

09:12:16 Miranda, a moment of special privilege.

09:12:18 Welcome back.

09:12:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That you.

09:12:22 I'm happy to be back to this great city.

09:12:24 We have two honorable guests from the Beach Park school

09:12:27 of Montessori here in Beach Park, and that's Gonzalez

09:12:34 to the extreme left and Haley and their eighth graders

09:12:37 at Beach Park and next year they will be Plant




09:12:40 Panthers.

09:12:40 It's an honor to have them here today.

09:12:44 Do you all want to stand up so the public can recognize

09:12:47 you?

09:12:49 It's up to your future.

09:12:50 You might be sitting here in a couple of years.

09:12:52 >> They told me they had a few things they want to work

09:13:04 out while they are here.

09:13:05 >>GWEN MILLER: A few things to clean up.

09:13:07 [ Laughter ]

09:13:08 Thank you.

09:13:09 Welcome today.

09:13:10 Hope you really enjoy yourselves today.

09:13:13 To see government in action.

09:13:15 Also today is Janet Zink, reporter for The Times' last

09:13:24 day and I want to wish her well in her support as she

09:13:27 goes to Tallahassee on this day.

09:13:29 So Janet, glad to see you, as you leave us.

09:13:38 >> Where is Janet going?

09:13:42 >> Tallahassee.

09:13:42 >> There's a lot of places in Tallahassee.

09:13:45 The times in or some senator's office?




09:13:51 >> She's going to the times.

09:13:52 She's going to catch a ride on that truck with the

09:13:57 brooms.

09:13:58 [ Laughter ]

09:14:01 We will review the agenda, Mr. Shelby.

09:14:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members

09:14:05 of City Council.

09:14:06 You have on your agenda today -- there really are no

09:14:09 changes for you.

09:14:10 You have two items of new business that can be taken up

09:14:13 at the end of the meeting.

09:14:14 And the clerk has for your information under other

09:14:20 notes and changes to the agenda, per council's request,

09:14:23 particularly councilman Miranda, they have put down the

09:14:29 hours of sales for alcoholic beverage.

09:14:31 You will note them for each one, right after the file

09:14:35 number, and you will be -- you will be able to make

09:14:40 reference to those when you do have those hearings.

09:14:42 Other than that, members of City Council, I'm not aware

09:14:44 of any other changes to this morning's agenda, and I

09:14:47 present it for your approval.

09:14:49 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.




09:14:51 >> Second.

09:14:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:14:54 Opposes?

09:14:55 One of the issues will come up later on this morning,

09:14:58 council members, we have a review -- we don't call it

09:15:02 appeal anymore, it's a review -- that's on our agenda

09:15:06 at 10:30.

09:15:07 It's going to be quite lengthy.

09:15:08 The question becomes whether we want to work through

09:15:11 lunch, since we don't have an afternoon schedule, but

09:15:13 we do have an evening schedule.

09:15:15 So I don't know whether everybody has a lunch schedule

09:15:19 or not.

09:15:19 >> I have a teach-in top GOP.

09:15:27 I'm due there blood pressure 11:30 or 12:00.

09:15:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They say that's going to be about a

09:15:32 two-hour hearing.

09:15:33 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I instructed my aide to draft a

09:15:40 letter that we want to send to the governor to

09:15:42 encourage him to continue the high-speed rail --

09:15:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's take it up under new business,

09:15:50 okay?




09:15:52 We are going to move with the agenda.

09:15:53 We are going to take public comment at this time.

09:15:55 Anyone wishing to address council may come forward,

09:15:58 state your name and address for the record, please.

09:16:00 You have three minute.

09:16:01 Anyone, public comment.

09:16:04 This is public comment.

09:16:06 We hear items on the agenda first and then remaining

09:16:09 time anyone who desires to speak or address council.

09:16:12 Anyone from the public?

09:16:13 Okay.

09:16:13 No one has anything to say this morning.

09:16:15 Okay.

09:16:17 Must all be well.

09:16:20 Then we'll move.

09:16:22 If that's the case then we'll move to our committee

09:16:24 report.

09:16:24 Public Safety Committee, Councilwoman Miller.

09:16:26 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to move resolutions 1

09:16:29 through 6.

09:16:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.

09:16:32 All in favor?




09:16:34 Opposes?

09:16:35 Parks and recreation.

09:16:36 Councilman Stokes.

09:16:38 >>CURTIS STOKES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move 7

09:16:39 through 10.

09:16:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Capin.

09:16:43 All in favor?

09:16:45 Opposes?

09:16:45 We'll move to public works, councilman Miranda.

09:16:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move 11 through 16.

09:16:50 >> Let me highlight 15.

09:16:59 Since we passed the MLBE, the involvement of small

09:17:05 business, it's 21.2% of SLBE participation on that

09:17:11 particular item so I want to call our attention to that

09:17:14 which is pretty good.

09:17:15 Okay.

09:17:16 It's been moved and seconded.

09:17:17 All in favor?

09:17:19 Opposes?

09:17:20 Okay.

09:17:21 Finance Committee.

09:17:22 Councilwoman Mulhern.




09:17:23 >>MARY MULHERN: 17 through 19.

09:17:32 I move 17 through 19.

09:17:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:17:36 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

09:17:38 Opposes?

09:17:39 Building and zoning.

09:17:40 Councilman Caetano.

09:17:41 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I would like to move items 20

09:17:44 through 35.

09:17:45 >> Second.

09:17:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:17:49 All in favor?

09:17:51 Transportation.

09:17:53 Councilwoman Capin.

09:17:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I would like to move items 36 through

09:17:57 38.

09:17:58 >> Second.

09:18:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On item 37 there's a 6% SBLE, and on

09:18:05 38 that's a 4.3 SBLE and 5.1 WMBE, items 37, 38.

09:18:13 Okay.

09:18:14 Moved and seconded.

09:18:15 All in favor?




09:18:17 Opposes?

09:18:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Move the public hearing item number 39.

09:18:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

09:18:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:18:26 Opposes?

09:18:26 Okay.

09:18:27 We are on our 9:30 items.

09:18:29 Can't take that up yet.

09:18:30 Not 9:30.

09:18:31 We can move to new business.

09:18:36 >>CURTIS STOKES: We do have representatives on the way

09:18:37 for item number 52 if we can move them ahead for the

09:18:41 9:30.

09:18:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We can do that.

09:18:44 Okay.

09:18:45 If they are here, United Way, come on down.

09:18:57 Is.

09:18:57 >> My name is Elly Stoffer, financial stabilities

09:19:04 initiatives for United Way of Tampa Bay.

09:19:06 First I want to thank the city for their continued

09:19:08 support of United Way and our effort.

09:19:11 I also for the clerk want to note that I did present




09:19:13 the clerk with a certificate for Mayor Iorio that we

09:19:17 received from the national disability institute and

09:19:19 support for the work we are doing with the disability

09:19:21 community, and ensuring that they have equal access to

09:19:25 financial service.

09:19:26 I am here this morning to represent the Prosperity

09:19:28 Campaign of Hillsborough County, an initiative that

09:19:33 provides free tax preparation to low to moderate-income

09:19:38 families in Hillsborough County.

09:19:40 We are entering our sixth year.

09:19:42 And last year's statistics for the City of Tampa, we

09:19:46 completed 4475 tax returns, equalling greater than

09:19:51 $5.9 million in total refunds, and $1.9 million in

09:19:58 earned income tax credit refund.

09:20:00 Our goal this year, aggressive as it may be, is to

09:20:03 increase that number by 30%.

09:20:05 That means an additional 1343 returns for the residents

09:20:10 of the City of Tampa would be completed at a free tax

09:20:16 location preparation, paying for their taxes to be done

09:20:20 on an average of $180 a return.

09:20:23 That's what the Brookings institute latest statistics

09:20:26 state.




09:20:27 So we are here today to ask the City of Tampa for their

09:20:31 support of this effort, as you may or may not know, the

09:20:35 earned income tax credit is the single rated

09:20:39 anti-poverty program currently in existence through the

09:20:41 federal government.

09:20:42 We know that to make a difference, we need extensive

09:20:45 outreach.

09:20:46 And we are here today to ask the City Council for their

09:20:50 support in our efforts.

09:20:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:20:58 >>CURTIS STOKES: The reason I asked Ms. Stoffer, the

09:21:06 city currently is 1,668 employees who make under

09:21:11 $50,000 a year and there's roughly 44% of city staff,

09:21:15 and I thought this would be a very good program and

09:21:17 very good opportunity to engage the city staff on

09:21:23 earned income tax credits.

09:21:25 Last week, we approved an agenda item, where the city

09:21:35 received roughly 3% back, roughly $228,000 a year, and

09:21:40 we spend about 2% of that or 1% of that to United Way

09:21:43 as part of our employee program, along with the free

09:21:47 clinics.

09:21:48 This will give us an opportunity to give something back




09:21:50 to staff, to the employees in the City of Tampa as they

09:21:53 prepare to get ready to prepare their tax returns for

09:21:56 2011.

09:21:57 So I don't know if we can put it in a motion but I

09:22:02 would ask Pam at HR to work with Elly Stoffer and

09:22:13 contribute to the United Way campaign in a much broader

09:22:16 way to make sure that we have staff available to the

09:22:23 afford the folks on our staff who make less than

09:22:25 $50,000 a year.

09:22:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess one question I have, is your

09:22:29 intent to take the 3% and come back and utilize that

09:22:32 towards the United Way?

09:22:34 >> Not the 3%.

09:22:35 Just a portion of it.

09:22:36 Only between 10 and $15,000 as contribution to United

09:22:39 Way for staff, time and materials to prepare tax

09:22:44 returns.

09:22:49 Those are free to employees.

09:22:50 >> I guess from a legal perspective do we have that

09:22:53 kind of authority under the charter at this point?

09:22:56 That's one.

09:22:57 Then I guess I want to hear from the administration of




09:22:59 what would be the impact of that, given what we are

09:23:05 financially.

09:23:06 First of all, I guess the legal part.

09:23:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, councilman Stokes, it

09:23:12 sound like there's two parts to your request.

09:23:14 You are making a particular request relative to the HR

09:23:17 department working with the United Way to make these

09:23:19 programs available to the employees.

09:23:21 And the second part sounds like you are looking towards

09:23:23 a means of having to generate fund to be able to do

09:23:26 that.

09:23:27 >>CURTIS STOKES: Yes.

09:23:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Those are two separate requests.

09:23:29 Obviously, in the form of a You can make both of them.

09:23:33 Council certainly does not have the authority under the

09:23:36 charter to dictate to the staff where the money source

09:23:39 is going to come from if there is in fact a money

09:23:41 source.

09:23:41 So as a motion to ask the HR department, as you

09:23:48 articulated, that is an appropriate motion, and you can

09:23:53 separate that and make the second request to see if it

09:23:56 is possible to be able to do it from that source and




09:23:58 make that as a request as well.

09:23:59 But it sound like there are two separate issues here,

09:24:02 one of which you can certainly ask, because that could

09:24:05 be granted if they find another source of money as

09:24:08 well.

09:24:08 So you are making a suggestion as to the source.

09:24:10 That would be my rental to do it in the form of a

09:24:13 motion, in the form of a request to the administration.

09:24:18 >>CURTIS STOKES: Thank you.

09:24:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion will be a request.

09:24:21 I mean, we can always ask the administration but they

09:24:24 don't necessarily have to honor that request, if I

09:24:26 understand that.

09:24:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's true.

09:24:28 If you wish to make as part of the motion a report to

09:24:31 come back to council in a future date under staff

09:24:34 reports, that's an option as well so you can follow

09:24:36 through.

09:24:36 Or you can ask for a report in writing.

09:24:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just raise one other thing.

09:24:42 I just need to know from a historical standpoint -- I

09:24:46 don't know whether anybody here has the city government




09:24:49 in the past taken such initiative given the fact that

09:24:52 we have so many nonprofit organizations out there, then

09:24:55 we find ourselves in a position, appeal, all of

09:25:02 nonprofits coming before City Council making those kind

09:25:05 of requests?

09:25:07 Since I have been on the board, even county

09:25:08 administration, it came through administration, and

09:25:11 budgeting towards, and then we kind of rat I if I

09:25:14 something that's voted upon.

09:25:15 So my concern is will we find ourselves being bombarded

09:25:19 by a host of nonprofits that we -- the Salvation Army

09:25:28 was talking about the need in terms of those with

09:25:31 poverty and homelessness.

09:25:33 So my concern is -- I'm just talking about me now --

09:25:36 historically, would this be setting a precedent?

09:25:39 Secondly, I guess the question, will we find ourselves

09:25:43 being bombarded by a host of nonprofits appearing

09:25:47 before council trying to identify some funding sources?

09:25:52 Because I will tell you a whole lot of nonprofits are

09:25:55 extremely -- and I support United Way.

09:25:59 I have given to it for years.

09:26:00 And when I was county commission and so forth.




09:26:07 But I just want some answers.

09:26:11 >>CURTIS STOKES: To me this was an opportunity to get

09:26:13 city employees engaged.

09:26:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then councilman Miranda.

09:26:22 >>CURTIS STOKES: This is to get -- folks on city staff

09:26:27 make under $40,000 a year and pay approximately $180 a

09:26:32 year to get tax returns completed.

09:26:35 This is an opportunity for them to get it done for

09:26:37 free, and income tax credit to give them additional

09:26:41 moneys to save.

09:26:42 I don't think this will compete with some of the other

09:26:45 nonprofits that we have in our community.

09:26:46 This is just an opportunity to give city staff -- city

09:26:53 employees, rather, an opportunity to get engaged in the

09:26:56 works of United Way.

09:26:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Chairman, I apologize, I missed

09:27:04 some of the text of the conversation doing other work

09:27:06 for the city outside the chamber for a second.

09:27:09 But in sitting here, I feel a little uneasiness about

09:27:14 it because it's channeling something to someone -- and

09:27:18 I'm not saying it's this entity or any other.

09:27:21 I don't think that I as an elected official should have




09:27:24 the privilege -- and I'm talking about myself solely.

09:27:28 I agree with the chairman.

09:27:29 Most of these funding mechanisms for or less come from

09:27:33 the administration.

09:27:34 And if you notice in the last two budget cycles, there

09:27:37 have been cuts in 501(c)3s that we do on land grants

09:27:43 and so forth, where there's entities, where there's

09:27:50 performances, where there's a lot of things.

09:27:52 So I don't feel comfortable as one individual giving

09:27:56 someone something and then the other 501(c)3s come

09:28:01 back and say, well, this is what I want offered and I

09:28:04 want you to give me the same thing.

09:28:06 That is part of the administration, not part of the

09:28:08 council.

09:28:08 That is just my opinion.

09:28:15 >>CURTIS STOKES: It doesn't have to be a monetary gift

09:28:18 but that HR staff work with Ellen Stoffer to make that

09:28:23 available to the city employees.

09:28:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you wish you can remove that

09:28:30 suggestion to the funding part and still make it a

09:28:32 request.

09:28:33 Ultimately, two things, the use of resources in order




09:28:36 to effectuate the administration is solely a function

09:28:39 of the mayor and her staff.

09:28:41 And, also, once you pass the budget with regard to any

09:28:44 use of money, those changes, if they are to be changes

09:28:49 have to be initiated by the administration.

09:28:51 My suggestion would be to make that request at least to

09:28:53 have them investigate this process.

09:28:56 If that's council's desire.

09:28:58 Ultimately it's a policy decision.

09:28:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion then would have to be a

09:29:05 request.

09:29:05 Is that what it is?

09:29:07 >>CURTIS STOKES: Yes.

09:29:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A report from the administration on

09:29:09 the particular item that you requested.

09:29:11 >>CURTIS STOKES: But the motion is to have Kim Crum

09:29:14 with the city HR report back after the meeting with

09:29:18 Ellen on the -- how do you phrase it?

09:29:23 Work with Ellen in preparing something, work with

09:29:25 United Way in helping, because -- I'm not sure.

09:29:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I think you articulated it well when

09:29:33 you initiated the motion.




09:29:34 But the thing is, did you wish to have that report in

09:29:37 writing?

09:29:37 Did you wish to have it come back by a certain date?

09:29:39 Do you wish to have an appearance by staff under staff

09:29:43 reports?

09:29:45 >>CURTIS STOKES: An appearance by staff.

09:29:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And about how much time do you want

09:29:50 to give them?

09:29:53 >>CURTIS STOKES: Since, take season starts January

09:29:55 1st, the last of December.

09:29:58 December 16th.

09:29:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you want it back for the December

09:30:05 16th, report?

09:30:08 >>CURTIS STOKES: Yes.

09:30:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I would say, if I can, I

09:30:13 generally try to support a council person for

09:30:15 information.

09:30:16 I don't mind information.

09:30:18 And I support giving you information.

09:30:22 I always tell people that.

09:30:23 But it may come down to vote against it, and if it will

09:30:31 signal out any 501(c)3 nonprofit.




09:30:35 I just have a real issue with that, okay, given that

09:30:39 understood the charter that comes under the purview of

09:30:41 the administration.

09:30:43 I'm very stiff when it comes to the charter.

09:30:45 The second thing I want to point out is if we are going

09:30:48 to do that, then we need to broaden that, because there

09:30:51 are numerous organizations that does that.

09:30:55 I know Kathy Castor, they have all the agencies, in

09:30:59 fact my church is participating where they have people

09:31:01 come and they do the taxes free, based on the salary

09:31:06 range, so forth, so that is available, I do know, for

09:31:10 the last several years.

09:31:12 So we will need that additional information as well, so

09:31:15 that we can know who all is providing the service, and

09:31:18 where they can go and get this kind of service.

09:31:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT:

09:31:24 >> Point of clarification.

09:31:26 Those programs at your church are through the campaign

09:31:29 of Hillsborough County.

09:31:30 So the pretax separation of Hillsborough are through --

09:31:35 so they are not different entities.

09:31:39 >>CURTIS STOKES: And this is for City of Tampa




09:31:41 employees, not the broader citizens, but those 1800

09:31:44 city employees that qualify.

09:31:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second to the motion?

09:31:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I second it.

09:31:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:31:52 All in favor?

09:31:54 Opposes?

09:31:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Nay.

09:31:57 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda voting no.

09:32:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion will be a report back

09:32:01 from administration relative to all of the prosperity

09:32:07 campaign, United Way and all those and so forth.

09:32:09 Okay.

09:32:12 Any other new business?

09:32:17 Councilwoman Mulhern, new business?

09:32:19 Councilman Miranda?

09:32:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, I do.

09:32:26 I would like to do a commendation to be given to the

09:32:29 East Tampa community partnership in recognition of

09:32:33 their third annual tree lighting celebration which is

09:32:36 going to be held on Friday, December 10th, at

09:32:39 5:30 p.m.




09:32:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:32:42 All in favor?

09:32:42 Opposes?

09:32:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you, chairman.

09:32:57 I want to preface my motion, in the few months that I

09:33:06 have been on council, much of the work that has been

09:33:08 involved, issues concerning the sale of alcoholic

09:33:10 beverages, and this issue has brought a lot of passion

09:33:14 and challenges for the council, as usual, and honestly,

09:33:20 I couldn't figure out why.

09:33:23 As many of you know, I spent much time on this issue.

09:33:26 I had two meetings, attended by over 100 citizens and

09:33:30 businesses.

09:33:33 And I met with many individuals, business owners,

09:33:36 neighborhood represents, business associations, city

09:33:39 staff, and the Mayor Pam Iorio.

09:33:44 And in agreement Pa because the current procedure is

09:33:50 not working.

09:33:51 And these are my findings.

09:33:52 It is two tier comprehensive approach, one of

09:33:57 compliance component, and, two, a more realistic

09:34:01 approach to the city classification and city's approach




09:34:05 to classification and working rules pertaining to

09:34:07 business sales of alcoholic beverages to the public;

09:34:11 both approaches are necessary for its success.

09:34:15 One will not be effective without the other.

09:34:17 I bring this motion to allow staff to make a more

09:34:20 detailed look it second, looking at this prayer to my

09:34:24 joining council and together with the research provided

09:34:29 can bring to council a comprehensive package that needs

09:34:34 to be acceptable to all parties, and here is my motion.

09:34:38 Thank you.

09:34:39 I move that City Council consider establishing a

09:34:43 scheduled fee per year, if any, which would monitor and

09:34:47 ensure that establishments that are permitted to sell

09:34:50 alcoholic beverages are in compliance with the special

09:34:53 conditions that City Council has placed on them, when

09:34:58 the special use permits are granted, and the legal

09:35:03 department and administration be directed to bring back

09:35:06 to City Council at the December 16th, 2010 meeting,

09:35:09 for discussion purposes, an ordinance to accomplish

09:35:12 this without additional cost to taxpayers.

09:35:16 In addition, I move to ask legal and administration to

09:35:20 review the current and proposed alcoholic beverage




09:35:23 regulations and return to City Council on December

09:35:27 16th, 2010, with additional proposed changes to our

09:35:32 alcoholic classifications and definitions in order to

09:35:35 make sure that the alcoholic classifications are more

09:35:39 specific, enforceable, and more closely meet today's

09:35:46 standards.

09:35:46 >>GWEN MILLER: That's long.

09:35:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's a lot of stuff, okay?

09:35:57 >>YVONNE CAPIN: It's a heavy issue.

09:36:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My question will be to legal, has there

09:36:02 been any discussion relative to this already with

09:36:06 administration, and to have a workshop?

09:36:11 That sound like a complete overhaul, very broad.

09:36:13 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: City attorney.

09:36:16 As was indicated, we have been working on this issue

09:36:18 for a while in response to various council motions.

09:36:24 I'm not sure we can get a full ordinance drafted by the

09:36:26 16th but certainly we could do a staff report to

09:36:30 talk about the issue and what we have identified.

09:36:33 There are some difficult legal issues around this

09:36:35 related to the state preemption so it is going to take

09:36:39 us a little more work to figure out what our parameters




09:36:42 are with the envelope that we have to work within, but

09:36:45 we could do a report back on the 16th.

09:36:49 I think we could achieve that.

09:36:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As I understood the motion, it kind of

09:36:55 broad because it's talking about our fee structure and

09:36:57 staff, and it sound to me --

09:37:01 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I think it would be a challenge to

09:37:03 come up with what the fee -- it needs to be based on

09:37:08 the workload to do the work.

09:37:10 What we probably could do by then is figure out the

09:37:15 overall envelope within which the policy decisions

09:37:17 would be made, and then perhaps schedule a workshop

09:37:20 after that to talk about the actual costs and fee

09:37:23 structure.

09:37:24 That may be doable.

09:37:26 Or we could just put it off to a workshop date if

09:37:28 that's council's preference.

09:37:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: As you just said, it's a two-tier

09:37:37 fee structure.

09:37:37 To me that means a tax or a fee or something on

09:37:40 something that you already gave that right at that time

09:37:44 to review on a yearly basis.




09:37:46 Is that what I heard?

09:37:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN: No.

09:37:49 May I speak?

09:37:53 You are asking -- I'm sorry.

09:37:54 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I would defer to council member

09:37:58 making the motion because that's something after this

09:37:59 we would have to sit down and try to figure out, what

09:38:03 councilman Miranda said does sound reasonable.

09:38:06 I.

09:38:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know exactly -- nerd, I

09:38:09 think you need a workshop really, and although I'm not

09:38:12 a workshop type of individual, but when you look at

09:38:15 this broad bite at the apple, I might say, you are

09:38:20 looking at what does it cost now to apply?

09:38:25 What you have to go through to get here to have your

09:38:28 hearing, and then maybe I misinterpreted the words but

09:38:34 you are looking at a fee every year for certain

09:38:37 zonings.

09:38:38 Is that what I heard?

09:38:40 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: How I understand the proposal is

09:38:42 to step up basically compliance with the special use

09:38:46 permits that council has approved previously and in the




09:38:51 future.

09:38:51 Doing it prospectively, there's a few legal issues.

09:38:56 Doing it with folks that already have their permit is

09:38:59 an issue.

09:39:00 So it may not be that additional fees are required, I

09:39:04 guess is my hesitation of saying it is definitely going

09:39:07 to be.

09:39:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Along that same line, yesterday as

09:39:12 I was reading all the agenda items, about 5:00 this

09:39:15 morning, really it wasn't yesterday, comes a paragraph

09:39:17 on section 3-41, an it talks about parks, where it's

09:39:23 unlawful for any person to bring or consume any type of

09:39:26 alcohol beverage into the area.

09:39:29 And I read off the parks and I started laughing at

09:39:32 myself at 5:00 in the morning.

09:39:34 Because we are lying to ourselves.

09:39:37 It says here, Al Lopez park, and this park and that

09:39:41 park.

09:39:42 They are always drinking there.

09:39:43 And I'm saying, why do I put it on paper that they are

09:39:46 not supposed to be drinking, and if that's the case --

09:39:49 and I am going to ask later on for a report on all




09:39:52 these parks on how many people have gotten arrested.

09:39:55 Very few, more than likely, unless they are inebriated

09:40:00 and can't walk.

09:40:01 Going into a park they are bringing in alcohol.

09:40:04 And I hate to be hypocritical, myself, me, when I put

09:40:08 this in language, and I know not only as an elect

09:40:14 official, and I have it many times before, I can have

09:40:18 an alcohol beverage open in my hand and walk around

09:40:21 certain parts of the city, and I never get looked at.

09:40:24 But if I take an alcoholic beverage and I open it up at

09:40:28 Macfarlane Park, I get arrested.

09:40:30 The same person with the same can of beer.

09:40:34 And you cannot have a double standard when you are

09:40:36 going to put it into the law.

09:40:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Naught would say, "amen."

09:40:47 >> [ Laughter ]

09:40:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That's exactly what the compliance won

09:40:53 take care of.

09:40:54 We have different -- and it's not just this City

09:40:59 Council.

09:40:59 Other administrations have conditions that are

09:41:04 different in every situation, just about, and that's




09:41:09 where the compliance resource would come in.

09:41:15 As far as it being a tax, it is a fee, and businesses

09:41:17 that have special conditions and get special use

09:41:21 benefit from that.

09:41:23 If not, they would not apply for them, one.

09:41:27 We get here -- I have heard over and over again,

09:41:32 citizens come before us and worry about the conditions

09:41:37 we put on and how are we going to enforce them.

09:41:46 This is what the first part of this proposal is, is for

09:41:50 us to be able to have -- and if you look at my motion,

09:41:57 it says a scheduled fee per year, if any, is up to the

09:42:02 study.

09:42:03 We may or may not come up with it.

09:42:05 But I think these should be definitely looked at.

09:42:11 The other part, the process will streamline, therefore

09:42:16 will be less expensive for these businesses to apply.

09:42:21 But without one where you have, yes, we can enforce the

09:42:26 compliance.

09:42:27 We are going to have a very hard time changing the

09:42:35 application for these businesses so that they will save

09:42:38 money.

09:42:43 It's an orderly environment where businesses and




09:42:46 clients know when they come up that, for instance, a

09:42:50 business has a plan.

09:42:59 They will know ahead of time, hopefully with this,

09:43:03 where their business fits in the City of Tampa, rather

09:43:06 than trying to fit a Hyde Park business that belongs in

09:43:12 downtown Tampa.

09:43:13 They don't know that now.

09:43:15 They come before us, and we either change their

09:43:21 business plan to fit.

09:43:25 This way, it is more streamlined, but we do have to be

09:43:29 able to enforce those conditions.

09:43:30 And that's what I'm hoping that -- I did ask for an

09:43:36 ordinance but I would be very happy with a report,

09:43:39 information, to share.

09:43:40 I think we all know that this is -- and the other thing

09:43:46 is, you know, when we talk about -- we are talking

09:43:54 about a compliance fee which would be nominal and would

09:43:58 be across the board to every single, hopefully, every

09:44:03 single alcoholic beverage sale, whether they are a

09:44:07 department store or a restaurant.

09:44:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm never opposed to information.

09:44:13 Let me say this.




09:44:14 I'm never opposed to information but I am concerned off

09:44:17 the bat an ordinance when I don't quite understand what

09:44:19 the implications are, and start talking about fee

09:44:22 structure.

09:44:22 We can call it a fee, tax, whatever.

09:44:27 So I want to understand.

09:44:30 Bottom line is this -- you give administration and tell

09:44:35 them what the parameters are and let them do it, you

09:44:39 will never have to have another thing coming before

09:44:41 City Council.

09:44:41 The problem is that it becomes political, and you say,

09:44:47 staff, it is 1,000 feet, if they don't need it, they

09:44:53 can't have it.

09:44:54 If you look at most of the zoning that comes before us

09:44:56 in terms of liquor license, we waive them.

09:45:00 We waive the 1,000 yards for residence, waive 1,000 for

09:45:06 daycare centers.

09:45:07 So, sometimes we are on our worst enemies.

09:45:14 So I have a problem when we ask for a workshop or

09:45:18 wanting information.

09:45:20 I want to tell you now I don't like voting for anything

09:45:23 on the cuff especially when I don't know what it is.




09:45:26 That's why we have a problem now, Mr. Fletcher,

09:45:28 without -- the thing we were discussing the other day

09:45:31 was the ethics code.

09:45:32 We got codes in conflict.

09:45:36 Because somebody brought it here and we just voted on

09:45:38 it without going through it and understanding it.

09:45:41 We can't do that.

09:45:44 We as elected officials need to do our due diligence

09:45:47 and understand what's going on when we pass an

09:45:49 ordinance.

09:45:50 Okay.

09:45:50 Our time is really getting away from us.

09:45:52 Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:45:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Let me make one suggestion, because we

09:45:57 have been working on different aspects of this since I

09:46:02 have been here, and we have had at least one major

09:46:08 workshop on the alcoholic beverage permits, and I know

09:46:12 that they have been working really hard on this.

09:46:16 So I would rather see it at a workshop in the context

09:46:20 of alcoholic beverage permitting and continue the work

09:46:24 they are doing, and you continue to work with them

09:46:26 toward that as a possibility.




09:46:29 But I think it's a bigger context, and I have to say

09:46:33 that we as a council will make those waivers.

09:46:41 It's not just a problem of the administration or the

09:46:45 code.

09:46:46 It's the fact that we give those waivers.

09:46:49 So all of the problems that come in front of us, this

09:46:55 council, past councils, whoever approved those permits

09:46:59 that are not in compliance, we have ab responsibility

09:47:02 for that.

09:47:03 So that's part of the bigger discussion.

09:47:13 So I would suggest we do this as a workshop and

09:47:15 Councilwoman Capin continue to work with land use and

09:47:18 legal on the portion that you want to work on.

09:47:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So is your motion then a workshop,

09:47:24 Councilwoman?

09:47:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I'll be happy to do that, if that

09:47:27 works, because really that's what I want, to open it

09:47:30 and discuss it.

09:47:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No problem.

09:47:33 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So I appreciate all the comments.

09:47:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple

09:47:37 things I wanted to bring up.




09:47:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's proceed with the motion.

09:47:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion and second for the

09:47:44 workshop.

09:47:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The next workshop is January

09:47:48 27th.

09:47:49 This would be the fourth item on the workshop.

09:47:56 On the workshop agenda.

09:47:58 Also a reminder to council that you set a workshop to

09:48:01 discuss the second part of the chapter 27 text

09:48:03 amendment cycles on the evening, an hour earlier before

09:48:06 the 6:00 rezoning.

09:48:08 You set it for 5:00.

09:48:11 You gave Cathy Coyle an hour to discuss workshop from

09:48:17 5:00 to 6:00.

09:48:18 I don't know whether you want to the bring this back,

09:48:20 if that's enough time, because it's also alcoholic

09:48:23 beverages.

09:48:24 Or if you want to set it for a January day which is the

09:48:26 workshop.

09:48:31 The next workshop after that is February 24th.

09:48:33 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

09:48:36 As far as the December date, I believe Ms. Coyle is




09:48:42 coming back with a large number of other amendments,

09:48:44 and I think it might be overwhelming to try to include

09:48:49 on that date.

09:48:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the next workshop is January.

09:48:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: January 27.

09:48:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion, moved and seconded,

09:48:57 January 27.

09:48:58 All in favor?

09:48:59 Opposes?

09:49:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would that be 10:30?

09:49:01 Would that be a good time?

09:49:03 >> What time?

09:49:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have a 9:00 workshop to discuss

09:49:07 the bicycle safety action plan.

09:49:09 You have set at 9:00 to obtain the semiannual report on

09:49:13 the SLBE, WMBE program.

09:49:16 At 10:00 you have a final of amendment to chapter 25,

09:49:20 TCEA procedures, and amendments to chapter 17.5,

09:49:25 concurrency management, that set at 10:00.

09:49:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have one on our agenda requesting

09:49:29 one for that same time at 10:30 a.m. for the truck

09:49:32 route.




09:49:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's true.

09:49:38 Yes, sir.

09:49:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Has the motion been made?

09:49:41 >> You made the motion.

09:49:42 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I mean, has it been seconded?

09:49:45 >> It has been seconded, yes.

09:49:46 Councilman Stokes.

09:49:48 January 27th.

09:49:52 Let's do it at 11.

09:49:54 And do this at 10:30.

09:49:55 So let me make that motion here.

09:49:57 So let me make the motion here for the truck route

09:50:00 coming from administration.

09:50:08 Moved and seconded.

09:50:09 All in favor say Aye.

09:50:11 Opposes?

09:50:11 Okay.

09:50:11 >> Move the truck route study.

09:50:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 10:30 on the 27th.

09:50:24 And seconded.

09:50:25 All in favor?

09:50:26 Opposes?




09:50:27 Also, we have a new -- letter from Frank Crum to you,

09:50:37 for the Black History coming up for 2011.

09:50:39 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.

09:50:41 >> Second.

09:50:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:50:44 Again I want to make a motion that Carolyn House

09:50:48 Stewart to come and give a commendation.

09:50:50 She is the international president for the Alpha Kappa

09:50:53 Alpha sorority, one of the largest sororities in the

09:50:56 nation.

09:50:59 Over 100 some years old and some 200,000 members.

09:51:03 I would like to make that motion.

09:51:04 >> Second.

09:51:05 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

09:51:07 All in favor?

09:51:09 Opposed?

09:51:10 >> that will be at our next meeting as well

09:51:14 Okay.

09:51:16 Councilman Caetano.

09:51:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I have about three or four

09:51:20 things, Mr. Chairman.

09:51:21 First I would like to make a motion that Chairman Scott




09:51:24 be requested to draft a letter to governor-elect Rick

09:51:27 Scott to make sure that the funding for the high-speed

09:51:30 rail project from Tampa to Orlando continues and any

09:51:34 matching fund that are required by the state, or

09:51:37 whatever the grant.

09:51:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:51:44 All in favor?

09:51:46 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Recently, I attended the Suncoast

09:51:48 League of Cities meeting in treasure island, which we

09:51:52 are not a member of.

09:51:54 They have about 30 different cities, Temple Terrace is

09:51:58 in it, and in speaking to the young lady from Temple

09:52:00 Terrace, she's very surprised that we are not in it.

09:52:03 And I would like to see funding come from somewhere.

09:52:06 It's a $500 fee a year.

09:52:09 It I learned a lot when I went to this.

09:52:12 It was very educational.

09:52:14 If I don't go, any other member from this council go,

09:52:17 but I enjoyed it and I think it was great.

09:52:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I thought we were a member.

09:52:26 Oh, we are a member of the Florida League of Cities.

09:52:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: It's a $500 fee.




09:52:31 I would like to make a motion we have funding.

09:52:34 >>MARY MULHERN: Where?

09:52:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I'm sure the administration can

09:52:40 find 500 somewhere to fund this program.

09:52:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's the motion.

09:52:47 Is it a second?

09:52:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: If I need to, I'll take it out of

09:52:51 my expense account.

09:52:56 You can transfer yours to mine.

09:52:58 Thank you.

09:52:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:52:59 Opposes?

09:53:00 Okay.

09:53:00 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We have done some more research

09:53:04 that we are handing out on the panhandling.

09:53:06 The county had a meeting.

09:53:08 Chip Fletcher was there, the city attorney, Mr.

09:53:10 Bennett, the chief of police was there, and really

09:53:13 there were no decisions made, but there was information

09:53:17 given out that someone had got killed understood a

09:53:22 truck, but this happened in May.

09:53:23 We just found out about it.




09:53:25 May 25th.

09:53:27 And I thought it was something that just happened that

09:53:29 week, but it was May 25th.

09:53:32 And we got this from sheriff brown.

09:53:36 He's a colonel there.

09:53:38 But this ordinance needs to be passed.

09:53:42 It's not going to appear on homeless problem, I realize

09:53:44 that.

09:53:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:53:46 Let me move to our agenda because time is getting away.

09:53:50 I didn't know it was going to take that long.

09:53:52 We can come back to that.

09:53:53 I promise I'll come back.

09:53:55 Let's get to the citizens so we can get them out of

09:53:59 here.

09:53:59 We have a 9:30 items, second readings.

09:54:17 Item 40.

09:54:19 >> Move to open.

09:54:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:54:22 Opposes?

09:54:22 Item 40.

09:54:23 Item 40.




09:54:24 Anyone from the public wish to address council on item

09:54:27 40?

09:54:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

09:54:29 >> Second.

09:54:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:54:32 All in favor?

09:54:34 Okay.

09:54:34 Councilman Stokes.

09:54:36 Item 40.

09:54:38 >>CURTIS STOKES: An ordinance being presented for

09:54:39 second reading and adoption.

09:54:41 An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida making

09:54:43 revisions to City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 3

09:54:46 alcoholic beverages chapter 27, zoning, and chapter 28

09:54:49 special events, amending section 3-40 regarding

09:54:53 possession of open containers on public property

09:54:56 amending section 3-41 regarding possession and

09:55:01 consumption on property operated by or supervised by

09:55:04 the Parks and Recreation Department, amending section

09:55:07 27-267 regarding application requirements for special

09:55:10 use permits, amending section 28-28, regarding alcohol

09:55:14 at special events, repealing all ordinances or parts of




09:55:17 all ordinances in conflict therewith, providing for

09:55:20 severability, providing an effective date.

09:55:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT:

09:55:24 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I seconded it.

09:55:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Capin.

09:55:28 Record your vote, please.

09:55:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano being absent

09:55:36 at vote.

09:55:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 41.

09:55:39 Anyone from the public wish to address council on item

09:55:41 41?

09:55:42 Item 41.

09:55:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

09:55:47 >> Second.

09:55:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Hold it.

09:55:52 >> I don't know whether this is the right time or not,

09:56:00 but my name is Patrick Frank Williams, Baptist church.

09:56:07 This is what I pick up.

09:56:13 Discontinuing the following portion of Scott street,

09:56:17 portion of Cass Street, and 1118.

09:56:28 It's right in the vicinity of my church.

09:56:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's number 54, sir.




09:56:33 That's item number 54.

09:56:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Pastor Williams, that's coming up under

09:56:37 54.

09:56:37 This is the news rack ordinance we are dealing with

09:56:41 now.

09:56:42 Okay.

09:56:43 Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:56:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented

09:56:46 for second reading and adoption, an ordinance of the

09:56:49 city of Tampa, Florida amending city of code ordinances

09:56:54 chapter 22, streets and sidewalks, section 22-156

09:57:00 abandoned news racks, and section 23-.5-5 schedule of

09:57:06 violations and penalty, repealing all ordinances and

09:57:09 parts of ordinances in conflict, providing for

09:57:11 severability, providing for an effective date.

09:57:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.

09:57:16 Record your vote.

09:57:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

09:57:20 vote.

09:57:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Move now to the item 42 and 43.

09:57:30 Required to be sworn.

09:57:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open item 42 through 48.




09:57:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:57:41 Opposes?

09:57:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Items 42 through 48.

09:57:44 (Oath administered by Clerk).

09:57:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, I ask that all written

09:57:53 communications relative to today's hearings which have

09:57:55 been available for public inspection in City Council's

09:57:58 office be received and filed into the record by motion,

09:58:00 please.

09:58:00 >> Move to file all documents.

09:58:08 >> Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:58:10 (Motion carried).

09:58:11 >> If you had any ex parte communications on any of

09:58:14 these hearings please disclose with whom and the sum

09:58:17 and substance prayer to vote.

09:58:18 If you are going to be testifying, please make sure

09:58:20 that had you sign the sign-in sheet that's outside the

09:58:22 chambers.

09:58:23 Thank you.

09:58:23 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

09:58:29 Item number 42 through 48 on your agenda require

09:58:32 certified site plans, society plans have been certified




09:58:35 and have been provided to the city clerk.

09:58:38 If any of you would like to review those site plans I

09:58:40 do have them for you to view.

09:58:42 Thank you.

09:58:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 42.

09:58:47 Item 42.

09:58:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

09:58:56 >> Second.

09:58:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:58:59 Okay.

09:59:00 Is that the one that councilman Miranda was out?

09:59:04 >> Yes, it was.

09:59:05 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: He was sick that day, I think.

09:59:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone wish to speak?

09:59:12 Anyone wish to speak on item 42?

09:59:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I see none.

09:59:15 Thank you.

09:59:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:59:25 Councilman Miranda was out on that one.

09:59:27 >> I move an ordinance for second reading and adoption,

09:59:30 an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2

09:59:32 approving off-street commercial parking in an RS-50




09:59:35 residential single-family zoning district in the

09:59:37 general vicinity of 102 west crest Avenue in the city

09:59:41 of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described in

09:59:43 section 1 hereof providing an effective date.

09:59:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:59:51 Seconded by councilman Miranda.

09:59:56 Record your vote.

09:59:56 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

10:00:02 vote, and Stokes voting no.

10:00:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me correct, my vote should be no.

10:00:07 I'm sorry.

10:00:08 Wrong way.

10:00:09 Revote.

10:00:13 That should be no.

10:00:16 Record your vote again, please.

10:00:17 I'm sorry.

10:00:18 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

10:00:27 vote and Scott and Stokes voting no.

10:00:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 43.

10:00:33 Item 43.

10:00:39 Anyone wish to address council on item 43?

10:00:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.




10:00:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

10:00:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:00:55 All in favor?

10:00:56 Councilman Miranda.

10:00:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance presented for

10:00:58 second reading, and adoption, an ordinance rezoning

10:01:01 property in the vicinity of 4610 south Manhattan Avenue

10:01:05 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly

10:01:08 described in section 1 from zoning district

10:01:10 classifications RM-24 residential multifamily and CG

10:01:14 commercial general to PD planned development,

10:01:17 congregate living facility, large group care, providing

10:01:21 an effective date.

10:01:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

10:01:25 Record your vote.

10:01:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

10:01:31 vote.

10:01:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 44.

10:01:34 Anyone wish to address council on item 44 be?

10:01:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

10:01:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Hold on.

10:01:43 >> Good morning.




10:01:45 My name is Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin Street,

10:01:49 suite 1650 Tampa, and I have been sworn.

10:01:52 I represent the applicant in connection with the

10:01:55 subject petition, and this is a Walgreen's located on

10:01:59 the corner of Bahia Vista and Dale Mabry, across from

10:02:06 Britton plaza.

10:02:08 What I am trying to do today is to confirm that the

10:02:10 notice that was sent in connection with the petition

10:02:13 met all the city requirements.

10:02:15 It's a multi-million dollar project and there's

10:02:17 obviously some high stakes involved.

10:02:19 We filed an affidavit on October 12th with the city

10:02:23 clerk confirming that we properly sent notice as

10:02:25 required by the code.

10:02:28 I'm seeking confirmation today that the City Council

10:02:30 acted appropriately and therefore had jurisdiction to

10:02:33 approve this petition, assuming that I did the

10:02:37 following as required by code.

10:02:39 We identified all property owners within 250 feet based

10:02:42 on the most recent tax roll.

10:02:45 As you are aware, the tax roll is often somewhat dated,

10:02:49 oftentimes excludes property owners.




10:02:52 I think you understand this point in time.

10:02:55 So assuming that we identify all those property owners

10:02:59 based on the tax roll.

10:03:02 Number two, we sent notice to all owners within 250

10:03:05 feet based here again on the tax rolls required by

10:03:07 code.

10:03:12 The city's form affidavit states that we attached the

10:03:15 following, that a list of property owners with

10:03:18 addresses and legal descriptions according to the most

10:03:21 current ad valorem tax record, affected neighborhood

10:03:25 registration, is attached and made part of this

10:03:28 affidavit.

10:03:29 Therefore, assuming that we complied with all these

10:03:32 requirements as described above, I'm seeking

10:03:34 confirmation from the city that the city acted

10:03:37 appropriately, and therefore had jurisdiction to

10:03:39 approve the ordinance.

10:03:40 If you have any questions, please let me know.

10:03:43 And I have a copy of the affidavit and related

10:03:46 documents I would like to have received and filed.

10:03:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a

10:03:52 statement, not any question or anything like that.




10:03:56 I understand and appreciate why the conformance of the

10:04:03 fine attorney was based on facts this morning but I'm

10:04:05 deeply concerned that we may be opening a Pandora's box

10:04:12 and there are types of lawsuits that we become parties

10:04:15 to because we are accepting something, that whatever is

10:04:20 presented to this council is between two parties, not

10:04:24 this government.

10:04:24 This government only hears the facts, and the facts are

10:04:27 what we hear.

10:04:29 We have to assume that anyone who comes before this

10:04:34 podium to make a statement, that they have addressed

10:04:40 all the ordinance and all the laws whatever they are

10:04:46 saying is truthful, and I believe that.

10:04:49 Not too long ago we got involved in one, and I'm

10:04:53 worried that this may come back to haunt us for legal

10:04:57 fees to the losing party or the winning party because

10:05:00 this may go on forever.

10:05:02 And I just wish that this body doesn't get involved in

10:05:06 anything else other than what is presented to the body

10:05:09 and not be permitted to investigate whatever somebody

10:05:13 is saying.

10:05:14 They are all under oath anyway.




10:05:16 So if there's a mistake, the mistake is not with this

10:05:19 body, and it's not with the presenter, it's whether the

10:05:23 facts that came in were gathered and distributed, and I

10:05:26 would like to ask a legal opinion of fine counsel in

10:05:29 that area.

10:05:29 >> Can I ask --

10:05:34 >>

10:05:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't want to get in debate.

10:05:37 I just don't want the city to get involved and the

10:05:40 taxpayers to have to pay for a lawsuit.

10:05:42 >>REBECCA KERT: Could you restate exactly what

10:05:45 question you are asking, the precise question?

10:05:47 I missed what you said.

10:05:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I threw you for a loop, a curve.

10:05:59 In other words, for a presenter -- I am not talking

10:06:02 about Mr. Bentley, I am talking about a presenter in, a

10:06:05 roundabout way, to ask us to affirm that what they gave

10:06:09 to us is correct, is not correct in my mind to say yes

10:06:13 to, because then we become an ex parte party to that

10:06:17 decision making that we should not be in.

10:06:20 We should only be here to hear the facts as they are

10:06:23 presented to us, and nothing more.




10:06:27 Whether those facts are right or wrong, that is not for

10:06:29 this body to determine.

10:06:30 But whoever gave it to us, that's their responsibility.

10:06:34 And the facts that they gathered are incorrect, that's

10:06:38 between two parties to debate later on in a court of

10:06:41 law, I guess.

10:06:42 But don't get the city involved.

10:06:44 >>REBECCA KERT: Mr. Miranda, I do think it would be

10:06:50 more appropriate to have a fuller conversation outside

10:06:53 the scope of this hearing.

10:06:54 And what appropriate for this hearing if we could have

10:06:57 the clerk verify that they have received the

10:06:59 information that is required, and whether or not that's

10:07:04 actually correct or not, we just need verification from

10:07:09 the clerk's office that they have received information

10:07:10 as required by the code.

10:07:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have of no problem with that.

10:07:13 None at all.

10:07:14 >>MARK BENTLEY: Mark Bentley once again.

10:07:17 To make myself clear, I'm not looking for confirmation

10:07:20 of the substance of what I filed.

10:07:21 Just that my client followed the appropriate




10:07:25 procedures.

10:07:26 Here again we have a multi-million dollar project that

10:07:28 this relates to.

10:07:29 I just want confirmation -- if a citizen can't get

10:07:34 confirmation from its government that it followed the

10:07:36 appropriate procedures, I think --

10:07:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think, though, the question, though,

10:07:41 is -- here again, that the administration, the attorney

10:07:46 needs to ask the administration that the code has been

10:07:48 followed.

10:07:48 That's the extent, I think, that we can do.

10:07:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, I believe what Mr. Bentley

10:07:53 is asking for this council to make a legal finding as

10:08:00 to jurisdiction.

10:08:02 And I think it would be inappropriate for this council,

10:08:05 as Mr. Miranda very well stated, to get involved in

10:08:08 making a judgment as a matter of law that this council

10:08:12 pronounces, that jurisdiction has been legally

10:08:16 sufficient.

10:08:17 >> Marty, I think that's something the clerk should

10:08:26 verify.

10:08:27 If she would verify that on the record.




10:08:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, we just want to be clear,

10:08:30 Mr. Bentley, here again that what we are verifying is

10:08:34 that the code as the attorney stated, it has been

10:08:36 followed, I guess, based on what the code is, and I

10:08:40 guess -- I just want to be very careful, though -- we

10:08:46 have to protect the city.

10:08:47 We have to protect the city.

10:08:49 >> I have to have protect my client.

10:08:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand that.

10:08:52 You have to protect your client and we have to protect

10:08:54 our constituents.

10:08:55 And the city to make sure we don't get into --

10:08:59 >>MARK BENTLEY: I understand.

10:09:00 Thanks a lot.

10:09:00 >>THE CLERK: We do have the affidavit that was filed,

10:09:04 and everything does appear to be in order.

10:09:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.

10:09:10 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Chairman Scott, I don't know if

10:09:12 you can answer or Mr. Bentley.

10:09:14 We have approved about 20 Walgreen's in the last couple

10:09:16 of months.

10:09:16 What's the difference between this one and the other 20




10:09:19 that we approved?

10:09:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The difference is in the

10:09:24 presentation they are asking no other Walgreen's asked

10:09:27 what Mr. Bentley asked for, that everything was

10:09:31 accordingly perfected by the law.

10:09:33 And I'm not here to pass judgment on what his client or

10:09:37 any other client or this attorney or any other fine

10:09:40 attorney brings to us.

10:09:41 I'm not qualified to do that because, first of all, the

10:09:44 record is posted at the clerk's office.

10:09:48 We have to depend on the circumstantial evidence that

10:09:51 everything is created cumulatively and meets the

10:09:55 specifically pronounced area of the law.

10:09:57 And all we are here for is to say, these are the facts,

10:10:01 we received them, and it's up to the client, it's up to

10:10:04 the presenter, it's up to the attorney, and the

10:10:07 neighborhood to say, listen, we are hear for

10:10:12 information and passing judgment, yes or nay.

10:10:17 Is it good or not good?

10:10:19 Notice I didn't say bad.

10:10:20 So what I am saying is, I don't want this city to get

10:10:23 involved and saying everything has been met.




10:10:25 But when you file a lawsuit, we get dragged in.

10:10:28 I'm just trying to say that's fine and dandy.

10:10:30 You meet it.

10:10:31 You do it.

10:10:32 And you turn it in.

10:10:33 It's not up to me to say that they are qualified or not

10:10:36 qualified.

10:10:36 It's up to me to only hear the facts of that hearing

10:10:39 based on whatever preponderance of the evidence is

10:10:43 brought before this City Council.

10:10:50 Mr. Bentley, it's not against any attorney but I want

10:10:53 to make it clearly that one vote, you do exactly what

10:10:56 the code says, you got no problem.

10:10:58 If you are going to a lawsuit or the neighborhood or

10:11:01 somebody to say that their due process was damaged,

10:11:06 that's not my problem, that's between two outside

10:11:08 parties to debate at whatever length of debate they

10:11:12 want.

10:11:12 And that's all I'm saying, Mark.

10:11:14 I just don't want the city to get involved in any more

10:11:17 detail than what we have now.

10:11:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So what you are saying, Mr.




10:11:22 Miranda, is that the council did a thorough job and met

10:11:25 the code, correct?

10:11:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not even saying that.

10:11:28 That's up to the counsel, whoever is here and whoever

10:11:30 the client is and whoever wants to challenge that.

10:11:33 I'm not putting the city on the hook by saying, oh,

10:11:37 that was right, and then it turns out it may not be

10:11:39 right.

10:11:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Anybody could challenge anything.

10:11:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that.

10:11:45 My word is saying I'm not getting involved in that.

10:11:48 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you very much for your time.

10:11:52 Have a good morning.

10:11:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Does anyone else wish to address

10:11:54 council on this item number 44?

10:11:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close.

10:11:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It appears on your addendum on the

10:12:07 blue sheet.

10:12:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 44.

10:12:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is thereby a motion to close?

10:12:19 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.

10:12:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and second.




10:12:24 All in favor?

10:12:24 Opposes?

10:12:25 Councilwoman Miller.

10:12:26 >>GWEN MILLER: I move to adopt the following ordinance

10:12:28 upon second reading, an ordinance approving a special

10:12:30 use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, small

10:12:34 venue and making lawful the sale of beverages

10:12:36 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not

10:12:38 more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of

10:12:42 alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(APS) in sealed

10:12:47 containers for consumption off premises only at or from

10:12:50 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 3863

10:12:54 South Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida, as more

10:12:57 particularly described in section 2 hereof, providing

10:13:01 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

10:13:03 effective date.

10:13:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Caetano.

10:13:07 Record your vote.

10:13:08 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda voting no.

10:13:16 >> Item 45.

10:13:19 Item 45.

10:13:20 Anyone wish to address council for item 45?




10:13:23 >> Good morning, honorable chairman and members of City

10:13:36 Council.

10:13:36 My name is she WON, the owner of the China restaurant

10:13:43 is, and the owners don't speak English.

10:13:49 He wants to apply for the beer and wine license.

10:13:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:13:53 Thank you.

10:13:55 Anyone else?

10:13:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

10:13:58 >> Second.

10:14:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:14:01 Councilwoman Capin.

10:14:06 Item 45.

10:14:10 He.

10:14:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you, chairman.

10:14:15 I move an ordinance presented for second reading and

10:14:20 adoption, an ordinance approving a special use permit

10:14:22 D-2 for alcoholic beverage sales small venue and making

10:14:26 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more

10:14:28 than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and

10:14:32 wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine,

10:14:34 2(COP-R) for consumption on the premises only in




10:14:37 connection with a restaurant business establishment on

10:14:39 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at

10:14:42 17012 palm Pointe drive, Tampa, Florida, as more

10:14:47 particularly described in section 2 hereof, providing

10:14:49 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

10:14:52 effective date.

10:14:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by councilman

10:14:57 Miranda.

10:14:58 Record your vote.

10:14:59 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

10:15:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Miller, what time do you have to

10:15:25 leave?

10:15:26 Do you want to come on down?

10:15:28 Let me just take -- Ms. Miller has to leave so I wanted

10:15:31 to stop work and take up item 51.

10:15:42 And this is the item I requested a few weeks ago

10:15:45 relative what action we have taken proactive and

10:15:53 whether the code enforcement has all the tools

10:15:56 necessary, if not we need to equip them so they can do

10:16:01 the job.

10:16:03 >>CINDY MILLER: Development management growth

10:16:04 management services as well as overall jurisdiction for




10:16:07 code enforcement, Mr. Jake Slater, the director of code

10:16:10 enforcement is also here with me.

10:16:12 First I would like to talk overall of how we handle

10:16:16 foreclosed properties.

10:16:18 I guess it was a few months ago, this council approved

10:16:21 a foreclosure registry.

10:16:23 At this time there are 1738 properties that are

10:16:29 registered in the foreclosure registry.

10:16:31 Most of those are single-family homes, residential as

10:16:35 opposed to commercial, but there are a few commercial.

10:16:37 We also have about 162 pending for that registry.

10:16:42 One thing when a property comes onto the registry is

10:16:45 that code enforcement puts it on a monthly watch list.

10:16:50 They will go back and inspect it.

10:16:53 If a property does not have any problems and is in

10:16:56 compliance then it shifts to 90 days.

10:16:58 I also want to point out that a property does not have

10:17:01 to be on the registry for code enforcement to do the

10:17:04 follow-up.

10:17:05 You can have an occupied structure, commercial or

10:17:09 residential, and code enforcement will follow up.

10:17:11 So I don't want to necessarily say that code




10:17:14 enforcement is only looking at abandoned, vacant or

10:17:18 foreclosed properties.

10:17:19 They will look at all of them but the foreclosure

10:17:21 registry is a tool for those that we know could be

10:17:24 problematic.

10:17:25 One thing I would like to give an example of where we

10:17:29 wouldn't necessarily have foreclosed or officially

10:17:31 abandoned.

10:17:32 Understood federal regulation like a neighborhood

10:17:35 stabilization program, abandoned means the property

10:17:37 taxes haven't been paid for the most recent years.

10:17:40 So let me give Sulphur Springs neighborhood as an exam.

10:17:44 If you go up and down the streets, which believe me my

10:17:47 real estate staff has, and you look at what appear to

10:17:50 be vacant structures, and they are, they could be

10:17:53 boarded up, they can be vacant, the real estate staff

10:17:55 investigated 722 properties during our neighborhood

10:18:00 stabilization time period, which basically covered the

10:18:02 last year and a half.

10:18:04 Of those 722, 75 to 80%, more than 515 of those were

10:18:12 vacant, but the property taxes were paid.

10:18:15 They may have not been in the proper state of




10:18:17 compliance, but the key is that they are not

10:18:19 necessarily abandoned, they are not foreclosed, but

10:18:23 that still makes it a code enforcement and neighborhood

10:18:25 issue which is why code enforcement doesn't want to

10:18:28 just identify that we are only looking at abandoned and

10:18:31 foreclosed.

10:18:32 When it comes to the hops restaurant specifically, that

10:18:35 southbound a facility that was under bankruptcy court.

10:18:40 It had been closed since 2005 so it wasn't in the most

10:18:43 recent economic situation, but certainly has been

10:18:46 through that.

10:18:47 And it's already been cited by code enforcement five

10:18:50 times in prior years since 2005.

10:18:52 They had already been under a reinspection under civil

10:18:55 citation in recent months.

10:18:57 So it was already being investigated by the code

10:19:02 enforcement employees.

10:19:04 I would like Mr. Slater to come up, if he can, and sort

10:19:07 of talk about what we would hope that your constituent

10:19:11 and ours would do when they see a structure or a

10:19:13 building or a home that needs additional compliance.

10:19:16 So I would like to have Jake talk about that.




10:19:18 Thank you.

10:19:18 >> Jake Slater, City of Tampa department of code

10:19:24 enforcement.

10:19:26 It's very important that we receive the information

10:19:31 from the public on a timely manner if they see any

10:19:36 problems in their over all neighborhoods.

10:19:40 And they can call us.

10:19:47 They can either call us at our information line

10:19:50 274-5545, or they can go on the Web at tampagov.net.

10:20:02 We received over probably 15 or 1800 calls per month

10:20:07 concerning these type of problems, but it's important,

10:20:12 and I have to emphasize, if you see anything in the

10:20:16 neighborhood, give us a call, let us take a look at it.

10:20:24 Any other questions?

10:20:27 >> I want to follow up and make sure, Ms. Miller or Mr.

10:20:33 Slater, in talking with the city attorney, Mr.

10:20:35 Fletcher, the issue is, though, we are limited in terms

10:20:39 of securing property, as I understand, legally there

10:20:43 are some issues there.

10:20:44 So the intent here is not only to identify, go out and

10:20:47 identify properties, but you have the tools necessary

10:20:51 to be able to do what you need to do in order to




10:20:53 provide -- it's a health public health safety welfare

10:20:57 kind of issue.

10:20:58 And so Mr. Fletcher and I were kind of talking about

10:21:04 this the other day.

10:21:05 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Essentially our view is they have

10:21:07 the tools to go in and do the work necessary.

10:21:10 The preference is to get the property owner to do it so

10:21:12 we don't have issues related to inadvertent damage to

10:21:16 the property by city staff.

10:21:18 So we do have those tools.

10:21:20 We have the authority to go in and do that under the

10:21:22 right circumstances.

10:21:23 I think what I had indicated is we can get reimbursed

10:21:28 for pretty much all those costs.

10:21:30 Right now except for securing.

10:21:31 But since we hasn't been a significant issue in the

10:21:38 past because we have not expended significant funds in

10:21:41 securing properties independently of the property

10:21:44 owner.

10:21:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So then we have all the tools

10:21:46 necessary.

10:21:47 And in a particular sense, I think, what, seven, eight




10:21:50 months ago we passed the registry for foreclosed

10:21:52 property, which I think I brought at that time, it was

10:21:56 seconded by Mr. Miranda, so that's been a great tool

10:22:03 and also a cost that's imposed that helps out as well.

10:22:06 Is that pretty accurate?

10:22:08 Okay.

10:22:09 That's pretty accurate, Mr. Slater?

10:22:11 >> As Ms. Miller said, we have over 1700 foreclosed

10:22:17 properties.

10:22:18 And we have actually generated over $200,000 worth of

10:22:25 revenue.

10:22:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you want to give that number again

10:22:28 so that those who are watching, if you don't mind, give

10:22:30 that number again so people can call so that way you

10:22:33 can -- if they have issues or problems.

10:22:35 >> Please call us at our main information line at

10:22:43 274-5545.

10:22:45 Or go to the web at the customer service center at

10:22:49 www.tampagov.net and we will be back in touch in about

10:22:58 48 hours.

10:22:58 >> Thanks for bringing that up and making a report.

10:23:02 There was an article in the paper, and it's good to see




10:23:05 that ordinance is working there.

10:23:09 Thank you.

10:23:10 Thank you, Ms. Miller.

10:23:11 And I think we got you out in time.

10:23:16 Congratulations again on the award this morning.

10:23:21 Ms. Miller received the Gordon Davis humanitarian

10:23:28 spirit award for the Salvation Army.

10:23:30 Congratulations again.

10:23:31 [ Applause ]

10:23:32 We have two other staff items.

10:23:40 We can take those up.

10:23:42 Julia Cole real quickly.

10:23:43 >>JULIA COLE: City of Tampa legal department.

10:23:47 Items 49 and 50 are to be taken together.

10:23:51 Item 49 is a contract that I am requesting City Council

10:23:54 approve with Steven Pfeiffer for a land use officer

10:24:01 position, called and created a process for the use of a

10:24:05 hearing officer for decisions from the zoning

10:24:08 administrator on items such as investigations, invested

10:24:14 rights determinations.

10:24:15 We are selecting Mr. Pfeiffer as having an ad in the

10:24:19 Florida Bar news specifying a hearing officer that does




10:24:23 no work before any City of Tampa boards.

10:24:25 Mr. Pfeiffer is extremely experienced.

10:24:27 He was served as administrative law judge in

10:24:31 Tallahassee, worked for the department of community

10:24:32 affairs, as well as in private practice.

10:24:35 He now resides in Sarasota.

10:24:37 He does not have any intention of doing any work before

10:24:40 the City of Tampa boards, and I would ask that you go

10:24:43 ahead and approve his contract.

10:24:46 The second item is a resolution establishing a schedule

10:24:51 of fees for processing the hearing officer decisions.

10:24:59 We will go through the process of approving a hearing

10:25:01 officer, City Council and the administration made it

10:25:03 very clear that that needed to be funded by

10:25:05 petitioners.

10:25:06 So what we have done is established a fee that is

10:25:08 actually a fee retainer, and we are asking applicants,

10:25:13 or petitioners, to pay up front $2,000 which would

10:25:17 cover 15 hours of hearing time, but we have specified

10:25:20 in there that a hearing doesn't take that many hours

10:25:27 and reviewing the order and petitioner has a right to

10:25:30 get their money back.




10:25:31 So we have set that up in that manner.

10:25:33 So it will be -- a petitioner will only pay the actual

10:25:36 cost of the hearing officer.

10:25:37 So I would just request that you approve both of those

10:25:40 items.

10:25:41 And I think this is a wonderful step forward with the

10:25:44 city.

10:25:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: With we approve this now,

10:25:49 Mr. Chairman, or do we need discussion?

10:25:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Stokes, you have of a

10:25:55 question?

10:25:57 >>CURTIS STOKES: You and I talked about the possibility

10:25:58 of that small business owner who pays the $2,000

10:26:01 retainer, that he or she can get refunded rapidly.

10:26:06 Can you give us a time frame of when they get paid

10:26:11 within 30 days, please?

10:26:13 >> We did have that conversation.

10:26:15 Way did is looked at how we generally have payment for

10:26:21 folks when they receive reimbursement or just general

10:26:23 payment of cost.

10:26:26 There is something called the 25-day turnaround, and if

10:26:33 City Council should like me to add that into the




10:26:34 resolution, I am not just prepared to do it, I actually

10:26:38 have a resolution we can move forward and have the 25

10:26:41 day time frame if that's something City Council would

10:26:43 like to add and I can go ahead and substitute that

10:26:45 resolution.

10:26:46 Stokes tokes thank you, Ms. Cole.

10:26:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Move resolution 49 and 50.

10:26:51 >>CURTIS STOKES: Second, with the substitute.

10:26:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, with the substitute.

10:26:56 Moved and seconded.

10:26:57 Moved by Councilwoman Miller, seconded by councilman

10:27:01 Stokes.

10:27:01 All in favor?

10:27:03 Congratulations on hiring your first hearing officer.

10:27:10 It only took three years to be do it.

10:27:13 Boy, I'll tell you.

10:27:14 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Like the county commission.

10:27:21 Thorough work.

10:27:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Three years.

10:27:23 Wheels of government turn real slow.

10:27:26 That's all of our staff reports.

10:27:28 We move back to item 46.




10:27:29 Item 46.

10:27:30 Anyone from the public wishing to address council on

10:27:32 item 46.

10:27:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

10:27:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:27:38 All in favor?

10:27:39 Councilman Caetano, do you want to read item 46?

10:27:45 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance approving special

10:27:49 permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales small venue and

10:27:52 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol

10:27:54 more than of more than 1% of weight and not more than

10:28:03 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content

10:28:06 beer and wine 2(APS) in sealed containers for

10:28:09 consumption off premises only at or from that certain

10:28:12 lot, plot or tract of land located at 19910 Bruce B.

10:28:16 Downs Boulevard Tampa City Council as more particularly

10:28:18 described in section 2 hereof providing for repeal of

10:28:21 all ordinances in conflict providing an effective date.

10:28:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to adopt for second reading.

10:28:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: This ordinance is presented for

10:28:27 second reading.

10:28:28 Can I ask the attorney a question?




10:28:30 >> Yes.

10:28:30 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

10:28:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Ms. Kert, there's a school next

10:28:41 door to this property.

10:28:45 >>REBECCA KERT: That's a factual question.

10:28:47 You will need to ask staff that question.

10:28:48 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.

10:28:52 What's the proximity to the school in relationship to

10:28:55 the --

10:28:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

10:29:00 Let me just check the exhibit.

10:29:12 160 feet per the surveyor's information to the

10:29:17 institution, from the WalMart.

10:29:19 >> Because I think WalMart will do a good job because I

10:29:25 go there a lot and I see kids from track.

10:29:27 They run through the store, and they come out.

10:29:29 But I have faith in WalMart that they will do what they

10:29:34 have to do in order to preserve their license there.

10:29:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second to that?

10:29:41 Moved and seconded by councilman Stokes.

10:29:44 Record your vote.

10:29:45 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: 160 feet.




10:29:50 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin and Mulhern

10:29:55 being absent at vote, and Miranda voting no.

10:29:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 47.

10:30:02 Anyone from the public wishing to address council on

10:30:04 item 47?

10:30:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

10:30:06 >> Second.

10:30:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:30:12 All in favor?

10:30:13 Opposes?

10:30:17 Councilman Stokes.

10:30:18 >>CURTIS STOKES: An ordinance being presented for

10:30:20 second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a

10:30:22 special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales

10:30:25 large venue and making lawful the sale of beverages

10:30:27 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor,

10:30:30 4(COP-X) for consumption on premises only at or from

10:30:34 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 110

10:30:38 west Gasparilla plaza, Tampa, Florida, as more

10:30:41 particularly described in section 2 hereof, imposing

10:30:44 certain conditions based upon the location of the

10:30:48 property, providing for repeal of all ordinances in




10:30:51 conflict, providing an effective date.

10:30:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

10:30:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

10:30:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Caetano.

10:30:59 Record your vote.

10:31:08 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda voting no and

10:31:11 Capin and Mulhern being absent at vote.

10:31:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 48.

10:31:15 Anyone from the public wish to address us on item 48?

10:31:18 >> Bakery company, 1600 east 8th Avenue Tampa,

10:31:26 Florida 33605.

10:31:29 Chairman Scott, honorable members, I have got myself

10:31:33 speaking on behalf of the brewing company also cap I

10:31:42 stand oh speaking for the neighborhood in support.

10:31:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?

10:31:47 >> Costantino, president of the east Ybor Civic

10:31:55 Association, here as president saying we fully support

10:31:59 Mr. Nobel as a responsible business owner in Ybor City

10:32:02 an also to present council with a letter as part of the

10:32:07 YCDC board and they are on the record in support.

10:32:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?

10:32:15 Motion to close?




10:32:18 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.

10:32:19 >> Second.

10:32:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:32:22 Councilwoman Mulhern, item 48.

10:32:27 Item 48.

10:32:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented

10:32:31 for second reading and adoption, an ordinance repealing

10:32:33 ordinance number 2003-194 approving a special use

10:32:38 permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales small venue and

10:32:41 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol

10:32:43 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor,

10:32:47 4(COP), for consumption on the premises and in sealed

10:32:50 containers for consumption off premises on the certain

10:32:53 lot, plot or tract of land located at 1600 east 8th

10:32:56 Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described

10:32:59 in section 3 hereof, imposing certain conditions based

10:33:02 on the location of the property, providing for repeal

10:33:05 of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective

10:33:08 date.

10:33:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

10:33:12 >> Second.

10:33:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by councilman




10:33:15 Caetano.

10:33:16 Record your vote.

10:33:19 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

10:33:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you all.

10:33:28 We move now to our 10:30 items.

10:33:33 We will have all witnesses sworn.

10:33:34 If you have not been sworn, please stand at this time

10:33:37 and be sworn.

10:33:37 If you have not been sworn, please stand and be sworn.

10:33:40 (Oath administered by Clerk).

10:33:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to open all of these?

10:33:50 >> I move items 49 through 53 be open.

10:34:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 53 through 56.

10:34:02 Moved and second.

10:34:03 All in favor?

10:34:04 Opposes?

10:34:04 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Band Land Development Coordination.

10:34:16 This is a vacating for a portion of the alley that's in

10:34:21 East Tampa.

10:34:22 It lies between Cayuga, and runs from 22nd street to

10:34:26 24th street.

10:34:27 And map for the overhead.




10:34:39 The petitioner's property is in red.

10:34:44 I have photos.

10:34:45 The alleyway is unimproved, and this is looking east

10:34:50 from 22nd street.

10:34:54 And this is a photo of the alley looking west from the

10:35:03 alley.

10:35:04 There's two portions of the alley that not be vacated.

10:35:08 The remainder east-west and the south portion.

10:35:13 And this is the rest of the alley going east.

10:35:17 That's not vacated.

10:35:19 And the second portion vacated.

10:35:22 And this is petitioner's property, the eastern point of

10:35:26 22nd street.

10:35:27 This is petitioner's property lying north of the alley

10:35:31 Staff has no objections.

10:35:32 There's a condition for transportation for a turnaround

10:35:36 and petitioner has agreed to give an easement.

10:35:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else wishing to address council?

10:35:41 >> My name is Ethel Hammer.

10:35:49 I'm representing the applicant.

10:35:50 And I don't know if you want me to give a presentation

10:35:54 or not.




10:35:55 In summary, my client is an OB-GYN medical doctor.

10:36:00 He wants to build a clinic in East Tampa to service the

10:36:04 people in that neighborhood.

10:36:08 This right-of-way, vacation, is necessary to be able to

10:36:11 combine the lots, both of which are relatively small,

10:36:14 to build his clinic.

10:36:16 I'm available for any questions.

10:36:17 Thank you.

10:36:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?

10:36:20 Motion to close?

10:36:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

10:36:23 >> Second.

10:36:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:36:25 Councilman Miranda.

10:36:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10:36:34 Move an ordinance continuing abandoning certain

10:36:38 right-of-way lying south of Cayuga street, north of

10:36:41 Emma street, east of 22nd street and west of 24th

10:36:46 street, in north beauty Heights, a subdivision in the

10:36:49 city of Tampa, Florida, Hillsborough County Florida the

10:36:52 same being more fully described in sections 2 therefore

10:36:55 subject to certain easements, covenants, conditions or




10:36:58 restrictions as particularly described herein providing

10:37:01 an effective date.

10:37:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by Councilwoman

10:37:05 Mulhern.

10:37:06 Record your vote.

10:37:10 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:37:12 Opposes?

10:37:12 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano being absent

10:37:16 at vote.

10:37:16 Second reading of the ordinance will be held December

10:37:19 2nd at 9:30 a.m.

10:37:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 54.

10:37:27 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.

10:37:33 This is a city-initiated vacating to vacate a portion

10:37:37 of Scott street and a portion of Cass, central and

10:37:41 orange street near Perry Harvey park in the downtown

10:37:44 area lying south of the interstate.

10:37:47 I have a map for the overhead.

10:37:56 The portion of Scott street is located here

10:37:59 And Cass, central and orange street is here.

10:38:09 Staff has no objection to this request.

10:38:11 Easements are going to be reserved for transportation




10:38:15 and utilities.

10:38:16 Brick street on Scott will remain intact and still

10:38:22 function as a street.

10:38:23 I have a photo of the areas to be vacated.

10:38:25 The first is Scott street.

10:38:32 The second is looking west.

10:38:36 The next photo is the intersection of Scott, central

10:38:40 and orange street.

10:38:42 These are pictures of the park.

10:38:46 This is another picture of the area that's going to be

10:38:48 vacated for Cass, central.

10:38:51 And this is more park property, north and south street.

10:38:57 And another picture of the park.

10:38:59 Tom Johnson from the Parks Department is here to answer

10:39:02 questions concerning this vacating initiated by the

10:39:05 Parks Department.

10:39:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is this relative to the Encore

10:39:10 project, or the high-speed rail?

10:39:12 Which one is it?

10:39:13 >> Tom Johnson, parks and recreation.

10:39:17 This is related to the Encore project.

10:39:20 This vacating allows the park to maintain its current




10:39:24 acreage, because Encore encroached on --

10:39:31 >> That's the Perry Harvey park?

10:39:33 >> Yes, sir.

10:39:33 >> It will be a city park.

10:39:41 It's not going to the housing.

10:39:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

10:39:48 Councilwoman Mulhern.

10:39:49 >> I'm curious.

10:39:53 So we are vacating just that little lot, right?

10:39:58 That little block?

10:40:01 >> Yes, ma'am.

10:40:01 >> Scott street.

10:40:06 But --

10:40:15 >> It was named after me.

10:40:16 I'm just kidding.

10:40:18 [ Laughter ]

10:40:24 What's going there?

10:40:25 You are saying there are still going to be easements

10:40:28 there.

10:40:28 But what is going to be there?

10:40:30 >> Actually, Scott street is not going to change.

10:40:32 This is really more of a technicality to maintain our




10:40:35 acreage.

10:40:39 It will be made a throughway cutting through the park

10:40:42 which it doesn't as it exist now so we would lose

10:40:45 acreage to maintain our level of service standard.

10:40:48 For concurrency we have requested vacating in order to

10:40:50 maintain that.

10:40:50 >> So this vacating just makes that block part of the

10:40:54 park?

10:40:54 Is that what it is?

10:40:55 >> Yes.

10:40:56 >> Because I hate to break up the grid.

10:40:59 So how do we know that the city is not going to

10:41:02 suddenly block that off?

10:41:04 >> Well, one of the conditions of the vacating is that

10:41:08 Scott street will remain a brick street.

10:41:10 >> Oh, okay.

10:41:11 So it's being vacated, but you can drive on it?

10:41:22 >> Anyone else from the public?

10:41:24 Motion to close?

10:41:25 >>GWEN MILLER: We have somebody coming.

10:41:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm sorry.

10:41:27 >> I'm pastor Williams, 1112 east Scott street.




10:41:40 And I got a big problem with the way you all are

10:41:44 mistreating our church.

10:41:47 I think in that notice that I got, ain't no building

10:41:51 over there really.

10:41:53 It's facing this way.

10:41:55 Coming off the interstate there, nobody can read what

10:41:58 it says.

10:41:59 And no residents there no more.

10:42:04 And I went down there and read.

10:42:07 And I called a code enforcement officer and told him

10:42:12 what can I do about it?

10:42:14 They said make sure you be at that meeting, 11-18.

10:42:18 I say, well, I'll be there.

10:42:20 And the thing about it, tore up all of Scott street in

10:42:27 front of my church, all the way up to governor street.

10:42:37 They put a no right-of-way sign where I couldn't come

10:42:40 in on Scott street.

10:42:43 Then governor street, it's one way going north.

10:42:46 Couldn't go in that way.

10:42:50 And my right-of-way street, and they tore down the

10:42:56 project.

10:42:56 The reason I didn't say nothing too much is because the




10:42:59 idea, the school board wanted to push the property.

10:43:06 -- want to purchase the property.

10:43:08 Then they came around, saying they didn't have enough

10:43:11 money to purchase.

10:43:13 I understand -- then I come to understand, and my

10:43:26 members are very confused.

10:43:30 How long are the streets going to be torn up to keep my

10:43:33 people from coming into the church to worship God?

10:43:36 And I got a great museum that you don't want exposed

10:43:41 because they got a lot of truth in it.

10:43:48 Coming through there but won't be able to get in there

10:43:51 because they got the streets all tore up.

10:43:52 Councilman Scott, I talked with you many times, told

10:43:55 you I want to meet with you.

10:43:57 You ignored me.

10:43:59 But now I am going to take it to the public.

10:44:02 And the reason I got to take it to the public is

10:44:04 because you don't want to hear nothing I got to say.

10:44:07 And then I am going to hire me a lawyer.

10:44:13 If we have to take it to the Supreme Court we will take

10:44:15 it to the Supreme Court but I am not going to be

10:44:17 ignored, only because I'm a preacher, I believe in God




10:44:20 almighty and I believe in Jesus Christ.

10:44:26 Not only am I being affected, the school, St. Peter

10:44:33 Claver, threatened to be closed down, because once you

10:44:36 move all the people out of the project, a lot of my

10:44:39 members going to school over there, they are going to

10:44:45 shut it down.

10:44:47 Ebernezer right now, I told them to come to this

10:44:51 meeting.

10:44:51 They say, no, I ain't going to that meeting because

10:44:55 they ain't going to listen to nothing I say.

10:44:59 That church been there since 1902 that church over 105

10:45:03 years old.

10:45:04 A historical church H.you all told me that if I let

10:45:07 that church remain there, that you all would give me,

10:45:12 finish this building up and clean it up and everything.

10:45:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:45:16 (Bell sounds).

10:45:18 >>> The school board told me this here.

10:45:20 The reason, it's a historical church, and you all have

10:45:27 name it a historical landmark, and you won't allow them

10:45:30 to tear it down.

10:45:31 So you have he in a dilemma.




10:45:34 I know my time is up.

10:45:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Pastor Williams, your time is up.

10:45:39 You are allowed three minutes.

10:45:40 Public hearing.

10:45:41 Now, let me just say, let me set the record straight,

10:45:44 is that you and I talked at my church, when you came to

10:45:47 my church, you and I talked there, down the sidewalk.

10:45:56 Secondly, the issue before us today is not your church,

10:46:00 it's the vacating of that portion of Scott street.

10:46:03 Is that accurate?

10:46:04 Which is the park, which is affecting the park.

10:46:07 So it does not affect your property or even in front of

10:46:10 your church, really.

10:46:11 It is affecting the park and making sure that the park

10:46:14 pretty much stays whole is what the whole idea is.

10:46:18 Is that right?

10:46:19 >> Come on up.

10:46:21 Right in front of the church.

10:46:22 I got no way to get into the church.

10:46:24 What are you talking about?

10:46:25 >> Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams, the property today we

10:46:28 are addressing is not in front of your church.




10:46:30 We are only addressing the property right there by

10:46:32 Perry Harvey Sr. park.

10:46:35 Is that right, attorney?

10:46:36 Could you answer that?

10:46:39 >> You don't understand where I am coming from.

10:46:42 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

10:46:44 What is in front of you is the portion of property

10:46:46 which is within adjacent to Perry Harvey park, this is

10:46:54 really just changing the status from right-of-way to

10:46:56 another status but it will remain open, and in effect

10:47:01 is a technicality but allows us to consider that part

10:47:03 of our park for the purposes of --

10:47:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that's what's before us today.

10:47:12 You may have some issues that we don't have any

10:47:15 jurisdiction over, I don't believe.

10:47:16 If you are having some issues in terms of closure, that

10:47:20 would have to go through administration.

10:47:21 Is that right?

10:47:24 If someone can answer that question, please.

10:47:26 If there's an issue relative to the streets being

10:47:28 closed in front of his church, which is owned by

10:47:31 Encore, and I know they are doing a lot of construction




10:47:33 there, then that needs to be taken up with the mayor's

10:47:36 office.

10:47:36 Is that right?

10:47:36 >> Melanie Calloway, transportation.

10:47:40 I believe he is talking about the construction all

10:47:42 around his property.

10:47:43 And that is the Encore project.

10:47:46 Maybe we could talk to the contract administration

10:47:48 about helping him out with this.

10:47:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Could you all meet with him and talk

10:47:53 to him about what's going on there?

10:47:55 >> Sure.

10:47:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Lastly, Mr. Williams, I will be happy

10:47:58 to meet with you as soon as we take a break.

10:48:00 You meet around and I'll take you back to my office and

10:48:04 get you a cup of coffee and talk with you.

10:48:08 Okay.

10:48:09 All right.

10:48:11 Anyone else from the public?

10:48:12 Motion to close?

10:48:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

10:48:15 >> Second.




10:48:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:48:17 Opposes?

10:48:18 Okay.

10:48:18 Councilwoman Capin, do you want to read that?

10:48:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you, chairman.

10:48:28 I move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing,

10:48:31 and abandoning a certain right-of-way, a portion of

10:48:36 Cass Street, Central Avenue and orange street, lying

10:48:38 south of Harrison street, north of Cass Street, east of

10:48:41 Pierce Street, and west of governor street in plan of

10:48:47 Newcomb's subdivision and a portion of Scott street

10:48:50 lying south of Kay street east of orange street north

10:48:57 of Cass Street and west of governor street in the

10:49:00 Mobley's subdivision in the City of Tampa Hillsborough

10:49:03 County Florida, subject to certain covenants,

10:49:06 easements, restrictions and more particularly described

10:49:08 here, providing an effective date.

10:49:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:49:12 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:49:14 Opposes?

10:49:14 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

10:49:17 Second reading of the ordinance will be held December




10:49:21 2nd at 9:30 a.m.

10:49:22 >> item 55.

10:49:24 Item 55.

10:49:26 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

10:49:30 Item number 55 is a continued request for alcoholic

10:49:32 beverage, special use permit.

10:49:35 This is located at 3035, 3037 west Kennedy.

10:49:40 This is Miguel's Restaurant.

10:49:42 You may remember a couple of weeks ago we had this

10:49:43 hearing.

10:49:44 I came before you.

10:49:45 They were requesting to actually allow alcoholic

10:49:47 beverage sales in the parking lot.

10:49:50 The application has been amended to remove that request

10:49:54 for the area of the parking lot.

10:49:57 And the legal descriptions have been certified to that

10:50:01 effect.

10:50:02 Staff does not have concern related to that at this

10:50:04 time.

10:50:05 There is a standing objection from transportation

10:50:08 related to the reduction of parking.

10:50:11 The required parking is 58 spaces, and 39 spaces are




10:50:16 being provided.

10:50:19 37 spaces, I'm sorry, are being provided.

10:50:22 So that reduction.

10:50:24 There was an objection from transportation.

10:50:27 In relation to the land development comments, those

10:50:31 have been removed, and there are no modifications

10:50:33 required to the site plan at this time.

10:50:35 This is first reading on this for the smaller area.

10:50:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As I recall, last time we had the

10:50:45 issue about them wanting a special use permit so that

10:50:50 they can also make parking part of that wet zone so all

10:50:54 of that has been removed now?

10:50:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.

10:50:57 And all references to any temporary events have been

10:50:59 removed from the site plan, any temporary events that

10:51:02 would be occurring there would follow our standard

10:51:04 procedures with the non-profits for that area.

10:51:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the only issue now is the waiver of

10:51:08 the parking spaces.

10:51:10 Is that right?

10:51:11 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.

10:51:12 The expansion into that area that used to be the




10:51:14 medical office now requires, once the restaurant

10:51:18 occupies that, that the site have 58 spaces in order to

10:51:21 meet code.

10:51:21 The site only has 37 spaces.

10:51:25 Therefore, transportation was objecting to the

10:51:27 excessive reduction in parking.

10:51:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

10:51:31 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

10:51:32 I'm submitting a substitute ordinance to reflect the

10:51:34 revised legal description.

10:51:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by council?

10:51:39 Petitioner?

10:51:41 Anyone from the public?

10:51:42 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here representing Miguel's.

10:51:47 You may recall that Miguel's sits at the corner of

10:51:54 MacDill and Kennedy Boulevard.

10:51:55 It's a very busy intersection.

10:51:58 We simply have in a other way of addressing the

10:52:01 parking.

10:52:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by council?

10:52:04 Any questions?

10:52:07 Anyone from the public?




10:52:08 Anyone from the public?

10:52:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

10:52:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:52:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I will not be supporting this

10:52:18 because -- I will not be supporting any variances that

10:52:26 we cannot work on enforcing.

10:52:31 Therefore, that's my reason.

10:52:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, council.

10:52:42 What's the hours that they are requesting?

10:52:44 >> We currently have no restrictions and are requesting

10:52:47 no restrictions on the hours.

10:52:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Requesting what now?

10:52:51 >> We are not requesting any specific hours.

10:52:54 We are requesting that you allow the restaurant to

10:52:57 remain open till 3 a.m.

10:53:00 That's the current restrictions that are on there that

10:53:03 are addressed by state code.

10:53:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:53:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance repealing ordinance

10:53:12 2008 or 168 approving a special use permit S-2 for

10:53:16 alcoholic beverage sales small venue making lawful the

10:53:19 sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of




10:53:21 alcoholic content beer wine and liquor, 4(COP-R) for

10:53:26 consumption on the premises only in connection with a

10:53:28 restaurant business establishment at or from that

10:53:31 certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 3035-3037

10:53:37 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida as more

10:53:40 particularly described in section 3 hereof, providing

10:53:43 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

10:53:46 effective date.

10:53:48 And that includes the parking from 58th to

10:53:54 37th.

10:53:55 >> And just for clarification so councilman Capin,

10:54:00 didn't meet all the requirements for parking so

10:54:02 generally there's a waiver.

10:54:04 I don't think it has to be inspected, is that right?

10:54:11 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

10:54:12 There are also distance separation waivers on this

10:54:16 request as well as the parking.

10:54:18 >> Right.

10:54:22 Okay.

10:54:23 There's a motion.

10:54:23 Is there a second?

10:54:26 Moved and seconded.




10:54:27 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:54:29 Opposes?

10:54:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin and Miranda

10:54:35 voting no, and Stokes being absent at vote.

10:54:39 And the second reading of the ordinance will be held

10:54:41 December 2nd at 9:30 a.m.

10:54:44 >> well, I want to say, Mr. Michelini, the last time

10:54:49 you came was the issue of all those -- I appreciate you

10:54:53 working out and bringing it back to us so we can move

10:54:55 forward.

10:54:55 That means a lot.

10:54:56 And I think that's what Councilwoman Capin is working

10:54:59 on trying to move forward.

10:55:00 But I want to thank you for going back and correcting,

10:55:05 dealing with something.

10:55:06 >>STEVE MICHELINI: There are some issues and I will be

10:55:09 happy to work with her.

10:55:11 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: It's a big change from 900

10:55:14 parking spaces to this.

10:55:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then we have one last item.

10:55:21 I am going to ask if we can at this time -- this is a

10:55:24 review, item 56.




10:55:28 Et cetera our last item for the morning.

10:55:32 I believe, right?

10:55:34 Mr. Shelby, do you want to pass out the guidelines for

10:55:37 this hearing?

10:55:40 I believe councilman Caetano has to leave at 11:30.

10:55:47 >> If we can vote on this before 11:30.

10:55:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we do that, Councilwoman Capin,

10:56:02 deal with her item real quickly and then let's go to

10:56:05 this.

10:56:06 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.

10:56:06 I am going to rescind my motion from earlier this

10:56:12 morning, and before I do that I want to say that Mary

10:56:20 Ann, named the U.S. travel and tourism, the owner of,

10:56:28 was in agreement to -- as a business that thought that

10:56:33 this needed to be done.

10:56:35 So what I would like to do, I rescind my motion.

10:56:38 I would like to make a motion new motion.

10:56:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a second on the motion to

10:56:43 rescind?

10:56:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What was that?

10:56:49 >>THE CLERK: The motion you made this morning.

10:56:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.




10:56:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Don't we need a motion for

10:56:56 reconsideration?

10:56:57 >> That's what it is.

10:56:58 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Was Ms. Capin on the prevailing

10:57:03 side?

10:57:05 >>CHAIRMAN: She made the motion.

10:57:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It was unanimous, yes.

10:57:08 Is there a second?

10:57:09 >> Second.

10:57:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:57:11 All in favor?

10:57:12 Opposes?

10:57:13 Okay.

10:57:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I have a new motion.

10:57:23 It's right here.

10:57:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That motion was a motion to rescind

10:57:30 your previous motion?

10:57:34 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Right.

10:57:34 I move City Council consider establishing process which

10:57:37 would monitor and ensure the establishments that are

10:57:40 permitted to sell alcoholic beverages are in compliance

10:57:43 with the special conditions that City Council has




10:57:46 placed on them, with special use permits are granted.

10:57:50 Additionally, that legal department administrative be

10:57:53 directed to bring back to City Council as a staff

10:57:57 report, December 16th, 2010 meeting, for discussion

10:58:01 purposes to accomplish this without any additional cost

10:58:04 to taxpayers.

10:58:06 In addition I move to ask legal administration to

10:58:08 review the current and proposed alcohol beverage

10:58:11 regulation, and return to City Council on December

10:58:14 16th for additional proposals and change to our

10:58:20 alcoholic classification and definition in order to

10:58:23 make sure that alcoholic classifications are more

10:58:26 specific, enforceable and more closely meet today's

10:58:29 standard.

10:58:30 That's my motion.

10:58:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, is that a

10:58:34 completely new motion?

10:58:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.

10:58:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What's before us is to rescind

10:58:40 the other motion.

10:58:40 So we cannot change the motion.

10:58:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, she's making a new motion.




10:58:45 We rescinded the last motion.

10:58:47 Now she's making a new motion.

10:58:51 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And it's a staff report.

10:58:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, it's more than that because

10:58:54 basically as I understand it, it's more asking staff to

10:58:57 come back with proposals and also overhaul completely

10:59:04 the special use is what it's asking for, as I

10:59:06 understand it.

10:59:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That is being worked on as we speak.

10:59:12 I also want to say that -- is staff here?

10:59:23 Is that something that's not possible by the 16th?

10:59:27 Can I ask that?

10:59:30 Rebecca is not here?

10:59:32 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

10:59:34 I am here representing land development today, and I

10:59:36 believe that motion would include the legal department

10:59:38 and the zoning administrator.

10:59:40 I am aware that they are processing certain things, and

10:59:45 on December 9th, I believe that Catherine Coyle is

10:59:47 coming back before you with some changes.

10:59:50 And then next week is holiday, and I can only speak on

10:59:54 giving what our current workload is.




10:59:55 But I do not know that two weeks or three weeks is

10:59:59 possible for that entire overhaul given the current

11:00:02 efforts that are being made under that.

11:00:05 I would defer, but I would probably say given that you

11:00:10 are going on vacation right after that, that sometime

11:00:12 in mid January would be more feasible for them to bring

11:00:16 you back something to that effect.

11:00:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN: As a staff report.

11:00:24 That's what I'm asking for.

11:00:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT:

11:00:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council member Capin, your

11:00:29 motion seemed to have two parts.

11:00:31 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.

11:00:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can it be bifurcated?

11:00:34 It sound like the first part of your motion does not

11:00:36 necessarily require the work of staff if you want it

11:00:39 under staff report.

11:00:40 Whereas the second one appeared to.

11:00:41 Maybe I'm mistaken.

11:00:43 But if you need to have them come back on the same day

11:00:45 or you want to address it as two separate motions?

11:00:49 It's your choice.




11:00:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN: It is not an overhaul.

11:00:55 It is a process.

11:00:56 Okay.

11:00:58 I have heard here -- I am going to state this -- I have

11:01:02 heard here maybe two or three council meetings behind,

11:01:05 and if I have I will pull it up where a council member

11:01:08 has said that we do not have -- standing before us code

11:01:11 enforcement has said, that they do not have the

11:01:14 wherewithal to enforce the conditions we put on our

11:01:17 alcoholic beverage special use.

11:01:20 So either we have it or we don't.

11:01:23 Or are we going to do anything about it?

11:01:25 And how soon are we going to do this?

11:01:27 The businesses are behind this.

11:01:31 And the public is behind it.

11:01:38 Now, it is a benefit to all.

11:01:40 It is streamline.

11:01:41 It will make it less expensive.

11:01:43 And, again, Mr. Rensick, owner, is in favor of this

11:01:56 just to name one.

11:01:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, my position is, I'm not sure

11:02:05 what we are doing.




11:02:06 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm confused.

11:02:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: To me it sound like we are asking for

11:02:10 an overhaul of our special use permit for alcoholic

11:02:13 beverages and anything pertaining to conditions.

11:02:19 And to put a process in place, as I understand, and to

11:02:25 make sure that it is inspected or enforced, which

11:02:28 requires, as I understand, it's not being enforced now,

11:02:33 that means that you have to have a special staff to

11:02:35 make sure that happens.

11:02:37 Is that right?

11:02:37 And secondly, that means because right now -- that's

11:02:41 why I said earlier, all of the these have varying

11:02:45 conditions.

11:02:46 You cannot look at a building across the street, say

11:02:49 what the conditions are unless you have somebody who

11:02:51 has monitored that year round.

11:02:52 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: City attorney.

11:02:57 What you just described is at least from the legal

11:03:00 department's perspective one of the issues that we need

11:03:02 to grapple with, which is how we make people aware of

11:03:05 what the standards are that are in place.

11:03:09 What I suspect if City Council is interested in this




11:03:14 topic, what I would suggest is ask us to look at a

11:03:22 process for improving enforcement for some type of

11:03:26 annual review or permit, but set aside the fee he shall

11:03:29 you at this point because I don't have enough

11:03:31 information to know if there's enough resources or not

11:03:34 at this point.

11:03:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Fletcher, I can answer that.

11:03:40 If you look at where you cut your staff, and I can tell

11:03:43 you now, no, you don't, when you borrowed 19 million

11:03:47 from reserve.

11:03:50 You can't answer that?

11:03:52 I can.

11:03:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay. Here we go.

11:03:57 The businesses are behind this.

11:03:59 It is going to streamline their process.

11:04:01 And it's going to guarantee to the public that we can't

11:04:04 enforce what we say we put on these conditions.

11:04:10 It's called special use.

11:04:12 And it is alcoholic beverage.

11:04:15 And, yes, it is a hot button.

11:04:17 But I tell you, since I got on here, within the first

11:04:21 three or four meetings, I could see that there was an




11:04:25 issue here.

11:04:27 And there's conditions that have been there.

11:04:34 And we have three years ago, or four years ago,

11:04:37 alcoholic beverage, just a task force for that.

11:04:43 We don't have them anymore.

11:04:44 And we can see the results of that.

11:04:47 Every time an alcoholic beverage comes up and the

11:04:51 citizens come up here.

11:04:52 And you know what?

11:04:53 They are upset.

11:04:54 They are upset with City Council.

11:04:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Point of clarification.

11:05:05 You want to, what, enforce closing hours?

11:05:08 Serving after hours?

11:05:11 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.

11:05:12 All of the above.

11:05:13 We put conditions.

11:05:15 We, City Council, put conditions on special use,

11:05:19 alcoholic beverage.

11:05:22 We need to find a way that these conditions can be

11:05:26 complied with, which is going to make it better

11:05:30 business all the way around.




11:05:32 Everyone knows where they stand.

11:05:34 As it stands now, one of the proposals I have there is

11:05:38 that every business actually displays their conditions,

11:05:47 just like the fire marshal, displays the capacity.

11:05:51 They have to display that.

11:05:52 They display their conditions.

11:05:54 So that when someone walks into their establishment,

11:05:58 they know what conditions City Council puts on that

11:06:01 establishment.

11:06:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, we really need to move.

11:06:04 I need direction, Mr. Fletcher, of how we are going to

11:06:07 handle this because really what it sounds like to me is

11:06:10 again is that we are asking for something that's going

11:06:13 to require tax, fee --

11:06:19 >>CHAIRMAN: We are going to hire someone.

11:06:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Overhaul, to be monitoring all of this,

11:06:25 and my statement really was, if you really want to

11:06:27 address it, put it in the hands of the staff.

11:06:30 If they don't meet the requirement, and you don't have

11:06:33 no special condition.

11:06:35 The issue is us.

11:06:38 We are creating a special condition because we got all




11:06:40 the waivers.

11:06:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Can I address that real quick?

11:06:47 >> He had his hand up.

11:06:48 Then I will come back to you.

11:06:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding

11:06:51 that we already have this in place to some degree.

11:06:55 When we pass items conditioned or not, the police

11:06:58 department's responsibility is to make sure that they

11:07:02 are adhere to underage drinking, one, closings of hours

11:07:06 is another.

11:07:07 This council voted some time back to list the different

11:07:13 areas that we had and make them all uniform, to 3:00 in

11:07:16 the morning.

11:07:18 The R's, which I vote against.

11:07:21 That doesn't mean I was right.

11:07:22 That means that's how I felt then.

11:07:24 As you see by my vote today I still vote for the same

11:07:27 thing.

11:07:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm ready to go along with you.

11:07:35 >> Than means it's an Army of two.

11:07:37 There's 2(COP), 2(COP-R), 4(COP), 4(COP-R), 4(COP-X),

11:07:44 2(APS), there's all kind of categories.




11:07:47 The responsibility and the way in my opinion is to ask

11:07:52 the department heads and ask the administration to give

11:07:56 us a list of all the violations, all the arrests, that

11:08:01 this city has made on all these businesses.

11:08:05 Who is saying that this council is wrong?

11:08:07 Bring them here.

11:08:08 I welcome that.

11:08:09 Maybe we are wrong.

11:08:10 Maybe we are incorrect.

11:08:11 I'm not saying we are perfect.

11:08:13 But what I am saying is, let's bring this thing to an

11:08:17 end.

11:08:17 Let's have the administration give us the information.

11:08:20 I don't think I or anyone else, maybe someone does,

11:08:24 have all that information, but I certainly don't have

11:08:27 it.

11:08:28 How many underage drinking places have we arrested?

11:08:34 How many closing hours have we changed and said, hey,

11:08:38 you can't sell because you are already here.

11:08:40 It used to be many years ago that you had to turn in a

11:08:43 quarterly report on the 51-49.

11:08:47 And that was changed to semiannually.




11:08:50 And then it was changed, I believe, to yearly, I

11:08:55 believe.

11:08:56 And at that time it was up to the city administration

11:08:57 to go out and verify that to be the fact.

11:09:01 How are those verified?

11:09:03 With an audit much how much food you bought, how much

11:09:06 alcohol you bought, and your sales consumption based on

11:09:10 sales tax and so forth, there's a formula that comes

11:09:13 together and tells you if you meat the criteria of what

11:09:15 type of license you have.

11:09:17 So I'm saying that's already in place.

11:09:19 And I don't think it's that difficult to ask the

11:09:21 administration to come back and give us that, and then

11:09:24 if Ms. Capin wants to continue it with because there's

11:09:29 some external forces beyond what I know of today to go

11:09:33 on, make some changes, I'm not opposed to change.

11:09:39 But I'm opposed in theory to act without having

11:09:42 information so that we can disseminate, and

11:09:44 realistically say these are the facts, and here is what

11:09:47 we have got to do to solve the facts.

11:09:50 These all.

11:09:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN: May I speak?




11:09:54 That's what I am asking for.

11:09:56 Information.

11:09:57 This is information considering a process.

11:10:01 You know, we know, we hear it every time we have

11:10:08 alcoholic beverage before us.

11:10:14 I have heard it time and time again.

11:10:17 They are afraid.

11:10:18 They are afraid.

11:10:19 They are afraid.

11:10:20 We need a process.

11:10:22 Let's hear from them what process can we have to be

11:10:26 able to enforce the conditions that we put on special

11:10:30 use?

11:10:31 And there are always waivers or conditions.

11:10:35 Always.

11:10:36 So in order to be able -- what I would like to be see

11:10:42 is that the citizens of the City of Tampa be

11:10:45 comfortable, that when we say this is a condition, and

11:10:50 this condition is going to be enforceable, this is the

11:10:53 definition of a restaurant, period, this is a

11:10:58 definition of a lounge, period.

11:11:02 The thousand foot waiver, a thousand foot gets waived




11:11:09 very often, if not just about all the time.

11:11:13 And it's not the City Council.

11:11:16 It councils before.

11:11:18 There are conditions that we are dealing with that were

11:11:19 put in place 30 years ago, but they are there.

11:11:32 And they have to be complied with.

11:11:34 Again this is my motion.

11:11:35 If you want me to read it again, I will.

11:11:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I want to be clear because you

11:11:41 say you want information but it sounds like it's a

11:11:43 directive.

11:11:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, I said a staff report.

11:11:46 Isn't that information?

11:11:48 >> do you want to read it again?

11:11:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, I will.

11:11:53 I move that City Council consider establishing a

11:11:58 process which would monitor and ensure that

11:12:01 establishments that are permitted to sell alcoholic

11:12:03 beverages are in compliance with special conditions

11:12:06 that City Council has placed on them when the special

11:12:09 use permits are granted.

11:12:11 Additionally, the legal department administration be




11:12:14 directed to bring back to council a staff report

11:12:22 December 16th or as soon as possible meeting to

11:12:27 discuss these proposals to accomplish this without any

11:12:31 additional cost to taxpayers.

11:12:36 That's part 1.

11:12:37 >>GWEN MILLER: That's part 1.

11:12:43 You need to go --

11:12:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Well, staff will come up for that.

11:12:47 I can finish and then they can tell me if they want to

11:12:50 come back.

11:12:52 In addition, I move to ask legal and administration to

11:12:54 review the current proposed alcohol beverage

11:12:56 regulations and return to be City Council -- again I

11:13:00 ask for December 16th but at the earliest date that

11:13:04 staff can bring back that report with additional

11:13:08 proposed changes to alcoholic classifications and

11:13:11 definitions in order to make sure that alcohol

11:13:14 classifications are more specific enforceable and more

11:13:17 closely meet today's standard.

11:13:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Chairman, I hate to drag this off

11:13:25 but staff is here.

11:13:26 Let me ask you all.




11:13:28 We have various different categories and various

11:13:31 applications that come before us, and when these things

11:13:35 are passed with or without conditions, is there anyone

11:13:39 in this city that goes out and verifies that this is

11:13:43 happening on a yearly basis?

11:13:50 Cole Coyle land development.

11:13:53 There is generally no proactive going out and

11:13:56 monitoring on an annual basis of any particular

11:14:00 establishment.

11:14:02 Our enforcement process is generally complaint-driven.

11:14:05 The only annual process that we have are those that

11:14:08 receive the "R" designations.

11:14:10 They are required to report to us once a year.

11:14:13 The 51-49 percentage.

11:14:15 >> Basically, the ones that do not have the "R," you

11:14:21 have no reason to look at because they don't have the

11:14:23 compliance of 51-49 unless there's a complaint from an

11:14:27 establishment of something happening there illegally

11:14:30 other than alcohol, or alcohol related to the fact that

11:14:33 they are creating a nuisance in the neighborhood, and

11:14:36 that is Wan the Nuisance Abatement Board was for.

11:14:39 The "R" is the one that reports and changed from




11:14:44 quarterly to semiannually, and I believe now annually,

11:14:47 to see that those facts and figures are factual.

11:14:50 Am I correct?

11:14:51 >> I would correct one item that you said in the

11:14:55 beginning about the public Nuisance Abatement Board.

11:14:57 That certainly is one avenue for a certain reason.

11:14:59 We have a process in our code right now that if you are

11:15:01 found in violation, or if you are placed in violation

11:15:04 of a certain condition, and it would be any condition

11:15:07 granted or approved through a special use application.

11:15:11 If you are found in violation of that, and there is

11:15:13 some sort of report either by code enforcement, TPD, if

11:15:17 it's object served through my office or through

11:15:19 business tax, the alcohol inspector that is documented,

11:15:22 and it is reported to myself, I would then generate a

11:15:26 file on that.

11:15:27 Multiple occasions of that.

11:15:29 There are letters sent, and ultimately City Council

11:15:31 reviews that case.

11:15:33 Whether or not to revoke that petition.

11:15:35 >> Well, we have a process in place now?

11:15:38 >> We do, in chapter 27.




11:15:42 >> The question being posed to all of us, when we talk

11:15:45 about not burden to taxpayers, I don't understand how

11:15:49 you are going to fund something.

11:15:51 I don't understand the parameters of what are we trying

11:15:54 to do if we are already doing it?

11:15:56 Nerd, if we are not doing it, I would certainly be

11:15:58 understandable.

11:16:00 But by your own words and actions we are doing it on

11:16:03 those that have the "R," and they have the restrictions

11:16:06 on the license.

11:16:07 And if we don't do it, the state does it to some

11:16:10 degree.

11:16:10 >> Well, the process that I just spoke of actually

11:16:13 covers any alcohol application that you approve.

11:16:16 And I would direct your question to Ms. Capin.

11:16:19 She's the maker of the motion.

11:16:20 >> Well, I am now directing it to you because you are

11:16:22 the enforcer.

11:16:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Speaking to her motion, I'm not

11:16:29 able to say exactly what her motion is.

11:16:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I know you just outlined the process

11:16:33 awhile ago as to what happened, and since I have been




11:16:36 here we had at least would you know own or two

11:16:39 revocations since I have been here.

11:16:41 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You have not had revocations.

11:16:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I thought we had revocations.

11:16:47 I thought we had one my first year when I was here.

11:16:51 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

11:16:52 The way the process is set up right now is they come to

11:16:54 you, and for the first one you can extend to the 30

11:16:57 days which you have done.

11:16:58 After that it escalates to 60, 90, and then eventually

11:17:02 revocation.

11:17:03 You have started the process but we haven't actually

11:17:05 gotten that far.

11:17:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I know since I have been here, this

11:17:07 has been ongoing of approving this, in fact you coming

11:17:10 back again on the 9th, is that right, relative to

11:17:13 this?

11:17:15 Coyle Doyle December 9th I'm coming back with the

11:17:18 second part of this amendment cycle, alcohol, we

11:17:20 discussed the first part of it.

11:17:22 Yes, we have numerous changes where we looked at state

11:17:24 regulations, state licensing requirements and tried to




11:17:27 parallel as much as we could with those to make the

11:17:29 conditions better for City Council to understand and

11:17:31 for the public to understand what would be enforced.

11:17:34 That's the goal.

11:17:34 And with that also coupled as Ms. Capin mentioned there

11:17:38 are revised definitions for restaurant, bar and lounge,

11:17:41 night clubs.

11:17:42 >> Which is coming back, is that right?

11:17:44 >> That's correct.

11:17:44 >> So hearing the motion -- well, wait one second.

11:17:56 Hearing the motion, would it be feasible to hear your

11:17:59 report on the 9th as well?

11:18:02 Because sound as though some of that already involves

11:18:08 is involved in the process.

11:18:12 Cole Coyle what we are bringing forward to you, City

11:18:14 Council, are the text amendments which will address

11:18:16 future approvals, future applications and future

11:18:19 approvals.

11:18:19 It does not -- it's not retroactive to previous

11:18:23 approvals.

11:18:23 The process that we have for enforcement is the same

11:18:26 for previous approvals and future, though.




11:18:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman.

11:18:33 >> We are speaking to part 2, and I stated that, that

11:18:38 the staff has been working on it.

11:18:40 And I have also participated in that.

11:18:46 That's the part 2.

11:18:47 And as far as Mr. Miranda and the 51-49, that pertains

11:18:53 to restaurant.

11:18:54 It doesn't pertain to the conditions than we put

11:18:56 on-site plans.

11:18:57 We put conditions that go on-site plans.

11:19:00 Who enforces that?

11:19:02 One.

11:19:15 So what Cathy Coyle is bringing back does not pertain

11:19:19 to the enforcement, and the compliance.

11:19:24 I would like to refer to it as compliance with our

11:19:27 conditions.

11:19:30 And that is an issue every single time.

11:19:35 So there you go.

11:19:38 Okay.

11:19:39 It does not pertain to the conditions we put on the

11:19:42 site plan.

11:19:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, there's a motion and a second.




11:19:48 My position is it's information.

11:19:50 It sound, though, that we are setting in motion a

11:19:52 process that we don't clearly understand because you

11:19:56 have a process, as you just outlined just awhile ago.

11:20:01 Is that right?

11:20:03 It's a process.

11:20:04 So my concern is, I thought it would be best for us to

11:20:07 maybe clearly understand by bringing back a report, and

11:20:09 then move from there.

11:20:10 So for me I'm not going to support it.

11:20:13 Because I'm not sure where we are going with this.

11:20:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Up or down.

11:20:19 Also --

11:20:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ma'am, okay.

11:20:23 I got the floor.

11:20:24 The issue for me is that I always support -- you want

11:20:30 information how to move forward to. Me, it sounds that

11:20:32 we are moving something in place without getting all of

11:20:34 the facts.

11:20:35 I want all information so I can make a good decision, a

11:20:40 sound and prudent decision, and before I make a vote on

11:20:44 anything.




11:20:45 That's not what I am getting here.

11:20:47 So that's there's a second.

11:20:49 There's a motion and a second on the floor.

11:20:52 There's a second by councilman Stokes.

11:20:54 All in favor of the motion, all in favor signify by

11:20:58 saying Aye.

11:20:59 Opposes?

11:21:02 >>THE CLERK: Motion fails with Miller, Miranda,

11:21:05 Mulhern, and Scott voting no.

11:21:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, yes, sir.

11:21:14 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Point of clarification based on

11:21:18 that action is it council's intent that we still have

11:21:20 the workup that was addressed earlier?

11:21:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think she had a workshop.

11:21:26 Personally, I think we need to have a workshop.

11:21:28 I think we need information so we are all clear.

11:21:30 So if I need to make the motion I will give up the

11:21:32 gavel and make the motion that you and your staff come

11:21:34 back with a workshop of the information requested so we

11:21:37 can look at it.

11:21:38 Okay?

11:21:38 It's going to be my motion.




11:21:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:21:41 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:21:42 Opposed, nay.

11:21:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again that's the date and time

11:21:45 previously set.

11:21:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

11:21:51 Okay.

11:21:52 Let's move to what's before us, Mr. Shelby.

11:21:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We go now to item number 56,

11:22:04 Mr. Chairman, and members of council, file 2010-8.

11:22:09 A review hearing regarding the property and a decision

11:22:13 of the Variance Review Board, VRB 1079-60 relating to

11:22:18 property at 5138/5140 west Longfellow Avenue.

11:22:24 Mr. Chairman, members of council, this is the first

11:22:29 hearing that you are hearing under your amended process

11:22:35 where this is now a review hearing of a board decision.

11:22:42 And what I had done was to arrange a meeting, council,

11:22:48 with attorneys for the property owner who came to the

11:22:54 legal department's office along with myself, Julia

11:22:59 coal, and Ernie Mueller of legal department, and also

11:23:04 phone was Susan Johnson Velez, and she appeared by

11:23:11 phone, and, council, this is a third-party appeal,




11:23:16 which means that it is not the property owner who is

11:23:20 appealing the VRB decision, but somebody who is a

11:23:27 neighbor as you will hear.

11:23:28 Way did as a result of that was to draft processes

11:23:30 which you have before you, the to deal request the

11:23:34 third-party appeal -- excuse me, third-party review,

11:23:38 and the reason that this is done, you will notice, to

11:23:42 refresh your recollection, this is somewhat similar to

11:23:45 third-party appeals that you have had in the past

11:23:48 where, let's say, such as the retreat.

11:23:51 It follows pretty much the same process.

11:23:53 And the reason this was done is to afford procedural

11:23:56 due process to the property owner.

11:23:58 So that being said, let us go to the public hearing.

11:24:02 I believe it was previously opened.

11:24:04 It has been opened by motion.

11:24:06 And we'll discuss the procedures.

11:24:08 Ms. Cole, did you want to add anything before we get

11:24:10 into the discussion of the procedures?

11:24:12 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

11:24:14 Just to add to what Mr. Shelby said, just the rules of

11:24:18 procedure do not specify how to handle these review




11:24:24 hearings, if they are filed by a third party versus

11:24:27 being filed by the property owner. and it is very

11:24:31 important whenever we are undertaking a quasi-judicial

11:24:34 matter that we afford due process.

11:24:40 Case law is very clear that when you have a property

11:24:42 owner who has come before a government seeking permits

11:24:47 if there is a level of process that should be afforded

11:24:51 to them, which is over and above the type of due

11:24:54 process you are obligated to grant to third parties.

11:24:57 So I do want to make clear that we don't in our rules

11:25:03 as they exist today have in place a process which

11:25:07 contemplates the amount of time that a property owner

11:25:12 receives if they are not the person or the entity that

11:25:14 filed the request for review, meaning they are not

11:25:18 petitioner.

11:25:19 I know microphone Shelby has passed out some process

11:25:23 that we had discussed in the phone conference.

11:25:27 I do, however, understand that there may be some

11:25:29 objections to that, and it would be appropriate at this

11:25:32 time, prior to City Council taking action to approve

11:25:35 that procedure, that you hear from both parties to

11:25:40 identify whether or not they have any objection to




11:25:42 these procedures for the purposes of the record, they

11:25:45 were made available to both the petitioner and the

11:25:48 property owner on Tuesday afternoon, I believe it was,

11:25:52 prior to this hearing.

11:25:53 So there was adequate time to review.

11:25:57 And we didn't realize there was going to be objection

11:26:03 until this morning so I would That we be allowed only

11:26:06 procedural issues to be discussed by the petitioner and

11:26:10 the property owner.

11:26:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can also follow up.

11:26:14 Council's rules of procedure do contemplate that

11:26:18 requests for additional time may only be grant if the

11:26:22 participant making the request establishes to the

11:26:24 satisfaction of council that additional time is

11:26:26 necessary to afford procedural due process.

11:26:29 Under this situation, council members shall by majority

11:26:32 vote grant or deny the request to determine the

11:26:34 additional time necessary, if any, and the reason these

11:26:39 rules of procedure that are being proposed to you have

11:26:41 been in place is to negate having to do that on the

11:26:47 record.

11:26:47 We thought we would have an agreement.




11:26:49 But obviously that being said, let's hear from the

11:26:52 petitioner on this, and then we will hear from the land

11:26:56 owner's representative and go from there.

11:26:58 >> Susan Johnson Velez, 301309 south Willow Avenue in

11:27:06 Tampa on behalf of the petitioner Dr.Os man LATIF.

11:27:12 I did participate in the conference call on Tuesday

11:27:15 afternoon where we discussed the current and existing

11:27:18 rules of procedure for this appeal, or petition for

11:27:20 review process.

11:27:21 And we did does the issues with it, and I did receive

11:27:25 in advance a copy of the procedures that are proposed

11:27:28 to you today.

11:27:29 I subsequently discussed that with my client.

11:27:31 We spent a lot of time talking about it Tuesday evening

11:27:35 as well as yesterday, and for the record, my client's

11:27:39 desire to object to it to the extent that it is not a

11:27:43 procedure that's in place today.

11:27:45 He would ask that you follow the procedure that's in

11:27:47 place today rather than adopt an ad hoc, if the rules

11:27:53 of procedure need to be changed to reflect the new

11:27:55 petition for review process that you have subsequently

11:27:57 adopted, then we would ask that that be done.




11:28:00 But for purposes of today, that the rules of procedure

11:28:03 that are in place be followed.

11:28:05 Thank you.

11:28:11 >>GINA GRIMES: 101 East Kennedy Boulevard.

11:28:12 I represent the trust of Nicole Ann DeBartolo who is

11:28:17 the property owner in this case.

11:28:18 The VRB did in fact grant a variance for this

11:28:23 particular piece of property, and the problem with the

11:28:25 procedure is that we thought, your staff thought that

11:28:31 they were assisting everybody by having this meeting on

11:28:34 Tuesday morning, agreeing to this procedure, and

11:28:36 everybody was to move forward relying upon that

11:28:40 procedure.

11:28:40 We were advised, with Ms. Johnson present, that she was

11:28:45 fine with the procedure where we would be given ten

11:28:47 minutes.

11:28:47 And so we moved forward and we planned on that.

11:28:51 We had previously to that meeting planned to bring

11:28:54 additional people here so that we would have speaker

11:28:57 waiver forms, and we could have additional time by

11:29:01 right, not by council's discretion.

11:29:04 I know that you don't always like to grant additional




11:29:06 time and I don't blame you.

11:29:07 And I'm sorry that you are having to go through this.

11:29:09 We thought having this meeting would have avoided this

11:29:11 whole discussion.

11:29:13 But I think Ms. Johnson is wrong.

11:29:15 The rules of procedure do in fact allow council to

11:29:18 grant additional time, if we establish that the

11:29:23 additional time is necessary to afford procedural due

11:29:25 process.

11:29:25 I think that procedural problem we have now is Ms.

11:29:30 Johnson and her clients led us to believe that it was

11:29:33 unnecessary for to us bring additional members of the

11:29:35 public here so that we could have that additional time

11:29:38 by right, and now this appears to be a pattern with Mr.

11:29:42 LATIF after he agreed to do something he changes his

11:29:47 position at the eleventh hour.

11:29:49 And it's very disappointing that they have done this.

11:29:52 All we are asking for is just a small amount of

11:29:54 additional time.

11:29:56 I'm sure the petitioner will have their full 20

11:29:59 minutes. but we do have a couple of people here.

11:30:02 We have four members of the public that are willing to




11:30:06 yield their time.

11:30:07 I will be making a very brief presentation.

11:30:09 Ethel Hammer who is also representing property owner

11:30:12 will be making a brief presentation.

11:30:14 So I think with the four additional people and her

11:30:17 three minutes and my three minutes, that that's ten

11:30:20 minutes.

11:30:21 And if we can just be granted maybe three additional

11:30:24 minutes towards the end of the presentation for us to

11:30:26 be able to rebut what the petitioner said, they will

11:30:30 have the final word, that we can get up with an

11:30:33 additional three minutes and rebut whatever testimony

11:30:35 that was made by the public or by the petitioner.

11:30:37 We would appreciate that.

11:30:38 We are in fact the property owner.

11:30:40 We have the most at steak and the most to lose.

11:30:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, looking at the

11:30:47 procedures that you have in front of you, just so the

11:30:50 record is clear, what you are suggesting to council

11:30:53 is --

11:30:57 >> Under 6-B.

11:31:00 Under 6-B that we may request additional time.




11:31:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

11:31:04 But looking at the procedures that were proposed as a

11:31:05 result of that I presented to council and distributed,

11:31:10 going to number 9, by the property owner where it says

11:31:14 15 minutes, you wish to make that 10 minutes now?

11:31:19 >>GINA GRIMES: I would like to have 10 minutes.

11:31:21 I will preserve on the record my client's sums and the

11:31:24 representation by the petition theory we were going to

11:31:25 have 15 minutes, but we will reduce it to 10 if we have

11:31:29 to.

11:31:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to then what you said,

11:31:33 your closing number 12, it is your intention to reduce

11:31:38 that as well?

11:31:39 You had that as favor minutes.

11:31:42 >>GINA GRIMES: We have three.

11:31:43 Again, Mr. Shelby, we would like the amount of time

11:31:45 that we all agreed upon, that we planned upon.

11:31:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

11:31:50 >>GINA GRIMES: But now it's council's discretion

11:31:53 whether to grant the time or not.

11:31:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I am concerned that when I sit in

11:31:56 my office and I'm briefed and that we have an




11:31:58 agreement, and I sign off on this, and we come out here

11:32:01 today and all of a sudden we have objections that

11:32:03 degrees -- creates a problem for me because I was told

11:32:06 that everybody was in agreement to these guidelines.

11:32:09 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

11:32:12 Until this morning, we were under the impression that

11:32:15 things were agreed to by the parties.

11:32:17 I will say, I think in an abundance of caution and to

11:32:20 ensure that there is due process granted to this

11:32:23 property owner, I would recommend and also given your

11:32:27 rules of procedure that allow City Council to grant

11:32:28 additional time, to a participant, I would just

11:32:32 recommend that you go ahead and approve the procedures

11:32:34 that are in front of you.

11:32:36 I believe that they grant due process to all of the

11:32:39 parties, and a sure that this decision from a due

11:32:42 process perspective is in the most legally defensible

11:32:46 form.

11:32:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's my recommendation as well.

11:32:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, thank you.

11:32:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move that exactly what Ms. Cole

11:32:54 said, to move the presentation based on the facts that




11:32:59 the allowable minutes are used, and three-minute

11:33:02 closing on either side.

11:33:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Five minutes.

11:33:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Five minutes.

11:33:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: According to the procedures that were

11:33:09 --

11:33:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

11:33:13 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

11:33:15 Opposes?

11:33:15 Okay.

11:33:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe, Mr. Chairman, to ensure,

11:33:20 are there any witnesses who have not been sworn who

11:33:22 intend to testify?

11:33:25 >> Stand and be sworn at this time, please.

11:33:26 (Oath administered by Clerk)

11:33:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The written communications have been

11:33:40 moved into the record previously so that is not

11:33:42 necessary to be done.

11:33:43 I also have attached two additional pages to these

11:33:46 rules of procedure.

11:33:47 This is section -- the first page is 27-373, which is

11:33:53 the review of a board decision, a hearing before the




11:33:56 City Council, and I would just like to read this very

11:33:59 briefly.

11:33:59 In reviewing aboard decision City Council shall apply a

11:34:02 de novo standard of review and shall not be limited in

11:34:05 its review to that information, documentation or

11:34:07 evidence upon which the board based its determination.

11:34:10 City Council shall follow all applicable ordinances in

11:34:14 arriving at its decision and may receive new evidence.

11:34:18 City Council after reviewing the decision of the board

11:34:19 and hearing evidence of testimony may either affirm the

11:34:22 board's decision, may remand the matter back to the

11:34:25 board for further proceedings with direction on how the

11:34:27 board failed to comply with the standard of the code or

11:34:31 may overturn the decision of the board, and I'm sure

11:34:35 you will hear from the representatives who will be

11:34:38 talking.

11:34:40 You will be applying the application -- applying the

11:34:44 variance power which is the second page, council,

11:34:46 section 17.5-74, and there before you without having me

11:34:51 to read it.

11:34:52 You do have the five criteria upon which you will be

11:34:57 considering.




11:34:58 In effect, council, what you are doing is you are

11:35:00 standing in the shoes of the variance review board and

11:35:03 hearing this de novo.

11:35:05 That being said, at this point in time, we'll have a

11:35:09 presentation with staff report by staff followed by a

11:35:11 review of the decision by the Variance Review Board.

11:35:15 So is there staff?

11:35:18 >>JULIA COLE: City of Tampa legal department.

11:35:22 I do have with me Abbye Feeley from Land Development

11:35:25 Coordination a today, the staff member who typically

11:35:27 would be giving this presentation is unfortunately out

11:35:30 sick today so I am going to be generally just

11:35:32 describing to you where it is, and if there's any

11:35:35 additional questions, Ms. Feeley has offered to assist

11:35:37 us in this matter.

11:35:39 What you have before you is a request to review failed

11:35:41 by third party as we have discussed above, a decision

11:35:44 by the Variance Review Board to in case VRB 10-60, 5138

11:35:56 and 5140 west Longfellow Avenue, and the variance

11:35:59 request was to permit the construction of a three-foot

11:36:01 wall with wrought iron fencing on top of the wall for a

11:36:04 single-family home, and requires the following




11:36:07 variances, to increase the height of the fence from

11:36:10 four feet to seven feet two inches, to increase the

11:36:14 decorative fencing, from one foot to two feet ten

11:36:18 inches, and to decrease the fence column expensing from

11:36:22 8 feet to 4 feet.

11:36:23 This was heard in ab noticed public hearing before the

11:36:26 Variance Review Board, and after public hearing, the

11:36:30 variance review board granted the variance request by a

11:36:34 vote of 5-1.

11:36:38 Mr. Osman is the neighbor who filed the request for

11:36:41 review, and they did appear at the Variance Review

11:36:45 Board hearing and present testimony and evidence, so

11:36:49 they are the proper parties to have filed this request

11:36:51 for review

11:36:52 On the applicable city code section, 27-133 which is

11:36:56 the section of code that regulates fences and walls --

11:36:59 and I have copies of those sections for your review,

11:37:02 and I will go ahead and ask Mr. Shelby to pass that

11:37:05 out.

11:37:10 This is property which is zoned RS-75.

11:37:14 That's the end of my description.

11:37:15 You have received the staff report which was presented




11:37:18 to the Variance Review Board, and as I said, if there's

11:37:21 any specific questions about the request, Ms. Feeley is

11:37:25 available to assist in giving you any additional

11:37:28 information.

11:37:28 Thank you.

11:37:32 At this point in time I will ask the petitioner to go

11:37:48 ahead and make the presentation for our rules of

11:37:51 procedure that have been discussed previously.

11:37:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner has 15 minutes.

11:38:17 >> Susan Johnson Velez, 309 south Willow Avenue on

11:38:21 behalf of petitioner Dr. Osman LATIF, who reside with

11:38:28 his family at Longfellow Avenue subject east of the

11:38:32 subject property of this variance application.

11:38:34 I would like to go ahead and pass -- we prepared just a

11:38:37 transcript of the VRB hearing.

11:38:39 So I would like to ask that that be received.

11:38:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

11:39:02 >> I want to start out by saying that Dr. LATIF has

11:39:10 consistently since the first hearing on the first

11:39:14 variance application, I guess, that came forward this

11:39:16 year, back in April, consistently been opposed to this

11:39:20 variance request.




11:39:24 I think you have seen, there's plenty of pictures in

11:39:27 the file but I am going just going to put on the Elmo.

11:39:33 This is Longfellow as you approach the end of the

11:39:35 cul-de-sac.

11:39:36 You can see the large house at the end is the subject

11:39:39 property of the variance.

11:39:43 That's a closer view.

11:39:46 You can see my client's, the roof line of his house

11:39:51 that I am pointing to, that just roughly meats the

11:39:56 level of the first floor of living space on this house

11:39:59 that's on this particular piece of property.

11:40:04 This is just a front view.

11:40:06 Again just to kind of give you a feel for the scale of

11:40:09 this house relative to my client's property.

11:40:15 His main objection is the piling on and piling on of

11:40:19 variances.

11:40:20 I think it's in the VRB hearing and borne out in the

11:40:25 transcript, that there have been four variance

11:40:28 applications on this property.

11:40:29 There was AV 01-5 4:00, administrative variance to

11:40:34 increase the building height by five feet.

11:40:36 There was V rah B 05-152, variance granted to increase




11:40:40 the height of the fence from four feet to six feet.

11:40:43 And the height of the gate from four feet to eleven

11:40:45 feet.

11:40:46 Than variance was actually again granted in 2005.

11:40:50 There was a year within which the property owner had to

11:40:53 build the fence and wall that was allowed for that

11:40:58 variance.

11:40:59 And it expired by its terms on October 11th of 2006

11:41:04 As it's -- it's our understanding that the permit for

11:41:08 that construction actually expired before construction

11:41:11 was complete.

11:41:12 You can see this is today currently the only -- that's

11:41:20 crooked.

11:41:23 All that's been constructed of that original variance

11:41:26 request from 2005.

11:41:27 And then as staff has said, VRB 10-28 heard by the VRB

11:41:35 back in April of this year which was denied and then

11:41:37 this application that you are reviewing today which is

11:41:39 VRB 10-60.

11:41:40 Again there are just a lot of variances and

11:41:44 extraordinary -- intended to remedy a situation where

11:41:48 the property is rendered unusable under the current




11:41:51 zoning code.

11:41:52 And this property has had variance after variance after

11:41:56 variance.

11:41:56 Someone went to a great deal of trouble to make this

11:41:59 house as large as it possibly could, and take up and

11:42:01 fill up the lot with this house, and now they are

11:42:05 putting in extraordinarily large gates and fencing on

11:42:09 the house to accommodate that, and it's really

11:42:13 negatively impacting my client's property.

11:42:17 As well as the cul-de-sac and the neighborhood in

11:42:19 general.

11:42:20 Again, there are two criteria, the VRB has to determine

11:42:24 if there are practical difficulties or unnecessary

11:42:26 hardship, and address the five justification criteria

11:42:29 that are spelled out in the code in which I believe you

11:42:31 have in your handout.

11:42:33 I am going to go through them very quickly one by one,

11:42:36 the practical difficulties or alleged hardships have to

11:42:38 be unique and singular with respect to the property,

11:42:41 with respect to the structure, or building.

11:42:44 What the applicant has said in response to that is that

11:42:47 their property is at the end of a cul-de-sac.




11:42:49 They back up to Tampa Bay.

11:42:51 I am going to put on the Elmo a picture of all the

11:43:01 fingers that head out Westshore from this area and you

11:43:03 can see that is not a unique situation in this area.

11:43:06 There are five fingers that have properties all along

11:43:09 those streets that actually all back up to the bay, and

11:43:12 they are all within the cul-de-sac streets.

11:43:15 So that is not a unique and singular situation in this

11:43:19 area.

11:43:19 The property owner has stressed, has asserted that it's

11:43:24 the situation that they are actually on the end of a

11:43:26 cul-de-sac that makes their situation unique.

11:43:29 But my client's property again is right next door.

11:43:38 He's on the end of the cul-de-sac as well.

11:43:40 This property is right here.

11:43:43 They said that because they have a vacant lot next door

11:43:46 to their property, their property is here and the

11:43:50 vacant lot is here.

11:43:51 He has a vacant lot next to his property.

11:43:53 So right next door, you have a property that's exactly

11:43:56 identical to the situation which they are claiming is a

11:43:59 hardship.




11:44:00 And keep in mind that what they have done is what we

11:44:05 call coming to the hardship.

11:44:07 They bought this property in January of 2010.

11:44:10 The piers existed when they bought the property.

11:44:14 Whatever was constructed based on the variance that was

11:44:17 granted in 2005 was constructed already.

11:44:19 And now they are claiming that's a hardship.

11:44:23 The fence regulation limiting the height to four feet

11:44:27 within the front yard setback were also in place when

11:44:29 they purchased the property.

11:44:30 They are also now claim that as a hardship.

11:44:34 And that speaks to actually variance criteria number 2

11:44:37 which is the difficulty or hardship cannot be

11:44:42 self-created.

11:44:43 This is the very type of situation that Florida courts

11:44:45 have held is a self-imposed hardship, when a person

11:44:48 buys a piece of property, regulations already in place,

11:44:52 and existing at the time they buy that property cannot

11:44:54 be used to justify a hardship and grant a variance

11:45:01 based on that.

11:45:02 Just can't do it because you knew about the

11:45:04 regulations, or you certainly should have known about




11:45:06 them if you had investigated.

11:45:12 My client has again consistently testified that this is

11:45:15 going to substantially interfere with his property.

11:45:19 He again has a ten-foot -- I think there's testimony

11:45:23 that's borne out, and you can see in the transcript

11:45:25 that the maximum height, the highest part of this

11:45:31 proposed wall, is ten feet, just over ten feet.

11:45:36 His roof line is roughly ten feet.

11:45:40 If this sets some sort of precedence, dare I say, in

11:45:45 the neighborhood, or a vacant lot, can justify the need

11:45:48 for an extraordinarily large fence as high as ten feet.

11:45:53 The property owner of the vacant lot directly to my

11:45:56 client could conceivably request a variance for fence

11:46:01 height that's exactly the same.

11:46:02 Then he would have ten-foot wall next to his ten-foot

11:46:06 high house, next to another ten-foot wall, and a

11:46:10 40-foot house next door.

11:46:12 I think we can all agree that that would substantially

11:46:17 impact just about anybody.

11:46:26 We do not believe that variance criteria number 4 was

11:46:30 satisfied either.

11:46:32 Harmony and serve it is general purpose.




11:46:35 And it certainly will not protect my client's quiet

11:46:38 enjoyment of his property which is variance criteria

11:46:41 number 4.

11:46:42 Again the characteristics bear substantial hardship are

11:46:47 characteristics that heir common to all properties

11:46:49 within this area of Sunset Park, and again, it's the

11:46:54 situation that if it's a high crime area, we need to

11:46:58 address crime, then maybe the zoning code needs to

11:47:01 address that situation and allow for higher fences or

11:47:07 walls on properties that are situated in this manner an

11:47:14 not try to address it piecemeal one by one by one so

11:47:17 that one person gets it and another doesn't, if it's a

11:47:20 situation that's shared in common which as you can

11:47:22 certainly see it is

11:47:26 My clients again are under no delusion that they have a

11:47:30 right to open air and open light and open views across

11:47:34 anyone else's property.

11:47:36 They have frankly their own waterfront view from their

11:47:38 own backyard, and so they enjoy that very much, and

11:47:42 they are not looking for someone else to provide access

11:47:46 to air, water and light or waterfront view.

11:47:50 If it's a situation on that vacant lot next door where




11:47:53 somebody wanted to build a house, they would be fine

11:47:58 with that so long as it was in keeping with the code.

11:48:03 The crime rate was also raised as an issue.

11:48:05 There was no competent substantial evidence that the

11:48:08 crime occurs disproportionately, only at the end of the

11:48:12 cul-de-sac as opposed to anywhere else along a

11:48:15 cul-de-sac street.

11:48:16 Tampa police reports were submitted as part of the

11:48:19 Variance Review Board hearing, and they show that crime

11:48:24 occurs generally in the area, and certainly there's

11:48:26 nothing that any of us can do to completely insulate

11:48:29 ourselves from crime in any neighborhood.

11:48:34 Pi would like to notice than there was a mention made

11:48:37 of the Variance Review Board hearing.

11:48:39 Again we talked about the piling on and piling on of

11:48:41 variances.

11:48:45 There was testimony at the Variance Review Board

11:48:48 hearing that if that variance was approved, which it

11:48:50 was, there may very well be another variance that comes

11:48:53 forward seeking to have the sixth variance to the side

11:48:58 yard fence that extends into the front yard setback,

11:49:01 increased from four feet to six feet.




11:49:03 So I the think we can anticipate that there may be

11:49:07 another variance come forward which would make it

11:49:09 variance number five at this point.

11:49:11 And again we are going well beyond the minimum that's

11:49:15 required to allow a property owner to make a reasonable

11:49:18 use of their property.

11:49:23 Obviously they can make a reasonable use of their

11:49:25 property.

11:49:25 There's a very large home already on the property, with

11:49:30 the original variance in 2001, that is exists today in

11:49:35 keeping with the Land Development Code.

11:49:38 And there is absolutely no reason why a fence cannot be

11:49:41 built on that property that is also in keeping with the

11:49:45 requirements of Land Development Code.

11:49:47 There was talk in the VRB hearing about fencing

11:49:50 regulations being aesthetic, and meant to address

11:49:54 aesthetics, and the applicant testified that they have

11:49:57 trade very hard to create a design that would be

11:50:00 pleasing to my client as well as to the neighborhood.

11:50:04 And while we certainly appreciate that, this council,

11:50:09 in adopting the four-foot limitation on the front yard

11:50:13 fence, clearly saw that there was anesthetic reason to




11:50:17 have that, so that we wouldn't have these large looming

11:50:20 fences within the front yard, and so close to the front

11:50:22 of the property line.

11:50:23 So there's a reason for the height limitation as well.

11:50:32 I think that's all I had at this point.

11:50:34 I would ask to reserve any remaining time for rebuttal.

11:50:39 And I would like to -- actually, I had one more thing

11:50:44 that I wanted to bring up because there has been an

11:50:46 issue raised with regard to the ability of emergency

11:50:49 vehicles to man maneuver in and out of this cul-de-sac.

11:50:53 It's a very narrow street as you saw from one of the

11:50:56 pictures that I put up earlier.

11:50:57 And we have some pictures of a UPS delivery truck that

11:51:01 had to make at least a four-point turn to get out of

11:51:04 the cul-de-sac.

11:51:05 I am just going to put up -- this is kind of in order

11:51:08 of how they were taken.

11:51:12 That's the initial turn.

11:51:15 Second turn where toad back up.

11:51:17 This is a house that's under construction immediately,

11:51:22 I guess, on the third lot on the end of that cul-de-sac

11:51:25 so it actually understood construction right now.




11:51:29 There's the third turn.

11:51:30 You can see how far back he had to back up in order to

11:51:33 maneuver out of the cul-de-sac.

11:51:36 And here finally he's able to make his turn and exit

11:51:39 the street.

11:51:40 I also want to submit for the record just a close-up

11:51:47 version of the existing piers to kind of give you an

11:51:53 idea of the massing as they exist today.

11:52:00 There it is in relation to a truck.

11:52:04 With that I'll close my initial remarks, and again

11:52:07 request reservation of additional time for rebuttal.

11:52:10 Thank you.

11:52:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Leave that picture up and explain from

11:52:22 that -- can you show us where the height is going to

11:52:25 be, the fence that they -- that you are challenging?

11:52:31 >>> Well, the highest point in the piers here, maybe

11:52:45 Ms. Grimes would like to but I believe the highest

11:52:47 point that the pairs with the decorative lighting and

11:52:51 architectural feature on the top.

11:52:52 >> Actually, my original question was, when you were

11:52:55 talking about the all the variances they have received,

11:52:58 I didn't -- you said one they got one for a five-foot




11:53:05 additional height for the building, then two additional

11:53:10 Heights from four to six feet, then what were the other

11:53:13 two?

11:53:15 >> 1067-28 which was heard by the VRB in April, on

11:53:20 April 14th, I believe.

11:53:22 It was also a variance request to increase the fence

11:53:24 and gate Heights, and then there is -- that application

11:53:29 was denied.

11:53:29 >> That was denied.

11:53:32 And then there was another one after that?

11:53:34 >> That's correct.

11:53:35 There was a substantial deviation, determination that

11:53:38 was made by the VRB that the applicant had come forward

11:53:41 with a substantially different application, and so they

11:53:43 brought forward another variance application.

11:53:46 >>MARY MULHERN: So --

11:53:49 >>> And that's the one that's understood review right

11:53:51 now, today.

11:53:51 >>MARY MULHERN: You are going to explain that.

11:53:56 Okay.

11:54:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Grimes, you have 15 minutes.

11:54:25 >>GINA GRIMES: Representing trust of Ann DeBartolo, the




11:54:30 property owner.

11:54:32 Mickey DeBartolo is here with me today with her

11:54:35 husband, Chad Bronister.

11:54:39 They intend to live at this home with Ms. DeBartolo's

11:54:44 young son.

11:54:44 As I go through my presentation I will just touch on

11:54:47 some of the points that were raised by Ms. Johnson

11:54:51 Velez.

11:54:53 I'm disappointed that there are a lot of inaccuracies

11:54:56 in what she presented as far as the testimony at the

11:54:59 VRB and what the intent is and the basis for our

11:55:03 request, and the history on the site as far as the

11:55:07 variance and their concerns.

11:55:11 I also would like to put into the record the DVD from

11:55:15 the VRB hearing.

11:55:17 And I also have some case law that I am going to put

11:55:19 into the record.

11:55:20 I'll address it when I come to it at that point in my

11:55:23 presentation.

11:55:26 The variance is being requested for two reasons.

11:55:29 The most important of which was never even mentioned by

11:55:32 Ms. Johnson Velez, and that is that there is a serious




11:55:36 significant security issue with respect to miss

11:55:40 DeBartolo, because of her family's financial position

11:55:43 and because of the fact that they are a public figure,

11:55:47 they have in the past experienced serious threats

11:55:50 regarding security.

11:55:52 They have experienced extortion threats.

11:55:55 They have experienced blackmail.

11:55:58 They have experienced kidnapping threats.

11:55:59 They in fact have a security guard there now 24 hours a

11:56:02 day, seven days a week.

11:56:05 That's the number one and primary reason this variance

11:56:07 is being requested.

11:56:09 And that wasn't even referred to by Mr. LATIF's

11:56:14 representative.

11:56:16 At the VRB hearing we did present information regarding

11:56:20 a security survey that was conducted by the Sheriff's

11:56:22 Department.

11:56:22 They'll do it for anybody.

11:56:23 They come in and evaluate a piece of property, tell you

11:56:26 what you can do to improve the security.

11:56:28 What they advised the DeBartolo family was to have a

11:56:32 perimeter fence around the property.




11:56:35 That's in fact what we are trying to do. John

11:56:37 McDarby, a sheriff's deputy and works sometimes

11:56:40 off-duty for the DeBartolo family is here to testify

11:56:43 regarding the situation as far as security concerns.

11:56:46 The other issue that was touched on by Mr. LATIF was

11:56:50 there is a unique circumstance in the fact that this is

11:56:54 a vacant waterfront lot at the end of a cul-de-sac.

11:56:58 I am going to show you an aerial that gives you a much

11:57:01 better view of where this home is.

11:57:07 Here is the DeBartolo home.

11:57:09 Next door to it, you will see is a vacant lot.

11:57:14 This home existed before the DeBartolo's purchased the

11:57:20 property.

11:57:20 The home as well as the wall in front of the property.

11:57:24 In fact the home and the wall existed when Mr. LATIF

11:57:28 bought his property.

11:57:29 So they mentioned it, the DeBartolo's were moving to

11:57:33 the hardship.

11:57:34 Well, he as well.

11:57:35 He moved to this situation where that home, that

11:57:39 height, that wall, that height, existed when he bought

11:57:42 his property.




11:57:43 Ms. Hammer will get into more details about that.

11:57:45 But when you look at the end of a cul-de-sac like that,

11:57:48 especially at the end of the cul-de-sac, not on one of

11:57:52 the house as long the cul-de-sac but people tend to go

11:57:56 to the very end and they stop because they can.

11:57:59 It's a cul-de-sac.

11:58:00 What happens especially when you have a vacant lot is

11:58:02 that it has a tendency to draw or attract people to

11:58:05 that vacant lot.

11:58:07 And as a result of that, what you have are trespassers.

11:58:11 Sometimes they are innocent trespassers, people going

11:58:14 down to watch the sunset, people walking their dogs and

11:58:17 going to fish, whatever it is they choose to do.

11:58:20 But sometimes, what the concern is, attracts also

11:58:23 criminal activity.

11:58:26 You have a lot of times teenagers out there that are

11:58:28 drinking.

11:58:29 You also have criminals that gain access to the rears

11:58:32 of property by going through vacant lots.

11:58:34 And it's not uncommon to see people on waterfront

11:58:36 property going out on vacant lots and nobody thinks

11:58:39 anything of it because they think that it's otherwise




11:58:42 an innocent activity.

11:58:43 The DeBartolos already experienced criminal activity on

11:58:48 this piece of property.

11:58:49 They already had a boat stolen during the construction

11:58:51 process.

11:58:52 They had a John boat out back stolen.

11:58:54 They had a car that's been broken into.

11:58:56 This is with the security guard there.

11:58:58 And it because there's always a lot of activity at the

11:59:01 end of the cul-de-sac, a lot of car traffic.

11:59:04 In your documentation, we included on tab 8, somebody

11:59:09 crime statistics for this crime grid.

11:59:11 We eh certain that is substantial and competent

11:59:14 evidence.

11:59:15 There are criminal statistics from the Tampa Police

11:59:17 Department, and that's at tab A.

11:59:20 The most important part of this presentation, though,

11:59:22 that I want you to understand -- and it goes to the

11:59:25 history of this site -- this proposal that we are

11:59:27 putting forward is a compromise, it's a compromise from

11:59:31 what exists there today, and it's a compromise from the

11:59:35 DeBartolo's previous request.




11:59:37 Here is a drawing.

11:59:38 Here is an elevation of what we are proposing.

11:59:44 The history on this project, back in April, the

11:59:48 DeBartolos had a representative that went to the VRB

11:59:51 and asked for a continuation of a solid six-foot wall

11:59:55 along the front of the property.

11:59:57 And that variance, Ms. Mulhern, was denied.

12:00:02 This elevation shows what exist there is today.

12:00:05 It's a six-foot wall with piers that are seven feet two

12:00:08 inches, and there's four sets of them existing there

12:00:11 today.

12:00:12 What they asked to do was to extend the same design

12:00:16 around onto the vacant parcel.

12:00:19 That variance was denied.

12:00:21 So there was not -- there is not variance after

12:00:26 variance after variance, as Ms. Johnson Velez had

12:00:33 alluded to.

12:00:34 When the variance to extend this wall was denied, there

12:00:37 were two comments and concerns expressed by the VRB and

12:00:40 the residents, and they were that this will block our

12:00:42 view of the wallet water and it will block our view of

12:00:50 light and air across this and said it wasn't necessary,




12:00:53 was too imposing, out of character with the street and

12:00:55 the home.

12:00:56 In fact, Mr. LATIF himself said -- and this is in the

12:01:00 transcript, I believe at page 30 through 35 of the

12:01:04 April hearing -- that people like to stroll and see the

12:01:07 water and have been a view of the water and that's how

12:01:12 we meet neighbors and kids are playing in the

12:01:14 cul-de-sac and we object to this fence because it's

12:01:16 going to block our view of the water and our ability to

12:01:18 go out and stroll and meet our neighbors.

12:01:27 There are other members of the public and the VRB that

12:01:29 had concern about blocking the view of the water and

12:01:31 also the flow of the light and the air, so as a result

12:01:33 the DeBartolos went back and modified their plan and

12:01:37 what they agreed to do was demolish part of the

12:01:40 existing wall, take down what previously existed,

12:01:43 decrease this variance that was granted back in 2005,

12:01:47 and install on top of it wrought iron so it would be

12:01:51 three foot of wall and three foot of wrought iron, and

12:01:54 that would be uniform all the way across the existing

12:01:58 home, and then on the vacant lot.

12:02:01 The ten foot height variance is inaccurate.




12:02:03 The only thing that's ten feet is these piers.

12:02:06 They are seven feet two inches and the light on top is

12:02:09 another two feet ten inches, but the wall, almost the

12:02:14 entire, which comprises most of the frontage of the

12:02:18 property, the wall is only six feet, and the gate is

12:02:23 seven feet two inches.

12:02:30 In that document, Mrs. Mulhern, it's in your book at

12:02:38 page 3 as you are looking for it.

12:02:41 Tab 3.

12:02:45 I am going to turn it over at this point to Mrs. Hammer

12:02:47 to go through with you what she has found to be

12:02:50 consistencies throughout the City of Tampa and in this

12:02:52 neighborhood with very, very similar walls that are of

12:02:56 similar height and similar situations on pieces of

12:03:01 property either on the water, or on a cul-de-sac.

12:03:04 >> before you do that, if we could hold the clock for

12:03:08 one minute.

12:03:08 We have a question from council.

12:03:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN: This fence is for the purpose of

12:03:13 security we are looking at?

12:03:16 >> Yes, ma'am.

12:03:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Is this fence going to go all the way




12:03:19 around the house to the back?

12:03:21 >> Right now, there is no fence on the side.

12:03:23 And if you don't mind I would like to explain why.

12:03:27 When the DeBartolos first proposed this, the fence

12:03:31 height variance, they went to the Latifs and asked do

12:03:35 you have an objection to what we are proposing?

12:03:37 And Mrs. LATIF told Mr. BONISTER as long as you don't

12:03:46 block my view I have no objection.

12:03:48 And then they came forward and had an objection.

12:03:50 So he changes his position after you rely upon it.

12:03:55 Right now they don't have plans or variance request

12:03:59 pending to put a fence along the sides of their

12:04:02 property.

12:04:03 But they do intend, if this is affirmed, they do intend

12:04:08 to put fences that need meet the code requirements

12:04:11 along their side property lines.

12:04:13 >> And not in the back?

12:04:17 >>GINA GRIMES: They --

12:04:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: They are concerned about the security

12:04:21 of the waterfront?

12:04:22 >>> Yes, they are.

12:04:24 >> there's a security problem at the street level but




12:04:26 there's none at water be?

12:04:27 >>> Yes, there is.

12:04:28 And what they have done so far is the part of the

12:04:32 security survey, it was recommended of that they

12:04:34 installed rip ref in the water at the base of their sea

12:04:38 wall to prevent boats from getting in and having access

12:04:40 to their back sea wall.

12:04:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN: All right, thank you.

12:04:44 >>> And they are telling me -- I haven't been out there

12:04:49 in probably a month or so -- they are telling me their

12:04:52 fence is up in the rear as well.

12:04:54 >> Thank you.

12:04:55 >> My name is Ethel Hammer.

12:05:02 May I ask how much time I have?

12:05:04 >> 6 minutes 15 second.

12:05:07 >> Thank you very much.

12:05:08 I passed out a booklet of materials that I am going to

12:05:12 be referring to in my presentation.

12:05:15 The first two tabs are items that Ms. Grimes has

12:05:19 already showed to you.

12:05:20 One is the cross-section of the wall that's being

12:05:22 requested.




12:05:23 The other is the architectural rendering so that you

12:05:28 can see the design of the wall that is being committed

12:05:30 to.

12:05:32 Your code certainly permits fences in the front yard,

12:05:36 and what it permits is fences that may be three feet in

12:05:41 height, if they are okay, nerd, a solid wall, or four

12:05:44 feet if they are going to be transparent.

12:05:47 So what we are proposing is, as you can see by the

12:05:52 photograph, piers with a transparent fence.

12:05:56 The fence again is being asked to go from the three

12:06:00 feet on the bottom up to six feet, which would be

12:06:03 transparent.

12:06:05 And the gates would be seven fate two inches.

12:06:08 Now, this seven feet two inches is a reduction from the

12:06:11 variance that was approved back in 2005.

12:06:16 That permitted eleven-foot gates.

12:06:18 Again, this is a reduction in the intensity of the

12:06:21 variance that was already approved.

12:06:31 The previously-approved variance in 2005, I want to

12:06:36 make clear to council, was approved for a solid masonry

12:06:40 wall, up to six feet in height.

12:06:44 So, again, this is a decrease in the intensity of the




12:06:48 request that's currently in place.

12:06:51 They could build a six-foot concrete block wall along

12:06:54 the front of that property with the house on.

12:07:01 The property is located, as you know, in Central Park,

12:07:05 which is characterized by many large single-family

12:07:08 homes.

12:07:09 The DeBartolo's property includes the lot on which the

12:07:12 primary residence is constructed as well as the vacant

12:07:15 lot next door.

12:07:17 Now, one of the exhibits that I have in your booklet is

12:07:21 behind tab 3.

12:07:23 What I did is I drove around the neighborhood to see if

12:07:26 in fact there were other similarly situated properties

12:07:32 who had built fences that were above code.

12:07:34 And, in fact, I have included behind tab 3 quite a few

12:07:39 pictures, I believe tab 4.

12:07:42 Tab 3 is the aerial that shows the locations in red of

12:07:46 other properties that have fences that are hire than

12:07:50 code permits, and the DeBartolo property is in yellow.

12:07:56 Behind tab 4 you will see photographs of fences that

12:07:59 are in fact very similar to what the DeBartolo family

12:08:03 is actually proposing be constructed.




12:08:07 We believe that the fence, along with other properties,

12:08:11 will provide a secure environment for them, and it will

12:08:15 be in scale with the houses that have also been

12:08:17 constructed on this property as well as other

12:08:20 properties at the end of cul-de-sacs.

12:08:23 Now, I want to be very quickly go through the variance

12:08:26 criteria, since Ms. Johnson Velez did as well.

12:08:30 Variance criteria one and two talk about the hardship

12:08:33 being singular and unique, and not resulting from the

12:08:37 actions of the applicant.

12:08:39 Well, the location of this lot at the end of the

12:08:43 cul-de-sac, I think, is the consideration here.

12:08:49 It is not on the side of the cul-de-sac.

12:08:51 It is on the end of the cul-de-sac which becomes an

12:08:53 attraction for people to go to the end to see the

12:08:57 sunset.

12:08:58 This would discourage trespassing.

12:09:01 It would create a higher security for the residents, of

12:09:06 the neighborhood at large.

12:09:07 Variance criterion number 3 says if granted it will not

12:09:10 substantially interfere with the health, safety and

12:09:12 welfare of the general public.




12:09:14 Well, we believe first of all that the transparency of

12:09:17 the funds that's being proposed will certainly not

12:09:21 interfere with the health, safety and welfare, and we

12:09:24 believe that the added security for the neighborhood by

12:09:27 keeping trespassers out of this community will also add

12:09:31 to the general health, safety and welfare.

12:09:34 Number four, the variance is in harmony with and serve

12:09:38 as general intent and purpose of the code and

12:09:40 comprehensive plan.

12:09:41 Your comprehensive plan actually has policy in the

12:09:44 housing element, policy 26.1.1, that addresses the idea

12:09:51 of the city helping to ensure the safety of its

12:09:54 residents.

12:09:56 So we believe that this fence actually won help ensure

12:10:00 the safety of this property, and therefore complies and

12:10:04 furthers the intent of the comprehensive plan.

12:10:09 And the last one says allowing the variance would

12:10:11 result in substantial justice being done.

12:10:14 We believe that this variance would protect the

12:10:17 enjoyment of the resident and the neighboring

12:10:19 homeowners by reducing foot traffic and auto traffic to

12:10:23 this cul-de-sac and eliminating or discouraging




12:10:27 potential security issues.

12:10:29 Now, behind tab 5, I want to draw your attention to

12:10:32 that section of my book that I prepared, because what I

12:10:36 have done there is I have researched over the last

12:10:39 couple years variances that have been approved, that

12:10:43 are very similar to what's before you today, and so I

12:10:47 would like to just quickly walk through the ones that I

12:10:52 have included very quickly.

12:10:58 This is a variance that was approved for 6233 Bayshore

12:11:03 Boulevard.

12:11:04 This was a variance that approved the increase of hate

12:11:07 in a front yard fence from four feet to six feet, which

12:11:11 is what's being requested here, with separation of the

12:11:14 columns being reduced from eight feet to four feet,

12:11:17 which is exactly what's being requested here.

12:11:19 The next one is variance 10-45, again, approved the

12:11:27 fence height from four feet to six feet.

12:11:30 Same as our request.

12:11:33 The next one is variance 10-42 which increased the

12:11:37 height of the fence from three feet to six feet.

12:11:41 The next one is variance 09-56 on Bahama circle, it

12:11:47 increased the fence height from three feet to six feet,




12:11:51 also allowed open screening in the corners of the

12:11:53 fence.

12:11:54 And lastly --

12:11:57 (Bell sounds)

12:12:00 -- one more, on south Bayshore increased the height of

12:12:03 the fence from three feet to eight feet, with a 14-foot

12:12:07 entry gate, much greater than our request before you

12:12:10 today.

12:12:11 And I will sum up by saying, I believe this will be

12:12:15 compatible.

12:12:16 It's a beautiful design with the neighborhood.

12:12:17 I think it's consistent with your Land Development Code

12:12:20 allowance for variances.

12:12:21 And it certainly consistent with the comprehensive

12:12:25 plan.

12:12:27 >>CURTIS STOKES: A question for you, Mrs. Hammer.

12:12:29 The DeBartolos, they own the lot right beside the

12:12:33 property, the house et, the lot?

12:12:38 >> Yes, sir.

12:12:39 They own the lot with the house.

12:12:41 Essentially two lots.

12:12:42 The lot with the house and then the vacant lot next




12:12:44 door which actually has the boat house on it.

12:12:47 The fence will go the entire frontage of both lots.

12:12:50 >> So Mr. LATIF is objecting to the fence that the

12:12:54 DeBartolos put on their property?

12:12:58 >> Well, you will have to ask Ms. Velez what he's

12:13:03 objecting to but right now they have a much more

12:13:05 intensive fence and higher fence permitted on the lot

12:13:10 for the house.

12:13:12 They are decreasing that and extending it over to the

12:13:15 vacant lot.

12:13:16 >> The property they own already?

12:13:21 >> Correct.

12:13:22 >>CURTIS STOKES: Thank you.

12:13:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

12:13:25 Other questions by council?

12:13:26 We'll take public comment at this time.

12:13:28 Anyone in the public wishing to address council.

12:13:31 You have three minutes.

12:13:33 Anyone wish to address council may come forward at this

12:13:36 time, please.

12:13:39 If you are going to be speaking, please come forward.

12:13:41 >> My name is mile Anderson.




12:13:49 I'm the president of the Sunset Park homeowners

12:13:51 association.

12:13:52 I am here today because our board looked at this

12:13:55 particular variance request and voted unanimously to

12:13:58 oppose it.

12:14:00 And I am going to go into the reasons for that.

12:14:03 First of all, at the Variance Review Board meeting and

12:14:08 at this meeting there have been allusions to crime at

12:14:11 Sunset Park.

12:14:12 I would like to put that a little more into

12:14:14 perspective.

12:14:15 I did analysis myself of looking at the statistics on

12:14:18 the west side that the police department keeps, and if

12:14:22 you take out New Tampa, which from what I understand

12:14:25 has a lot of gated communities, Sunset Park has one of

12:14:27 the lowest in the city, lowest crime rates in the city.

12:14:35 We have like two grids.

12:14:36 And let me put this on the Elmo here, which is 168 and

12:14:40 173.

12:14:41 168 is north of -- 173 is south.

12:14:49 If you take the combination of those two, the crime is

12:14:54 not nonexistent but it certainly is -- if you look at




12:15:00 the last five years, no murders, no kidnappings, you

12:15:03 will find very, very low statistics.

12:15:05 What you will find, bicycle thefts, things like that.

12:15:09 And the other thing I want to make a comment on was the

12:15:11 attorney, Ms. Grimes, commented about 39 incidents in

12:15:19 2009, and this one grid.

12:15:21 However, if you look at when they printed the street by

12:15:25 street analysis, it's almost never anything west of

12:15:28 Westshore.

12:15:29 And just look at this Elmo again, if you wouldn't mind.

12:15:32 So Westshore is this line that's going through the

12:15:34 middle P.173, for example.

12:15:37 West of Westshore, 168 west of Westshore you are not

12:15:41 going to find out of 39 incidents that were there a

12:15:45 handful of those are going to be west of Westshore.

12:15:48 It's probably going to be in the vicinity of Westshore

12:15:50 which is going to be crimes of opportunity.

12:15:52 Somebody driving by.

12:15:54 Sees the garage door open.

12:15:55 And that type of thing.

12:15:57 And also just over in this area, in the far eastern end

12:16:00 of Sunset Park is where you are going to see the crime.




12:16:03 Not on the west side which is where the DeBartolos are

12:16:06 located and especially not way over on the far west

12:16:09 side by the water, orb by the bay.

12:16:14 And I can tell you myself from personal experience,

12:16:18 Sunset Park is the safest neighborhood I have ever

12:16:20 lived in: You know what?

12:16:23 A couple of times I left my door unlocked at my house

12:16:26 and nothing happened and you can see from the streets

12:16:27 that door is not locked.

12:16:29 Nobody hassled me.

12:16:31 It just doesn't happen.

12:16:33 It's not nonexistent but it's very, very rare that we

12:16:36 get stuff happening on the 5,000 block in Westshore.

12:16:41 The other thing I wanted to comment on is that I feel

12:16:47 of that due to the life-style of the DeBartolos, their

12:16:53 family having a lot of money, San Francisco

12:16:56 49ers, this kind of stuff, this comes across to

12:16:58 me as a self-created hardship.

12:17:00 So we have this couple here, and they have had death

12:17:04 threats or for whatever reason, they are come into our

12:17:06 neighborhood, and they don't feel safe, and they want

12:17:09 to change our neighborhood to make themselves feel




12:17:11 safe.

12:17:12 And I just don't feel that's right.

12:17:15 If they just come into our neighborhood and just try to

12:17:18 obey the laws, and in conclusion I ask that you vote

12:17:22 against this variance.

12:17:23 Thank you.

12:17:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

12:17:25 >> John MMcDarby.

12:17:31 Real quick, I am a detective with Hillsborough County

12:17:35 sheriff's office.

12:17:36 I have investigated cases involving DeBartolos family

12:17:40 and I don't think it's a question of crime statistics

12:17:42 or anything like that.

12:17:43 The crimes that their families fall victim, like

12:17:46 extortion, threat against their personal safety, it's

12:17:48 not something that's just a crime of opportunity.

12:17:51 It's more cold and calculated people, people that have

12:17:55 mental problems, they do stuff like that.

12:17:57 And I think it's a little more than just looking A at a

12:18:00 crime statistic and saying, well, bicycles don't get

12:18:02 stolen or they do get stolen.

12:18:04 It doesn't matter where they live.




12:18:06 I mean, it's not like crime follows them, but we have a

12:18:09 family that has a lot of money, as anyone will think,

12:18:13 people are looking to get that money.

12:18:14 Okay.

12:18:15 And people are looking at something like that.

12:18:17 It puts them in danger.

12:18:18 And the first step is crime surveys show was putting up

12:18:23 a fence to protect them, and they try to take all the

12:18:26 steps necessary, and there's just -- it's the crimes

12:18:31 that have been committed against them that I do know

12:18:34 about that I think basically demanded something be done

12:18:37 to put up a fence to protect their family.

12:18:42 Okay.

12:18:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

12:18:45 >> My name is Kerry Gramell, the vice-president of the

12:18:49 Sunset Park area homeowners association.

12:18:52 Sunset Park has 1350 residences, approximately 1350

12:19:00 homes and about 3,000 residences.

12:19:03 Our board did vote unanimously against this.

12:19:07 When Sunset Park was originally designed in the

12:19:09 1930s, it was developed using large open green

12:19:13 spaces.




12:19:16 The developer curbed the streets.

12:19:18 It obviously had a great view of Tampa Bay, hence the

12:19:21 name Sunset Park.

12:19:23 In recent years, the traditionally ranch style

12:19:28 single-family homes have been added to with a lot of

12:19:32 large two, three-story homes as well, but I wouldn't

12:19:36 say that large multiple-story homes are in the majority

12:19:42 at this point.

12:19:42 I would say that it's still a pretty even beginnings

12:19:47 combination of single story and multi-story homes.

12:19:50 Sunset Park homeowners association did vote unanimously

12:19:55 to oppose this variance, and the reasons given by our

12:19:59 board included that it was not in keeping with the

12:20:03 character and the integrity of our neighborhood.

12:20:06 There were some pictures shown of homes that had

12:20:11 variances granted for fences, and we didn't get a copy

12:20:15 of that so we can't address those particular locations,

12:20:19 but we are speaking about this residence.

12:20:24 The other reasons given were that Sunset Park is safe,

12:20:28 and our board wanted to stress that we are very

12:20:30 sympathetic to, you know, the DeBartolos situation, and

12:20:37 understand, but, you know, would encourage anyone in




12:20:40 their situation to consider moving into a gated -- you

12:20:47 know, if they have death threats orchid napping or that

12:20:49 kind of thing, maybe a gated community with security

12:20:53 going in and out is more conducive to that, because we

12:20:56 would hate for anything to happen, and understand that.

12:21:01 Sunset Park isn't that.

12:21:05 We just are worried about other people who live on

12:21:08 cul-de-sacs in Sunset Park saying, hey, they did it, we

12:21:12 want to do it.

12:21:13 So those other people that live on those cul-de-sacs in

12:21:15 those single-story homes are going to end up with this

12:21:19 tunnel kind of effect around their houses.

12:21:22 And our board again vote against allowing the variance

12:21:27 because we feel like it's going to negatively impact

12:21:30 the people who live on those cul-de-sacs, in the

12:21:34 single-story ranch homes, and it's the scale.

12:21:36 It's really the scale.

12:21:37 If you look at Dr. LATIF's house in comparison with

12:21:43 that fence, it's just so out of scale, and, you know,

12:21:46 we would just hope that you would put yourself into

12:21:48 that situation, and remember the house, the DeBartolos

12:21:54 house already had that five-foot variance to go higher.




12:21:57 And so it's like did that variance then force -- I know

12:22:04 they are saying that it's safety, but is it also to

12:22:07 scale, that the fence needs to be taller because of the

12:22:09 scale of the house?

12:22:10 So again, Sunset Park asks respectfully that you deny

12:22:13 this request.

12:22:14 Thank you.

12:22:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

12:22:20 Anyone else?

12:22:23 Any questions by council?

12:22:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is there a gate -- (off

12:22:37 microphone) -- that anybody could drive in there?

12:22:40 >> I think the way procedures were agreed upon, Ms.

12:22:43 Johnson Velez has --

12:22:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, right now, it's council time to

12:22:47 ask questions, if we have any questions, then you can

12:22:51 come back.

12:22:51 >> Okay.

12:22:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we are following the outline.

12:22:55 Follow the outline.

12:22:57 Thank you, though.

12:22:58 Procedures, right?




12:23:02 Additional questions?

12:23:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question for the petitioner,

12:23:11 for the attorney.

12:23:14 At the last variance review, where they were granted

12:23:19 this variance, if it were denied, if it had been

12:23:29 denied, what is it that the petitioner would want them

12:23:35 to do?

12:23:37 I mean, what is the difference between what was granted

12:23:40 and what you, the petitioner, thought would be

12:23:43 appropriate, given what's already there on the site and

12:23:48 already been approved?

12:23:50 >> I understand your question.

12:23:51 And I think with my response I can address Mr. Stokes'

12:23:55 comment earlier, too, regarding what the objection is.

12:23:58 It's our belief -- and I do have a printout that I

12:24:01 received from land development staff member.

12:24:05 It's a printout from the permitting department with

12:24:08 respect to the permits.

12:24:10 But I am happy to submit it into the record that showed

12:24:12 the permit for what's existing now actually expired

12:24:15 before it was completely built.

12:24:16 So I know that there's a lot of talk about what's




12:24:19 allowed, what they have a right to do, what they could

12:24:22 do today without any further action by anybody, and

12:24:25 that's simply not the case from what it appears by the

12:24:28 city's very own record of the status of this permit, is

12:24:31 that it expired before anybody completed it.

12:24:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The question though, Mrs. Johnson, is

12:24:37 whether --

12:24:41 >>MARY MULHERN: I think in the context of -- let her

12:24:43 finish, but then it sound like maybe I need to hear

12:24:46 from city staff.

12:24:48 >>> And again the question that Mr. Stokes raised goes

12:24:51 to your concern as well, is what would they lake to

12:24:54 see?

12:24:54 My client's objection is not to construction of the

12:24:56 fence.

12:24:57 It's to the additional height of the fence at the

12:25:03 highest point over ten feet, which is roughly the same

12:25:06 height as his roof line.

12:25:07 >> So what is the height limit right now?

12:25:10 >> Four feet.

12:25:15 Or three feet.

12:25:16 I'm sorry.




12:25:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Three feet?

12:25:20 >> But I would like to put this into the record as

12:25:22 well.

12:25:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

12:25:28 Okay.

12:25:28 You have five minutes for --

12:25:35 >> I reserved my additional time for rebuttal.

12:25:37 And I think Ms. Grimes, according to procedure, as the

12:25:42 representative, has rebuttal first.

12:25:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

12:25:48 Any other questions?

12:25:51 You have favor minutes from the property owner

12:25:53 representative at this time.

12:25:57 >>GINA GRIMES: I would like to quickly go back and

12:25:59 focus on the standard of review presented by your

12:26:01 staff.

12:26:01 It's not the hardship criteria that everybody thinks.

12:26:05 Council changed that.

12:26:06 There are two things that have to be proved.

12:26:08 You have a practical difficulty or unnecessary

12:26:10 hardship.

12:26:11 And that the request is for health, safety or welfare.




12:26:15 Practical difficulty is we have a unique situation, a

12:26:18 waterfront lot at the end of a cul-de-sac that attracts

12:26:21 trespassers.

12:26:22 We also have a unique hardship in that the public

12:26:25 status of this family creates additional security

12:26:28 issues.

12:26:29 We believe that the variance request also ensures the

12:26:35 health, safety welfare is protected because of the

12:26:37 result of the variance hearing back in April.

12:26:39 We went back and modified the request.

12:26:41 So we have a variance application that reduced the

12:26:48 extent -- this variance was granted back in 2005.

12:26:52 This fencing wall that exist add long this property.

12:26:58 Back here in front of the house. There was a height

12:27:01 variance granted for a wall and gate in front of this

12:27:05 house.

12:27:07 Not the three foot of the transparent fence but a solid

12:27:12 wall.

12:27:14 Basically what's there today.

12:27:16 You can see the solid wall.

12:27:19 It was constructed.

12:27:20 I'm not sure where Mrs. Johnson Velez is coming from as




12:27:24 far as the variance expired, but this has existed for

12:27:28 some time, existed when her client bought his property.

12:27:32 What we are proposing to do is a rezone of the variance

12:27:35 back in April that was denied, because of the fact that

12:27:37 they felt like it was too intrusive and it blocked the

12:27:42 views of the water, and the flow of the light and the

12:27:46 air.

12:27:46 We went back, and we are agreeing to take that solid

12:27:49 wall down, demolish part of the solid wall that exists

12:27:53 right here, hear, and here, put the wrought iron fence

12:27:57 on top of it and then extend the three-foot mean wall

12:28:00 around to the vacant lot that the Ms. DeBartolo owns

12:28:05 and put the wrought iron on top.

12:28:07 That.

12:28:08 That's all we are asking for.

12:28:09 In the event, the net effect, there was a height

12:28:12 variance for the house itself, and then this fence

12:28:19 height variance perceived, the 2005 height variance

12:28:26 because we are modifying in 2005, we are demolishing

12:28:29 it, decreasing it, lessening it.

12:28:32 What we have is a situation where you are going to

12:28:33 still be able to see the water, still going to have the




12:28:36 free flow right there, even though I submit cases that

12:28:38 said you are not entitled to them bring rights, they

12:28:42 did the right thing, they modified their request.

12:28:44 But what's more important, think about it, what if this

12:28:48 was developed as a house?

12:28:50 Do you think you would be able to see the water from

12:28:53 there?

12:28:53 You can't see the water from anybody else's house along

12:28:55 that whole street.

12:28:56 You don't even know that there's water in back of these

12:28:59 houses until you get to the end of the cul-de-sac, and

12:29:02 you look at the DeBartolo's vacant lot and you can look

12:29:05 out and see the water.

12:29:06 But everybody else blocked the public's view of the

12:29:09 water and the flow of air and light.

12:29:12 They are preserving it.

12:29:13 We think with that they ensure the public health,

12:29:16 safety and welfare is going to be protected.

12:29:21 I want to make a point about emergency vehicles that

12:29:23 was raised by Mrs. Johnson Velez, as you can see.

12:29:29 The existing wall and the new wall is set back

12:29:33 approximately ten feet from the improvement right.




12:29:36 It's on private property.

12:29:38 It's not interfering with emergency vehicles that would

12:29:42 turn around, set back a distance from the improved

12:29:46 right-of-way.

12:29:47 Any emergency vehicle that's going to turn around is

12:29:50 very unlikely to go up into over the curb and into

12:29:54 people's yard but even so there would be ample time for

12:29:57 them to make the turnaround.

12:29:59 As far as crime in the area, the only reason of that we

12:30:01 addressed that was because of the very first hearing in

12:30:04 April Mr. Anderson made the point that crime is

12:30:06 nonexistent, in Sunset Park, and we severally submitted

12:30:09 those crime statistics from the police department to

12:30:12 show that that wasn't accurate.

12:30:13 And he may think that he lives in a safe neighborhood.

12:30:17 I used to think that too until I got a car stolen out

12:30:19 of my own driveway.

12:30:21 We all like to think that, that crime happens

12:30:23 everywhere, it doesn't matter with you live.

12:30:25 It happens everywhere.

12:30:26 But what's more important with this particular

12:30:28 situation is even though crime happens everywhere, we




12:30:31 have a situation where because of the financial

12:30:35 situation of this particular family they have an

12:30:38 enhanced need for taking security measures.

12:30:42 We think these measures are consistent with what's

12:30:46 taking place throughout the city.

12:30:47 You heard Mrs. Hammer's testimony and presentation.

12:30:50 Walls like this, three feet with the wrought iron on

12:30:52 top are commonplace in the city, in certain situations,

12:30:55 and we think that's compatible with the neighborhood

12:30:59 and with the other examples in the city.

12:31:03 And Mrs. Hammer, do you want to touch on that one bit

12:31:06 further as far as that map?

12:31:08 >> Ethel Hammer: Sure, very briefly.

12:31:13 Again I would like to draw your attention to my tab 3

12:31:15 which is an aerial, and tab 4 shows pictures, number 2,

12:31:24 the DeBartalo situation, where other property owners

12:31:28 have had to take measures to secure their properties at

12:31:31 the end of the cul-de-sacs.

12:31:33 Thank you.

12:31:33 (Bell sounds).

12:31:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So this is in the same cul-de-sac?

12:31:43 >> No, sir.




12:31:45 I have five different properties marked in red.

12:31:49 Five cul-de-sacs.

12:31:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Sky, fine.

12:31:51 Councilman Caetano.

12:31:53 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mrs. Hammer, the ones in reds all

12:31:57 have a variance?

12:31:58 >> I didn't do that research.

12:31:59 Basically that was field inspection in terms of just

12:32:02 documenting with pictures.

12:32:04 Those properties that had similar circumstances.

12:32:08 The ones we do have behind tab 5 we went back two years

12:32:15 in the record and looked for properties that actually

12:32:17 got variances.

12:32:18 I didn't research.

12:32:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: About eight of them received

12:32:23 variances.

12:32:24 How many variances have been granted to this particular

12:32:26 site as of now?

12:32:28 >>> There was an administrative variance for the height

12:32:30 of the house.

12:32:31 There was ab variance for the fence that exists in the

12:32:38 front yard of the lot that has the house.




12:32:44 And then you have this variance before you today.

12:32:48 There was another application that was denied, that was

12:32:50 felt to be not in keeping with what the city Variance

12:32:56 Review Board wanted to see and they basically directed

12:32:59 the DeBartolos to come back with something less

12:33:02 intense, which is what they have done.

12:33:05 So, really, in terms of the fence, you have the

12:33:08 variance from 2005, which has been constructed, and you

12:33:12 have the current variance which will supersede the 2005

12:33:17 variance if approved.

12:33:19 So this will be the only one then if approved.

12:33:22 Thank you.

12:33:22 >> It supersedes the 128.

12:33:29 So if this is confirmed there will be the height

12:33:32 variance for the house and for this sentence fence.

12:33:34 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: My advice for the neighborhood is

12:33:36 to put a gate up, because we had a holdup yesterday in

12:33:41 a CVS store.

12:33:42 In New Tampa.

12:33:43 So New Tampa is not safe.

12:33:45 And the only gates up there are the entrance to the

12:33:48 communities.




12:33:49 There are no gates on any other homes.

12:33:51 Maybe in the reserve.

12:33:56 It's too high class.

12:33:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's finish this.

12:33:58 >> The time left for the presentation is one minute.

12:34:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: One minute.

12:34:06 >> I am going to try to be very brief.

12:34:08 One of the first things I wanted to address, in the VRB

12:34:13 10-28 is the application that was denied.

12:34:15 I know you have been told that it was the light and air

12:34:20 that were the concerns.

12:34:21 But the board also found in that case that the hardship

12:34:24 criteria from the security aspect is in terms of a

12:34:27 hardship, they did not see that existed.

12:34:32 Serious security issues really are personal to the

12:34:34 occupant of the home.

12:34:36 They don't relate to the land itself.

12:34:38 And variances have to relate to situations of the land,

12:34:42 and not to the personal occupants.

12:34:44 Because the truth of the matter is these folks are

12:34:46 going to live on that property, and they are going to

12:34:49 move in, but they can move out tomorrow or next year,




12:34:51 and the fence, any fence over ten-foot fence or wall or

12:34:56 whatever is going to stay there indefinitely and impact

12:35:00 the neighborhood, whether those particular occupants

12:35:03 continue to live there or not.

12:35:06 I want to address the situation of improving it by

12:35:10 adding additional security to the lot.

12:35:13 It certainly doesn't enhance my client's situation on

12:35:16 his property.

12:35:17 In fact, there was testimony at the September 14th

12:35:21 hearing, it's on page 17 of the printed transcript that

12:35:24 I provided you towards the bottom of the painful, where

12:35:28 Ms. DeBartolo's husband testified that since they have

12:35:30 had the armed security guard, what hags happened now,

12:35:33 according to the security guard, is they go to the

12:35:35 vacant lot next door to my client's house, and now you

12:35:38 have broken bottles, juveniles up there, and they have

12:35:41 simply relocated.

12:35:42 So they are not eliminating the problem.

12:35:44 They are just pushing it off on another property in the

12:35:47 neighborhood.

12:35:51 Current statistics again, you talk about the crime in

12:35:53 the area.




12:35:54 Demonstrates clearly this is a global problem.

12:35:57 It's not an issue that's particular to the situation

12:36:00 where unique characteristics of this particular

12:36:03 property.

12:36:03 It's a global issue.

12:36:06 A compromise position as Ms. Grimes alluded to, this is

12:36:09 a compromise from what we had before to what we are

12:36:11 proposing now.

12:36:12 I don't think that you can get to that compromise

12:36:14 position unless and until you determine that there is a

12:36:16 practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship specific

12:36:21 to the property itself, not the occupants, but the

12:36:24 property itself.

12:36:25 And again, I feel like I have to kind of defend my

12:36:30 client here because I feel like he's being painted as

12:36:32 some arbitrary unreasonable person, but he has a right

12:36:37 as any other citizen does to rely on what's allowed in

12:36:40 the code, and in terms of how property is going to be

12:36:44 developed in and around his neighborhood as well as in

12:36:47 the rest of the city.

12:36:48 And so he would not object to a fence, a home being put

12:36:52 on this property or on any property, that is in keeping




12:36:55 with the code.

12:36:56 The problem is, again, with the situations of the

12:36:59 variances that are now being allowed, to allow sock

12:37:02 different than what's allowed in the code.

12:37:03 One of the pictures I submitted shows a new house being

12:37:06 built on this very cul-de-sac.

12:37:09 He has no objection to that.

12:37:10 It's all being built within the requirements of the

12:37:12 code and that's perfectly acceptable to him.

12:37:15 With any remaining time I have left I believe he might

12:37:17 want to make a couple of closing remarks as well.

12:37:23 And I do vice-president some cases that I would also

12:37:25 like to submit to the record.

12:37:39 >> How much time do I have?

12:37:42 >> Two minutes.

12:37:47 >> I'm Osman LATIF.

12:37:53 >> Two minute and eleven second.

12:37:55 >> I'm the only person in this room that actually moved

12:37:57 there, and I can personally testify that with the

12:38:00 house, a family with small children lived there for

12:38:04 seven years without any problems.

12:38:07 I have got small children.




12:38:08 And I am not asking for a wall.

12:38:12 The rules were made to be followed.

12:38:13 And this house is breaking rule after rule after rule.

12:38:17 They have already got security guards with guns on the

12:38:19 property, and how much more do they need?

12:38:25 And being there, living there, I see trucks turning

12:38:29 around that cul-de-sac and I can tell you even the UPS

12:38:32 trucks have a hard time getting around.

12:38:35 Forget about ambulance or fire truck.

12:38:36 It's a very tight turn.

12:38:37 And it's a safety hazard.

12:38:39 It's a very long street.

12:38:40 It's about a half mile long.

12:38:42 So when cars come up, they can't be expected to back

12:38:46 out a half mile along a curbed street.

12:38:51 I can also tell you even before they lived there,

12:38:53 people were not living on that vacant lot.

12:38:57 That vacant lot was adjacent so people understood it

12:39:01 was part of the property of the house and people did

12:39:03 not loiter on that lot.

12:39:05 This is a different story that a completely vacant lot

12:39:09 with no house on it.




12:39:11 So that property was actually -- even before they moved

12:39:17 in.

12:39:17 So my concern here is that they are coming in with

12:39:22 their security concerns.

12:39:23 They are turning the neighborhood upside down and they

12:39:25 are violating all the covenants in place to keep the

12:39:27 neighborhood what it is.

12:39:30 Those of us who live in Sunset Park live there because

12:39:33 it's an open neighborly feel without gates.

12:39:36 If we wanted gates we would have lived in another place

12:39:38 with security, and there's parts in Tampa where they

12:39:41 could have bought a home and still be in code with the

12:39:44 ten foot structure in the front yard but they chose to

12:39:46 buy a home here, and now they are turning the

12:39:48 neighborhood upside down to suit their needs.

12:39:54 So basically, and I'm not the only one with children in

12:39:58 the neighborhood.

12:39:58 There's three families within 150 feet of their house

12:40:01 who got small children.

12:40:03 And nobody else is asking for gates and nobody else

12:40:06 has -- I mean, we all have Seminole children.

12:40:10 Nobody else is asking for a ten foot structure in the




12:40:12 front yard.

12:40:13 If we are going to have rules I think we should all

12:40:15 play by the rules and there is really no unique in--

12:40:19 injustice, especially since a previous family lived

12:40:21 there for seven years without any problems.

12:40:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

12:40:30 Any additional questions by council?

12:40:32 Councilwoman Mulhern.

12:40:33 >>MARY MULHERN: This is for the attorney, our

12:40:38 attorney, staff attorney.

12:40:43 Ms. Grimes said something about what we are basing our

12:40:46 hardship criteria on, or what the variance criteria is,

12:40:50 and said -- you handed this out to us.

12:40:53 This is what we are using, correct?

12:40:56 >> I think what I handed out to you is the wall

12:41:00 criteria.

12:41:05 The hardship criteria.

12:41:08 That's what you are basing your decision.

12:41:10 >>MARY MULHERN: 17.5-74.

12:41:14 That hasn't changed.

12:41:15 >> Just so I understand what your question is, Ms.

12:41:30 Mulhern, you have 17.5 section that is the hardship




12:41:33 criteria.

12:41:34 And what the section states is you are to consider

12:41:37 those criteria as part of your analysis.

12:41:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

12:41:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Additional questions?

12:41:45 Any additional questions?

12:41:48 Okay.

12:41:50 What's the pleasure of council?

12:41:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close the public hearing.

12:41:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second to close.

12:41:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and second.

12:41:57 All in favor?

12:41:58 Opposes?

12:41:59 Okay.

12:42:00 What's the pleasure of council?

12:42:10 Councilwoman Mulhern.

12:42:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Behave on the testimony we have heard

12:42:20 today, and the fact that -- hopefully -- will this be

12:42:26 the last time that council will be doing a variance

12:42:31 review?

12:42:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This will be the first time.

12:42:36 >>MARY MULHERN: The first time, but it's coming to




12:42:38 council instead of -- where is the hearing office

12:42:45 theory we approved?

12:42:47 >> I was going to have her come up.

12:42:49 Muscle.

12:42:50 >> We can't discuss that.

12:42:52 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry, never mind.

12:42:54 I am just going to make the motion to -- I guess to

12:42:58 grant the appeal of the petitioner to the variance --

12:43:04 to overturn the variance review board's decision in

12:43:10 this case based on the fact of the hardship criteria in

12:43:17 17.5-747-A-1, that the hardship that we heard about is

12:43:24 particular to the individual, not to the property.

12:43:29 I think that's very clear, that the safety that they

12:43:34 are concerned about, doesn't relate to the property, it

12:43:38 relates to the individual, and also to cite 8.2 being a

12:43:49 self-created hardship or practical difficulty.

12:43:55 Again it comes with the property.

12:43:56 They bought the house knowing what the code was,

12:43:58 knowing that they couldn't -- and I don't know when

12:44:02 they bought this second lot adjacent, but knowing what

12:44:06 the rules were, what the city code was, what the law

12:44:08 was about how tall could you make that fence, and also




12:44:15 section 4, that the variances in how many, serves the

12:44:22 general intent and purposes of this chapter.

12:44:27 I think the fact that -- I think most of these -- there

12:44:31 were some examples here of the other homes, I guess in

12:44:37 Sunset Park, that do have fences.

12:44:39 One of them looks like it's only three feet, if you

12:44:42 look understood tab -- I think it's tab 4, three or

12:44:47 four feet.

12:44:47 So it looks like it might be within -- it's a little

12:44:50 picket fence within the higher piers.

12:44:53 And I think -- I have no doubt that all of these -- and

12:44:57 your tab 5, in Mrs. Hammer's, too, was all properties

12:45:02 that had gotten variances.

12:45:04 So every time we do this, we are tell people you don't

12:45:07 have to follow the law, you don't have to fit within

12:45:11 the -- be within the code, and, you know, as long as

12:45:16 you have got the resources to continue to appeal and to

12:45:24 come in front of council, then you can build what you

12:45:29 want and it doesn't have to be in harmony with the

12:45:31 neighborhood.

12:45:32 So I do have a lot of sympathy for them.

12:45:36 I think it's terrible but, you know, we all have our




12:45:39 burdens, and if you are rich and famous, you're rich

12:45:43 and famous, and what goes with, you know, goes along

12:45:46 with that, is dealing with your particular situation.

12:45:54 So that's my motion.

12:45:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second to the motion?

12:45:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

12:46:04 (off microphone)

12:46:06 One, two, three, four, five, six granted at six feet on

12:46:09 variances and one of them was eight feet.

12:46:12 So I think this is within a good request.

12:46:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the motion is to deny.

12:46:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: She said grant.

12:46:25 Please read that back.

12:46:26 >> This is the petitioner, the other side.

12:46:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay, I don't support that.

12:46:33 Withdraw my second.

12:46:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your motion, I believe, was to

12:46:39 overturn the decision of the VRB.

12:46:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can I raise a question with staff?

12:47:01 How many variances do you grant a year?

12:47:03 >> May I ask if this is substantive to your making a

12:47:13 decision?




12:47:14 >> I want to know, the --

12:47:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: There's six of them right here,

12:47:20 Mr. Chairman.

12:47:21 69 we need to reopen the public hearing if you are

12:47:23 going to go there.

12:47:24 >>JULIA COLE: I don't think myself or Ms. Feeley could

12:47:30 respond to that question without going back and getting

12:47:32 more.

12:47:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to reopen the public

12:47:38 purpose hearing for this purpose?

12:47:41 >> Yes.

12:47:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

12:47:45 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

12:47:47 >>JULIA COLE: For fiscal year, all the cases turn on

12:47:52 fiscal year so as of October, of last year, I believe

12:48:00 it would have turned to VRB 11 cases on October

12:48:04 1st.

12:48:04 So the VRB, 10 cases, I believe went into the 80s and

12:48:09 90s.

12:48:10 So there were approximately 80 cases for last year, if

12:48:13 you want to know cases --

12:48:16 >> That's just in front of the VRB because wave others.




12:48:19 >> Right.

12:48:20 That does not include administrative.

12:48:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we could say at least 100 plus or 80

12:48:26 plus, there is an appeal, or there is a request for a

12:48:30 variance throughout the City of Tampa.

12:48:31 >> Yes.

12:48:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And it is a request not geared to

12:48:40 whether you have money or whether you are rich or poor.

12:48:44 It's a request as to whether you want a variance, is

12:48:46 that right?

12:48:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.

12:48:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

12:48:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Since we have the public hearing.

12:48:56 Also on tab 4, your photos, these are photos of

12:49:02 expenses that are similar but not properties that are

12:49:05 similar.

12:49:06 Fences.

12:49:07 These are not the photos of the properties that you

12:49:09 showed us that have fences.

12:49:15 I need to know that.

12:49:16 You know, where you have your aerial and you have --

12:49:19 I'm glad we opened this.




12:49:20 >> The aerial?

12:49:29 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.

12:49:29 This one here.

12:49:31 >> This aerial shows two adjacent, vacant lots at the

12:49:40 end of a cul-de-sac, waterfront property, six-foot

12:49:44 fence, six-foot fence, six-foot fence, six-foot,

12:49:48 three-foot fence, three-foot piers.

12:49:51 That's the exact same situation.

12:49:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

12:50:00 Excuse me.

12:50:01 Now, your field -- these are the photos of your field,

12:50:06 your photos that you submitted of the fences.

12:50:13 >> Behind tab 4, the field inspections going around

12:50:18 looking at the cul-de-sacs.

12:50:20 Tab 5 are going back through the last year or so of

12:50:24 actual variances that were granted.

12:50:27 So these may have received variances, but not within

12:50:30 the last year.

12:50:32 But they still have all have fences that are higher

12:50:35 than code permits.

12:50:36 >> On the JUNO street, is that landscaping, or does the

12:50:43 hedge have certain heights requirements?




12:50:45 >> Actually that's an eight-foot wall behind the hedge.

12:50:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN: On the right, that white?

12:50:56 >> Yes.

12:50:56 That's a very tall wall on the front yard.

12:51:01 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I know that you showed because there

12:51:03 were similar properties, I would have liked to have

12:51:06 seen some that were not similar that were not an on

12:51:09 waterfront that were just regular in the neighborhood.

12:51:18 >> Ethel Hammer: Those are the ones behind tab 5.

12:51:23 Those are not waterfront properties.

12:51:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

12:51:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Mrs. Hammer, let me ask you a

12:51:29 question.

12:51:29 Oh, are you done?

12:51:30 I'm sorry.

12:51:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Go ahead.

12:51:32 >>MARY MULHERN: Since we are on that tab 4, the one

12:51:35 that I was questioning was 5116 Homer Avenue.

12:51:40 That fence looks like it's -- that does not look like

12:51:44 it's above three or fee four feet.

12:51:47 The pier does but the fence doesn't.

12:51:48 So picket fence?




12:51:51 >> You are correct, Mrs. Mulhern, you are correct.

12:51:54 It's the piers that exceed the height requirement.

12:51:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?

12:52:02 Okay, Ms. Velez, do you want to come and have final

12:52:07 words, comments, statements?

12:52:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you would use that time to rebut

12:52:14 anything that's been raised since we closed the public

12:52:17 hearing, if you have anything to add.

12:52:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Three minutes.

12:52:19 >> I think Ms. Mulhern addressed on Homer and Poe, the

12:52:25 fencing there for the most part is above three or four

12:52:27 feet

12:52:29 Well, okay.

12:52:31 Nobody has come up with yardstick or measuring tape to

12:52:34 show how tall they are.

12:52:35 Our contention is they are not as tall as what is being

12:52:38 proposed on this property.

12:52:39 That being said, and I understand that you are

12:52:43 addressing other situations.

12:52:46 Property on Bayshore Boulevard is completely different

12:52:48 than property on a singer off of Westshore.

12:52:51 It's a completely different situation.




12:52:53 Bayshore is pretty heavily traveled, all the way down

12:52:55 to the Air Force Base so it's a different situation.

12:52:58 Also, when you look at a variance, you have to look at

12:53:01 each individual property.

12:53:02 So the number of variances that you process in a year,

12:53:05 how many are approved, how many are denied, is really

12:53:07 irrelevant to your consideration on the variance

12:53:10 requested on this particular piece of property.

12:53:13 Thank you.

12:53:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

12:53:16 We'll close the public hearing.

12:53:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

12:53:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor.

12:53:23 Councilman Miranda, seconded by councilman Caetano.

12:53:27 The motion was made by Ms. Mulhern.

12:53:29 Do you want top restate that motion?

12:53:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.

12:53:35 My motion was to overturn the decision of the VRB (off

12:53:39 microphone) and referred to the --

12:53:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have already done that.

12:53:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That was seconded by Councilwoman

12:53:48 Capin.




12:53:49 There's a motion and a second.

12:53:50 All in favor --

12:53:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: A point of clarity.

12:53:56 A no vote is not to overturn?

12:54:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Right.

12:54:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

12:54:01 Yes.

12:54:02 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And a yes vote --

12:54:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is overturn.

12:54:07 All in favor of the motion on the floor signify by

12:54:09 saying Aye.

12:54:11 Opposes, nay.

12:54:11 >>THE CLERK: Voice roll call, please.

12:54:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Nay.

12:54:20 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.

12:54:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Nay.

12:54:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No.

12:54:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.

12:54:28 >>CURTIS STOKES: Nay.

12:54:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Nay.

12:54:30 >> The motion failed 2 to 5 with Caetano, Miller,

12:54:36 Miranda, Stokes, and Scott voting no.




12:54:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, Councilwoman Miller.

12:54:41 >>CHAIRMAN: I would like to make a motion to uphold the

12:54:43 VRB decision and give them the right to construct the

12:54:47 fence.

12:54:47 I feel like they do have a hardship, all the traffic

12:54:51 going through there, and all of the activities around

12:54:54 that area, I think you need to be secured, and I feel

12:54:57 like it will be safer for that family to put that fence

12:54:59 there, and I feel like if the neighborhood wants their

12:55:06 fence they can have their fence.

12:55:08 They felt like they didn't want it so it's up to the

12:55:10 person to put that fence there.

12:55:12 So I feel like the VRB, I still agree with the VRB to

12:55:16 let them grant to construct that.

12:55:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to support the motion on the

12:55:23 floor, and the reason has nothing to do with whether

12:55:25 they are rich or poor.

12:55:27 I don't like that.

12:55:29 I think the issue becomes as a citizen, as a person of

12:55:35 this community, we grant variance all the time based on

12:55:40 the conditions that are brought before us.

12:55:42 Yes, every situation is different.




12:55:47 So to just try to lump everybody in one situation, I

12:55:49 think you can't do that.

12:55:50 I think they have to evaluate every situation on its

12:55:52 own merits.

12:55:54 Also, I think that the very telling point was the

12:55:58 intent to go and demolish what's there now and where

12:56:03 there is a review, people can still see the waterfront,

12:56:07 and plus if you wanted to you could build a whole

12:56:09 house, a whole waterfront.

12:56:12 I think that says a lot.

12:56:14 And so I want to support the motion that's on the floor

12:56:18 to grant the variance.

12:56:19 Okay.

12:56:22 It's been moved and seconded.

12:56:24 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

12:56:26 Opposes?

12:56:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin and Mulhern

12:56:30 voting no.

12:56:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

12:56:36 Council, one last thing we have before us, and that is

12:56:39 to recognize the city attorney's office.

12:56:43 The city attorney, Mr. Fletcher handed me a note, Gerry




12:56:53 Gewirtz.

12:56:54 We want to congratulate him.

12:56:58 He's chief assistant city attorney on his election as

12:57:02 chair of the Florida Bar, of bar examiners, Florida Bar

12:57:05 examiners is the agency that regulates admission to the

12:57:13 bar.

12:57:13 He has been appointed, elected to that, and make

12:57:15 appointments to the board by the Supreme Court.

12:57:17 He was first appointed to the board by the Supreme

12:57:20 Court in 2006, then elected as chair on November

12:57:23 1st, 2010.

12:57:25 We want to send out congratulations to him and to be

12:57:27 the city attorney's office.

12:57:33 We stand northbound res recess till 6:00.

12:57:36 >> Move to file all documents.

12:57:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

12:57:40 All in favor?

12:57:41 Opposes?

12:57:41 We stand in recess till 6:00 this evening.

12:57:44 6:00.

12:57:44 Thank you.

12:57:45 (The meeting recessed at 12:58 p.m.)




12:58:47



DISCLAIMER:

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