Part 2 of 4
The workshop, I think, is a wonderful idea, when you all discuss it and we have time to talk and people have their input.
And like Mr. Shelby said, there are more people than T.H.A.N. who want to get into this.
We are a diverse group, and we have a lot of opinions.
But there are a lot of other people that have different things.
And when you get into the Constitution, you need the entire population to be involved.
That's why it's on the ballot when it comes up.
It's not a simple thing to change the charter.
If we are just doing housekeeping stuff, I don't think it's really worthwhile to have it put on the ballot.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think your point is personal opinion.
>>> It's an educational thing.
But we did want it to be studied.
T.H.A.N. wants the charter to be studied.
And if you want to do a commission, we're right there, and we'll take the time and talk about busy people, you're looking at one.
I don't volunteer for anything I don't have to do.
But T.H.A.N. wants the charter studied.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two brief things.
I think our collective homework before the workshop is read the charter, including T.H.A.N., so we know what we're talking about. And secondly, and I don't know who I'm going to choose to be my representative on a committee they may create, but people who are active in the city are also active in T.H.A.N. or the chamber, and I don't know that we necessarily have to call out different institutional representatives.
I think that whoever -- if we structure it so we all choose one or two people, I'm not going to choose somebody who hasn't been involved in the city because they wouldn't be that interested.
I'm going to choose someone who has been active and shown leadership.
And I think we should all consider that.
We don't necessarily have to identify different institutional representatives, that if I were to choose, for example, Sue Lyon, it would be because you're a person who is active in the community.
I wouldn't choose someone who hadn't displayed that kind of involvement.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move to close the workshop.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close the workshop.
(Motion carried)
We have a motion by Mr. John Dingfelder.
(Motion carried)
At this time we go to the audience.
Is there anyone that would like to request reconsideration of some item?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I filed a letter with you via e-mail.
I'd like for that letter to be received in the file and made part of the record regarding Z-04-37.
I'm not specifically requesting reconsideration, simply clarification on the record of the events that occurred leading up to the hearing that was held last week, and respectfully request that if there's any time limits involved in refiling that petition be waived.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's a question for the legal, if we have the ability to waive it.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Your code provides if a petitioner is not present for a public hearing, that is a basis for denying the rezoning petition.
And that's what council did last week.
Mr. Michelini can ask for a reconsideration of that denial.
And if council so chose, council could then set a new public hearing on the rezoning petition.
The public hearing would have to be renoticed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the other question, Mr. Massey, was do we have the ability to waive the -- I think we ultimately concluded it was a one-year?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: A one-year period in the code.
I could look at the provisions of the code but I believe they could be waived by council if there's a substantial change being presented by the petitioner.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If possible it could go to six months rather than a year.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: That's correct.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So that wouldn't require a motion then.
>>> He would have to refile.
At the time it is brought to you all then you would have to go ahead and allow it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel like, Mr. Michelini, you have always tried to work with neighborhoods, tried to work with citizens.
We were surprised that you weren't here last week.
Your e-mail then explained the circumstances.
And what you demonstrated in the e-mail is that working together, you recognize, is necessary to bring this forward.
So I would say I would be supportive of bringing this back in six months.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm not sure they want to do that.
It's just there were a lot of discussions.
We had already anticipated renoticing.
The petition was going to be changing significantly.
The location of the hearing obviously the had changed.
So we just didn't anticipate, since we filed the request so early for the extension, that council would have a difficulty with that.
And I apologize for not being able to be here due to my own personal issues that I had to meet.
But thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mr. David Smith.
>>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, city attorney again.
I think this we had some discussion two weeks ago with regard to the upland habitat ordinance and its enforcement in the city.
And we have got several people here today to speak to that issue.
I am going to set the context.
It's important to remember that it the Grand Hampton was a matter in litigation. The grand Hampton received a development order approved by the City Council.
That development order was challenged by the Sierra Club and the result of the litigation was a settlement agreement that was agreed to by the city, the Sierra Club and the applicant.
That settlement agreement was approved by the City Council.
The settlement agreement had certain specific requirements in it that determined exactly how the upland habitat ordinance requirements would be met.
The requirements then that were applied to grand Hampton were in fact the requirements that were in that settlement agreement.
So that settlement agreement, and the litigated result, may have been not entirely palatable to our concern, but it was the result in the Seth settlement that was agreed to. And it's my understanding from talking with the various staff members that it is certainly this administration's approach to apply the ordinances that you have passed with respect to upland habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas, as you have passed them.
And that's what they will continue to do.
With me today -- I was going to provide you the context on the grand Hampton.
So it was clear that that process followed the process and how it has to be filed.
I think Mark Huey is here and Sam Santiago as well and any of the staff members to answer any questions you have with regard to those issues.
>>> Briefly, the article referenced gave an impression maybe that staff was not empowered to vigorously enforce the ordinance, the regulation, the development regulations, that we have in place.
So I just wanted to make a brief comment and assure you that the expectations that we create for our staff, who are involved in the approval of developments like subdivisions like grand Hampton, the expectation is that they would vigorously enforce the ordinances like the upland habitat ordinance, and do it in a way that is fair and consistent, and do it in a timely manner.
And we believe that if we're successful in doing that, we are going to encourage quality development in our community, the kind of development that we are supportive of, that is respectful and consistent with regulations like the upland habitat ordinance.
So that is the expectation we have of our staff.
And that's the commitment we make to you, to the citizens and to the development community in Tampa.
So we do have some other staff here to answer some questions, if you have them.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Huey, who is now our upland habitat coordinator?
>>> Mark Huey: Again if I can make a brief comment.
Economic development, my office, through Thom Snelling's office, coordinates throughout the city the approval process, but in the process we work with virtually every department across the city, from the fire department, to stormwater, to in this case the Parks Department, which is under Sam Diaco's office in the case of upland habitat.
>>> Good morning.
Santiago, Neighborhood Services Administrator.
We have a new naturalist that came aboard in March who is now responsible for following up on the ordinance in question.
>>SAM HAMILTON: Thank you, Mr. Corrada. Madam Chair, my observation, the only one it affects is the New Tampa area.
It was a hugely confusing process to go through.
In fact I think those of us who have been on council five years now it was one of the first things we did when we got on council, and we all had to become amateur biologists when we tried to come up with the terminology and the way this thing was going to be applied.
And none of us have that background.
So we crafted an ordinance that we felt was going to protect the environment in new Tampa, yet recognize the realities of a fast-growing city, in an urban setting, generally.
It is very much dependent on who that coordinator is as to how that ordinance will be interpreted.
And the article -- the article made it seem like we, the city as a whole, was somehow directing the way that that coordinator interprets things.
And that's why I asked who is the new coordinator, because it is important that that person have an understanding not only of ecology and biology and environmentalism, but also development in an urban setting.
And so that's critical.
And I have not heard that the ordinance was not being enforced appropriately.
I've heard people in the development community say, you know, we can't live with this thing, it's horrible.
I've heard people in the Sierra Club say, we can't live with this thing, it's horrible.
That makes me believe it works just fine.
Because we're trying to balance everyone's interest there.
So that's just my comment.
I think we're doing everything we can to protect the environment up in that area.
And I think you ought to keep going and just make sure we are going to hold the development community's toes to the loin when we need them.
I was disturbed when I read the article about the K-bar development and how we had set aside that buffer on the creek.
I think there's a creek that runs through it.
And that was somehow being thwarted.
I want to make sure we that we don't allow that to be thwarted.
That was a critical issue when we allowed the annexation of K-bar that it was going to be developed in a way that was going to protect those environmental features up there, and we can't allow that to slip wayside through either not reviewing it or through being a little more lenient than we ought to be.
>> And whether there are any parts of it that are subject to interpretation, which is what I believe occurred here years ago, the interpretation, certain aspects of the ordinance.
So we are working with experts in the field that are also involved in protecting the environment.
Mark Huey: I think also there were a whole lot of issues that we were involved in discussions with prior to formalizing an approval of that project.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you think that the way that this is drafted is too vague, this council is very much committed, as is the administration through environmental enforcement, if you would come back to us with crystal language, I know we would be supportive of it.
So I really appreciate that input.
If you Ned to tighten the language, clarify it.
Unfortunately, I feel like we are really perfecting our ability to enforce it just as we have run out of land to keep vigil.
But this council is very supportive of -- as is this administration -- of being very, very tough in terms of protecting the environment.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Huey, Mr. Corrada, we appreciate you coming down on this really important issue.
We all don't believe everything we read in the newspaper.
When the newspaper is there for an important reason, which is to raise our consciousness on some of these issues and bring them to light.
And it's of great concern when we read that, you know, one staff person leaves, is replaced in this position of environmental review, and then another staff person leaves and then those ex employees don't have great things to say about what might be going on in this environmental review policy.
And that all makes us scratch our heads a little bit.
And that's why I wanted to give you both and the administration an opportunity to come here and speak to this.
And I think you have done so eloquently.
What I have gathered from what you've said -- and I think it's an extremely important message to be sending to Greg Howell, whoever he is.
Is he here?
No?
He's out in the woods somewhere which is great.
Or Mr. Graham, who is here, who is I believe Mr. Howell's supervisor, sends a message that this administration -- we don't care what happened in the past.
This administration today, and this council is supportive of vigorously enforcing the laws that wove on the books to protect the few natural resources that we have left in the city limits.
And I think that that's a critical message to send to your staff people.
And you said it, Mark, and we appreciate it, and let's go forth and do it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We appreciate you coming in.
We now go to our audience portion.
Anyone in the audience that would like to speak on any item on the agenda except those that are going to be heard for public hearing may come up and speak for three minutes.
>>> Carl Warren, Tampa, Florida.
I would like to speak to agenda item 21 regarding committee report file number F-2004-9 regarding property.
I still support restriction of property on liver front park, and included in that I strongly support the Boys and Girls Club being restored at the Riverfront Park.
The other item I would like to speak to just briefly, I was listening to the workshop discussion.
I was chairman of the charter review board in Gainesville, Florida, back in 1985 and '86.
And as I listened to the discussion, yes, it is a tedious process.
But it's democracy in action.
And I think -- and also since that time, since I came back home, I have attended diligently all the other charter reviews that we have had in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County.
And, interestingly enough, never come out of them with vigorous debates, and I believe at the end of the day, if we trust the people, we will get what we want.
And I think that by having the right people, a very broad and I did verse community, we will not see too much tampering with the charter.
But what we would get out of there is a very good work.
So I think that whatever you choose to do, keep it diverse and broad, and trust the people.
Trust me.
They elected you.
They elected you because they trust you.
So please trust the people.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> Mentesmot.
I would like to speak on agenda item D, B, 3, 17, 19, 26, 27, lots of other items I would like to speak to.
But the reality is -- and also the invocation and all these dedications you all been doing.
The reality is, this City Council spends taxpayers money on placating issues.
Nothing more, nothing less.
You all come down here for the first hour, you all give awards, you all doing this, you all congratulate people, tapping them on the back, slapping them on their back, give them plaques, you got police down here, the firefighters, every week.
Ain't no way you can go to a board meeting, a business board meeting, and not discuss nothing serious for the first hour of the meeting.
There's no way.
Discuss some real issues.
Go over to Drew Park and discuss the raw sewage that's coming up from the street.
Discuss some real issues when you come in here first thing in the morning.
Go down on Bayshore and discuss the flooding on Bayshore Boulevard, on South Tampa.
Go up to 40th street and discuss some real issues that they just built the school on 40th Street, and it's one of the most dangerous streets in the United States and nobody did anything about safety of the people.
Discuss some real issues.
Go over to other places and discuss real issues.
Now, the other thing is, you all have a double standard.
When something is dealing with African people like the situation with the youth in Ybor City, you all have a double standard.
You all came in here.
You all attacked the business.
You attacked the business.
You attacked Club Bling.
Club Atlanta used to be there at Kennedy Boulevard.
>>GWEN MILLER: You're getting off the agenda.
It's not one of the items.
>>> That's what I'm discussing.
>> Ybor is not on the agenda.
>>> I'm trying to articulate.
>> Articulate on what's on the item on the agenda.
>>> That's what I'm discussing.
But the reality is, I'm discussing the issue for the Soho district.
They sent the police over there to deal with the people that's parking and illegally parking.
They didn't send the police down here to deal with people that can say, oh, we are going to send code enforcement.
We are going to shut them down.
When we're dealing with black businesses you have one standard.
When you have dealing with black businesses you have another standard.
What you need to do is discuss real issues when you come down here.
Not come down here and congratulate people for doing absolutely positively nothing.
That man had a job for 18 years and did nothing but got a paycheck.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Because we ain't seen no changes inside the African community.
Did we see anything, anybody doing anything legal inside the African community that say stop this and bring us economic development?
No.
You all ain't seen nothing like that.
Because our community is suffering.
And other communities are suffering because you all don't discuss no real issues.
When I drive down Bayshore, for five minutes, it's flooded.
No real issues.
And this is what this City Council needs to discuss.
Now on this invocation, you all need to stop that because it's embarrassing.
And what you all did last week on the invocation and this week, it's embarrassing.
The fact of the matter is, people, City Council people who are put here, who are elected to represent all the people, don't get up and walk out when someone is speaking, get up and walk out.
How embarrassing is that?
That reminded me of the days when white people say, hey, if a Negro is going to speak in here -- and they didn't use the word Negro, they used the other "N" word, we are going to walk out, we are going to stop them from coming into these schools If a Negro come into this school, it's not going to happen.
And Councilman White, that was embarrassing.
(Bell sounds)
Because in the black community --
>>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
Thank you for coming down.
Next.
>>> Good morning.
I want to thank you for bringing up the previous topic.
It has been a concern of mine for a long time.
I'm Linda Garvey, 1360 Diamond Head Drive, conservation chair for the Tampa Bay Sierra group.
It has been a concern of mine for a long time.
And I think it is welcome for you to say that it's time to put the developer's feet to the fire.
I hope that you will also feel free to call on Greg Howell and Steve Grahame and have them at some of these hearings where you have questions, and ask them specifically.
And I hope that they feel comfortable speaking out.
You must make them comfortable, because I know the two young women, I knew them well.
The article was accurate.
I respect Mr. Sickler.
He speaks well.
But I did not think -- maybe he even left some things out.
So I hope that in the future that the developers will understand that they are no longer going to get by with this.
I watched while one developer took out 1700 trees with no permit.
A couple years ago.
I followed up on it.
I was given a number and a file.
I looked at it.
I thought, this isn't the file.
It had a permit but it wasn't the right one.
So I went back and told the girl, I said, this isn't the property I'm looking for.
And I described it and where it was.
She found it for me.
There was no permit.
So these things were happening all along.
And what Yvonne and Julie wanted to do was make things right.
And maybe just caring too much didn't work.
But I'm hoping that things will change now.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Good morning.
910 south Avenue and with Club Bling.
I want to say we want to be a part of the solution, and not part of the problem.
Thank you.
>>> I'm manager of Club Bling.
Like Ms. Wilcox said, we want to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
So we are asking we are asking City Council members to please bring it to the table.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is Moses Knott, Jr..
I'm scared to give my address.
2902 East Ellicott.
I used to live at 2710.
But is the T city owns that now, several lots, they took it from me.
I'm scared to go home now.
And I thank God for the his grace and his mercy.
And I want to speak on the prayer, and article 4.
I call it a prayer.
Now all the word, they got bands now coming in with big drums and everything, called praise team or something.
But I call it prayer.
But I think it says something this morning.
A lot of people think my elevator don't go to the top floor.
But I asked to come do the prayer.
Mr. Charlie Miranda, Mr. Joe Greco, he gone.
Mr. Joe Greco was the first one asked me about six, seven years ago.
One morning he didn't even call me in advance.
He walked back there.
He said, Mr. Knott, I want to know if you will do the prayer for this morning.
I said, no, I cannot do that.
Let me tell you all why I told that man that you all tell him.
You know, me, I read the king James version of the Bible and I take the place of Daniel.
I try to be like him.
He was young boy coming down.
They didn't call them men.
Called them boys.
They were under 18.
But I come in to town the same way.
And the only thing poor people here, I took the place of Daniel.
Daniel come into a town, and the mayor, he come in to town and got in trouble, that Cane had a dream one night.
He had all these people working with him.
Smart people.
Good people.
Every kind of people.
But he had a dream.
He told me, you kill all of you.
And couldn't do it.
A praying man down in the bunk house.
And we don't know, we can't tell you, but we know a man that can tell you.
I'd tell you, but I got to tell you in the morning.
I got to go back to my God, tell him what he dreamed, the whole outcome of it.
But Daniel told him, they threw him in the lions den because he wouldn't bow to his God.
I don't bow to nobody.
I ain't got trouble with you all's religion.
But I come in to town a young boy.
I been snake bit.
I been in the lion's den.
And the city has my property.
But I'm going to switch over to that commendation.
I picked you.
I told you, this crew right here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Knott.
Next.
There's no one else?
>>> I would like to speak to two agenda items, 25, 26 and 27.
Which I think exemplifies the true character of this city, and quite frankly, the character of this so-called City Council.
I'm a lot better at politics than I am at math.
But it looks like here you're almost spending or suggesting spending about $1.4 million to deal with wastewater, sewage, and trash.
However, when it comes to the impoverished African-American communities, which I'm glad you're taking a deep breath, because you Ned to inhale everything that I'm saying.
I'm glad you're sticking around.
>>GWEN MILLER: Hold it.
You're going to speak on an item.
Speak to it, not to the council members.
>>> Thanks.
I appreciate you finally speaking up in the council meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Another word you'll be out of here.
>>> What I'm saying is, this vicious City Council never ever proposes or suggests or ever speaks up when it comes to the vicious economic embargo that's on the African communities, be it East Tampa, west Tampa or --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't know how that applies to 25 and -- it's out of order.
>>> You're interrupting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Order.
We don't want to hear any more.
That's it.
Would you take him out?
We don't want to hear.
You are not speaking on what you say you are going to speak on.
>>> I'm speaking on 25.
>> It doesn't have anything to do with that.
>>> Okay.
All right.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
We are going to go with our agenda.
We are going to go to our public hearings that were set.
And we are going to open them and then come back to them later.
We have a motion and second to open items number 6 through 10.
If anyone wants to speak on those items, you need to stand and be sworn in.
Anybody that wants to speak on item 6 through 10, you may stand now and be sworn in.
Okay.
Motion and second to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
We go to item number 4.
We have a workshop on the 80% rule.
We need to open the workshop.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination. Good morning, council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does this story start "once upon a time"?
>>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination.
We're here to start the discussion on the workshop for the 80% rule.
Gloria has a handout.
She'll going to give a brief review of the history. Then I am going to talk about the map and some other comments about how these relate to overlay districts and things like that.
And then just pretty much answer the questions.
I'll turn it over to Gloria from staff.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
I did write just the brief early years, my very early years.
I started in '84 so I have been with the 80% rule since the beginning of my employment with the city.
It really began, I think, when a developer built on a very small lot, a single family detached house.
It was I think a lot between 25, 30 feet, where permits were issued.
It caused a great deal of concern from the neighborhood.
And it caused the legal department to look at our nonconforming lot provision of the code and felt it needed to be clarified.
I have included in my memo the first three 80% rule lot ordinances so you could take a look at them.
You can see sort of the history.
Initially, council immediately amended the code to provide that one nonconforming lot that met 80% of the minimum lot area can be developed.
At that point I think many property owners who had two or more nonconforming lots felt that that was -- you know, that really causing them the ability to develop on those sub standard lots in the sense that if you had two 50-foot lots in an R-1-A district that had a 60 foot width requirement then you were basically precluded from being able to build on the individual lot.
At that point, council, within a matter of months, amended it again to allow for no more than three 80% lots to be developed.
It was an administrative process.
The zoning office checked to make sure the number of lots and the types of ownership was consistent with the code provision, and if they met those requirements, it was administratively approved.
In 1989, after many neighborhoods, I think, especially those in South Tampa, approached City Council with concerns about how it was changing the character of the neighborhood, the process became a public hearing process through the special use 2.
That way, the input from the neighborhoods could be given, and the characterization of how this was going to impact neighborhoods was allowed to be considered.
Determination of whether it was appropriate or not fell on council's shoulder to decide those issues.
And that's really basically the early years of the 80% rule.
Mr. Snelling has the recent history to show you how it's been mapped out.
>>THOM SNELLING: The handout that I gave you is this same map here.
But mostly what I want to bring your attention to, went back the beginning of 1994, went back ten years and looked at all the 80% rules that were applied to the city that petitioned the city for the 80% rule, block development, and took that up through current 2004.
So basically in that ten-year period, there were 119 were approved, 23 were denied, and 19 were withdrawn.
Why the items were withdrawn, we didn't really research, go back through the files other than to know they had actually withdrawn.
The ones that were denied, they were showing up in the red, and you can see where those are, the ones that were approved were showing up in the green triangle and you can see where those are.
Primarily, if you're looking at your map, or the board, you see there's really one, two, three, maybe four clusters depending on how you want to group that.
Most of the 80% rules by far have taken place in Virginia park.
That is the primary place where they have, have gone.
Another large cluster would have been in the Bayshore Beautiful area, which you can see is just to the south, southern portion of the peninsula.
After that, there's actually been a couple in Beach Park that were approved, and some were denied, and then up in great gables bon area have been approved.
The other ones were scattered pretty evenly throughout the rest of the city.
You can see a couple of dots showing up in the north Tampa, East Tampa, west Tampa, et cetera.
Now, what has happened with the advent of the overlay districts, specifically the East Tampa overlay and the west Tampa overlay, one of the reasons people have these 80% rules was to get a lot that was too small to have it become a developable, buildable lot.
When we went through and looked at the overlay districts, both in East Tampa and in west Tampa, we established a new date that established a buildable lot of record.
In East Tampa, I believe it was the year 2000.
In west Tampa, I think it was 2002.
From that day forward, it was buildable.
It opened up many smaller lots, lots that are 45, 48 wide by 95.
If they had the minimum density requirements that were identified on the comp plan, 4650 square feet for ten units per acre, and it was allowed in single ownership at the time, those two dates I just mentioned, it was a buildable lot and there was no need for the 80% rule.
As a matter of fact I went back and looked.
Those that had been improved in west Tampa, there were two in 1995, two in '97, and then one in 2001.
But those were all preceded the overlay district and the identification of that, that magic year of 2004 that those lots became buildable.
So in a way the East Tampa district and west Tampa district includes the necessity to have an 80% rule.
There are still circumstances where it would happen, but not just if you are trying to figure out where a buildable lot is because of some current chronological date and time.
The other item that comes to interest of the 80% rule is that being located in areas, they tended to be in some of the older parts of the city.
And everybody wants to characterize it as sometimes as a South Tampa kind of problem or South Tampa issue and it's really not.
I mean, it's fairly evenly in the north as well and pretty much all over the place.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, Mr. Snelling.
I am looking at this map.
You're looking at this map, for those of you who are trying to see where it is there are all these green triangles and circumstances.
It appears to me, if you were to waive this in terms of percentage, that at least, at least 50% --.
>>THOM SNELLING: Oh, it's more than that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The vast preponderance of these are south of Kennedy Boulevard so it's not evenly distributed.
It is predominantly in South Tampa.
And that's the truth.
I mean, I'm will go at the map.
>>THOM SNELLING: Right, right.
My point is that it's not just only in South Tampa where people do this.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But the vast majority is in South Tampa.
>>THOM SNELLING: That's true, yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Like 70%.
Yes.
Or more.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I counted 75%.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So it's a city-wide issue about you the vast preponderance is in South Tampa.
I just want to make that known.
>>THOM SNELLING: That's really all I have.
And I'm not sure.
You know as much about the 80% rule, its likes, dislikes, who wants it.
I won't waste your time going through that again.
But I will answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Massey is here to answer anything that comes up in terms of its legal applicability.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The vast majority of these 80% rules are happening in the South Tampa area, and apparently the -- from what I can see, 23 were denied, and the majority of them -- or 19 were withdrawn.
Apparently most of them that were denied were in the South Tampa area.
Is there a way that maybe we can kind of encapsulate the South Tampa area and wave the 80% rule?
>>> As in eliminate it?
>> Eliminate it, or go back to S-1?
>>> Well, if you go back to S-1, I'm sure that's not the direction you want to go.
>> It's just like every time an 80% rule comes to us from the South Tampa area, we have this huge outcry that they don't want it.
>>THOM SNELLING: As Gloria said, I think what had happened is the concentration of them -- and as you can see, especially in Virginia park and this area, the but primarily Virginia park if you look at that, it does begin to change the character of what was there.
And the point who moved there and lived there moved in for a specific feel or whatever.
And as that started to change they became more and more vocal about not wanting to continue that to happen.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So you think the 80% rule ordinance is working, and then just let them come over us and we either have the ability to approve or deny it?
>>THOM SNELLING: In terms of it allowable for development to take place that couldn't otherwise?
Yes.
Their opportunity is go through and do a rezoning.
If you have a lot that's too small you go to a PD and accomplish the same thing for $500 extra.
However, the idea of working, that's a hard question for me to answer.
I know that it is virtually always a contentious issue.
There's in a question about that.
And I know when our staff used them, Gloria, my staff, Angie, Cathy, they apply more and more statistical averages, what's on the block where the character exists before we go through and make a recommendation.
But at the end of the day it still comes in front of City Council.
And council decides yes, no, whatever.
And obviously those that you have denied, and even some that you approved, have been very contentious.
So it's a very tough process.
And I would just say it's if it's working -- but we don't really have an opinion about whether it's good or bad, to be honest with you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Something Mr. Snelling says raises an issue that I would like clarified.
Maybe Mr. Massey can do it from a legal standpoint.
I want -- it's something I want to be clear on.
Mr. Snelling said that things that were incorporated within the west Tampa overlay district and the East Tampa overlay district in effect supersede or negated the need for the 80% rule in those overlay district.
Is that a fair statement?
>>THOM SNELLING: One of the purposes for the 80% rule was to make -- that is not culpable because of its reduced minimum lot size or width is made to be developable through the 80% rule process.
In East Tampa and west Tampa the minimum requirements for lot size were reduced, which allowed for more lots that were otherwise too small to be considered developable, as well as identify the specific date and time as to when their legal status because sometimes they were plotted by 40 by 95.
The only other way is to go through the 80% rule, unless it was a buildable -- unless it was a lot of record at the time of the co-change and was never combined and then sold off with another property next door to it, next to the.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Just real quick, one of the purposes of the west Tampa and East Tampa overlay districts was to recognize there were unique development patterns in those parts of the city where you have smaller lots, you have smaller front yards, it's a different type of neighborhood than the typical suburban neighborhood which allowed those zoning criteria more geared to, and that was one of the reasons why those were enacted to allow new development to occur and remain consistent with the existing development pattern within the City of Tampa.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Moreda, I think your memo is very well done and it's great to have a history, because I didn't know the history of that, 20 years ago this started.
But 20 years ago, we have to look at it was a different scenario, a different time, especially in South Tampa.
I think 20 years ago, I don't know, I would just assume that whoever was doing this said, we really need to encourage redevelopment in South Tampa.
And so we are going to do -- and typical of all councils including this council sometimes, I think they knee jerked and they said, you know, we have a unique problem in there, so let's create a code change.
And then that code change was where staff could do it.
But then the neighborhood objected to that.
And then it became a council decision.
And where are we today?
And the map is excellent because it says that basically 75% of these issues, this is basically very much a South Tampa issue.
And I say where we are today is we've gone full circle on this to the point now where the rule has already outlived its usefulness.
And I think we need to abolish the 80% rule.
And I wouldn't say that just la-de-da because there are property rights and concerns of individual property owners.
Maybe there are people out there who have been holding onto two lots knowing for 20 years that they might be able to some day come in front of City Council for the 80% rule, and they were hoping for that.
But, Mr. Snelling maintain a very good point.
He said it doesn't -- the viable option is they would come in front of us for a rezoning, and specifically, I believe, for a PD, a planned development rezoning.
And that accomplishes the same purpose.
They still get their day in court in front of us, they get the opportunity, they have a property right, they get the opportunity to make their case, the neighborhood still has the opportunity to make their case.
It's a viable alternative.
The nice thing about the PD, in my opinion, is the 80% rule, I believe, almost creates a presumption, almost creates like, well, the 80% rule is there, we have to come up with a lot of reasons to dent.
And that's one of the problems I had with it.
The PD is sort of a clean slate.
And the nice thing about the PD is it provides potential safeguards for the neighborhood, including additional buffering, including parking considerations, what to do about trees that are on the property, in unique situations.
So when we get those PDs, we craft additions that might address that.
I think the PD is the fair way to go.
And I think we should abolish the 80% rule as soon as possible.
>> I'll second the motion.
>> We are work shopping.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder said a lot of what I was thinking.
I guess what I need to know is what could someone achieve using the 80% rule that they could not achieve using the PD process?
>>THOM SNELLING: A cautious nothing.
I believe you can --
>> I didn't hear your comment.
>>> I believe you can get exactly the same result of a PD rezoning as you can from an 80% rule.
It's really almost acknowledging that some development is here.
A PD in some ways you could actually get more, because in one sense, if you had exactly 80% of the lot, that's where you are going to go through, say you had almost 70% of the lot, yet you still have enough on that rule to meet the setbacks and side yards and all those things.
And 80%, the development could not whereas a PD could.
So in a sense a PD is more efficient because it allows you even greater flexibility than the 80% rule.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: PD is more expensive, though, right?
>>> Yes, it is.
>> What is the difference?
>>> I think a PD rezoning is $1300, and an 80% rule is 750.
It's $500, $600.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The big picture-n South Tampa --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let me respond to that, though, because there are areas in the city write think the 80% rule, the concept of that still is very much in play in my district, in fact.
Looking at this map, there's only been a handful in the last ten years.
And those are some impressed areas up there.
And I would hate to saddle someone, you know, trying to get redevelopment in that Busch-Fowler area with a $1300 charge, when the neighborhood is probably going to welcome that with open arms, as opposed to a $750 charge.
>>THOM SNELLING: There's a difference, and Gloria reminded me.
An 80% rule if it qualifies as affordable housing there's a waiver of that fee, if what you are doing is putting in affordable house will.
There's a waiver of that for the 80% rule.
But for the PD there is not.
That's a code requirement or a change that council could amend, I mean, if that's something else you want to consider.
>>THOM SNELLING: What does that mean, affordable housing?
>>> 75,000?
Currently it's identified as $75 or less.
>> That's the price of the home that's going to be sold?
>>> Correct.
So people have gotten that waiver.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that economic reality in the year 2004?
Are there many single family homes out there that sell for $75,000?
>>> A pretty low number.
>>GWEN MILLER: How will that effect East Tampa and west Tampa overlay?
>>> I don't believe it would effect them at all.
Because I think, like I said, you, with the overlay districts, identify lots of record at a much later date, avoids the combining and splitting, combining and splitting, plus it also reduces it even lower than what an 80% rule could do.
It makes more lots more developable in those two areas.
So in my opinion, I don't think that it would have any real effect in terms of what's developed.
Some of the nicer things in west Tampa at this point had come through, and they have gone through a PD process because they even went lower than what was allowed.
You have approved a couple of them.
They are very beautiful houses.
So some of the things that will be coming to council, some of the things that you would want to have control over or craft as some conditions or some specific allowance in certain areas, those would be the ones that would be coming to council for consideration.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Tom, explain something to me and Mr. Shelby, if you want to weigh in on it please do so.
It is a given obviously, as we look out in the audience, most of the South Tampa residents are always in opposition to the 80% rule.
And by the method you have shown us, obviously that's for a lot of the 80% rules that have come in to play.
Mr. Harrison brings up an issue that was of concern to me, too.
Say, for instance, awhile back, I don't remember how long ago, there was a gentleman trying to construct a house somewhere in the area of Yukon and Dixon and off of Nebraska, et cetera.
Notice you are telling me something I didn't know and I appreciate the information.
But if it's an affordable housing issue, 75,000 or thereabouts, the fees are waived if it comes in as an 80%?
>>> They could be waived.
>> They could be.
Okay.
Would there be a way to come in to alleviate some of the 80% rules in South Tampa but be fair to the rest of the citizenry that some of us represent and do something that would give them the opportunity to waive their same fees under a PD presentation?
Because it's not -- and I think someone down there, I heard them say, if you are going to develop in South Tampa, $750 difference or $500 is no big deal.
You're right.
But if it's in some of the areas like Sulphur Springs or going further north, that is going to be a big difference.
I want to try to be reasonable with development in South Tampa, being a South Tampa resident.
I can appreciate some of the concerns.
Ms. Vizzi and some of the rest of our South Tampa residents have.
But at the same time, we have to proceed with caution, because we don't want something that we craft today or decide to craft sometime in the near future to cause discouraging development in some other areas.
I mean, he mentioned north Tampa.
Ms. Miller referenced East Tampa.
So give us some guidance there, Thom.
Because it's got to be a fair issue.
>>THOM SNELLING: Obviously, I was here a couple weeks back.
We were talking about fees, and what was going on, and I think it was councilman Harrison identified it as -- it's a user fee.
It's something -- you're doing something, you're achieving something, it's a user fee.
One of the things that happens with the affordable housing, we get requests for waivers all the time, all the time.
Because someone can't afford a fee for variance or rezoning or whatever.
The only thing that is considered waivable at this point is for affordable housing done as a result of action some of what the city was doing in some of the SHIP programs and some of the overall programs the city wanted to enter into.
That was an allowance and again an incentive.
What they assess for fees and what they charge, if council wanted to do something specifically for that, on one hand I think you probably have the ability to do so.
But at the same time -- I guess my only caution is that it could become a very contentious thing about who is going to get waived and who isn't and things like that.
And Morris jumped up and he would like to speak.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
You start off with the premise that everyone should be treated the same, but the rules should apply equally to everyone.
Now there can be some distinctions made, that there has to be clear basis for doing that.
That is something we could bring into but not something we can do right now.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And that's exactly my point, as a follow-up.
We need to do this, and I have a feeling -- a workshop, that's where I think we need to go and you can't give us an answer today.
I think you will agree, Mr. Massey, to encourage development where you needed the 80% rule in place so if someone were able to develop some areas other than South Tampa.
So that is my issue.
And I think that we ought to look at this very comprehensively.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: A couple things regarding the potential abolition of the 80% rule, rule city-wide.
One of the things I would like to have an opportunity is sit down with Thom and make sure there are avenues through the PD process to make sure it covers that issue.
And we need a little bit of time to make sure that that exists.
If City Council is moving toward we want to abolish the 80% rule in South Tampa but not other portions of the City of Tampa then we have to look at, is there a rational basis for doing that, and how do we enunciate or come up with a policy basis that's defensible?
>>THOM SNELLING: Real quick to that.
Coming back to council, I don't know when, but to report back on the overall fee structure of everything that's going on, as a part of that report, I can come back and add that in, because council had asked to look at it and consider 501-Cs and other nonprofits and what kinds of ability do we have to legally call out or point out that particular group or those individuals who meet that criteria. Morris is actually right, have to restrict the criteria.
Otherwise the whole notion of equal protection becomes very serious.
>>ROSE FERLITA: To say we agree with increasing the fees or take them away.
But I would like to make a motion that we set up a workshop to discuss this.
Would you like to come back --.
>>> When we come back --.
>>GWEN MILLER: You can't make a motion yet.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Oh, I'm sorry.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Snelling, what is our position?
How did K we take a look at the $75,000 threshold to determine affordable housing?
Because in the reality of 2004, you almost can't build a house for that, let alone be affordable housing.
>>THOM SNELLING: I believe it's linked to a lot of the homes already operating in, and I would have to get with the CRA, affordable housing program in the city, talking about how what is legal Le identified as quote-unquote affordable housing to see if that dollar value has changed as all.
I can look at that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I think that's something we are going to look at or need to look at.
Also, I think I agree with my colleagues that we did need to further look at this, because I think the abolishment of the 80% rule now would be a little presumptuous, especially in the east and west Tampa area.
Where we see the development that came before us on Palmetto in the west Tampa area, where they built on 35-foot lots, and even though they are two stories, but very nice homes, and they made accessing the alley, and I think that we can encourage and reencourage development in these areas by --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were they 80%?
>>> Probably those were PDs.
The ones in west Tampa?
>>KEVIN WHITE: There's one in west Tampa.
We did one 80% rule in west Tampa as well.
I'm not sure which one, but I know we did do the 80% rule, they have done some redevelopment in the west Tampa area on undersized lots.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: They haven't started building those yet.
>>THOM SNELLING: I'm getting the sense council certainly want to take a look at this and make sure you are not taking away the benefit of developing on lots that are from a practical purpose developable, maybe not technically buildable because of square footage requirements.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Absolutely.
Palmetto Beach, cherry, all those, there are homes built on 35 foot wide lots.
They have the depth but not the width and if the 80% rule is abolished we will never create redevelopment of those lots in that area.
>>THOM SNELLING: And some of the stuff on the overlay, the allowances in the overlay in both East Tampa and west Tampa by establishing legal lots of record by 2000 or 2001 address some of them but doesn't address all of them.
You're right.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a great solution to this, and that is if the 80% rule was originally developed to help support underdeveloped areas, we could use the CRA areas in the city to still allow 80% rules in the CRA areas, because those are the areas in which we are trying to effect redevelopment, and it would preclude South Tampa where we are having tremendous pressure.
So I think that's something else that you could look at.
I see so many people in the audience today who have spent so many dozens, hundreds of hours coming down to City Council, to fight things in their neighborhood that they don't want, that nobody wants, and I feel like if we can lessen their burden, that is really, really appropriate.
So I think if you could come back to us as quickly as possible, looking at the plan of CRA of allowing still an 80% rule to be applied, but would address East Tampa, Mr. White.
Then if you are going to make East Tampa, west Tampa, Ybor City, then where you want to encourage redevelopment, and you protect the rest of the city, or allow them to apply for PDs, I think that would address the issue.
>>THOM SNELLING: I would have to echo what Mr. Dingfelder said, to take a look at that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. White, I think your point is very well taken.
We don't want to limit redevelopment in areas that really need it, and that we really want to encourage.
But, at the same time, we have a problem here, and it's been in existence for quite awhile that needs addressing.
I'm a little concerned that our direction to staff is a little vague, and I'd like to tighten it up a little bit.
Because Marty says we should close the workshop in order to make a motion.
I'd like to make a motion -- I'd like to close the workshop.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to hear from the audience first.
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak on item 4?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to direct a comment to Mrs. Saul-Sena while the audience is coming up.
I think that's a good place to start but again I can think of areas that are not within the boundary of the CRAs.
So it's a good place in terms of Mr. Snelling but then we don't want to discount anybody else's ability to do that other in South Tampa.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sulphur Springs.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Right.
And on the other side.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll look at it and give them back.
We have to give these back.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the workshop.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
(Motion carried)
>> 4702 Browning Avenue.
I'm just showing you some pictures.
There's so much water that comes to South Tampa, because of all the areas that they flow into, and leaving the garbage to wastewater.
We had a big wastewater, pure neglect from wastewater where the pump station, that does not even have a generator to prevent this from happening on San Carlos pump station, overflowed over the weekend, wasn't even discovered until hours and hours.
And you'll see one letter, which we have to force to be done to tell the neighbors that their area is polluted.
Because of the stormwater, the drainage just blocks up, because of the overbid building.
We just can't afford to have the 80% rule in our neighborhood.
It was my understanding that was supposed to be for people who have the smaller lots to begin with, if their house burned down, it was to be able to rebuild on it.
That was my understanding.
And then the other thing I want to be a little bit harsh and say I thought we were supposed to be prepared for a meeting today.
I'm surprised that we didn't have more of the information and you are going to have to go back and get, because it was a workshop set up for today, and made the effort to come back.
I'm not coming back so I hope you will remember what I'm saying.
I'm not going to waste your time again.
But it is an area that should never be allowed for 80%.
We are going to have to start getting tickets to get on Westshore especially when the water on Westshore returns as those pictures are showing you.
There's no drainage over there.
And the Lake Kipling holding all that water, it's a at a pot that's -- tea pot that's full of sand.
And the storage too has very high bacteria, e-coli, that no one in the city wanted to expose, for people to go get their shots.
There's so much going on in South Tampa.
And thank you for the opportunity to see what happens in the next few days.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Was this an 80% rule?
>>> No.
What I'm talking about is the place with all the building and excess --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I understand.
But --
>>> there is so much concrete already.
And if you impact our area with 80% rule, we have no place already for the water to go.
They are also taking down so many of the trees.
That's what they do with water, where we have nothing to take up that water.
We have a critical situation.
And there's just more in-fill.
The 80% rule was never maid meant for South Tampa.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 South Sherill.
The discussion of the 80% rule has been going on for many, many years, and I guess I have been in since the very beginning when I found out what the 80% rule was all about and what it was going to cause in the areas that really don't need it.
When the issue of the Beachway 80% rule came about, we went over to the Planning Commission and actually talked to Mr. Hunter because his staff was what caused part of the discussion problems.
He told us that as far as a planning to the 80% rule is a good idea.
In other words, that legally, according to what he has researched, input into it already, that using it as a tool in certain areas, as we discussed it, for CRAs in East Tampa or west Tampa, not only across the city but use it as a special planning tool in those areas where you want to see it.
As far as reverting them to a PD, I hope that there would be certain parameters put, because, for example, if you are in a certain zoning code, you may have either 50s or 60s.
So if you go down even below that, when you do a PD, that would be even worse than the 80% rule.
So I realize, though, that as long as PDs exist, that could always be the option.
But getting rid of the 80% rule has been requested forever from the South Tampa neighborhoods who knew and found out early on what it was all about.
Those neighborhoods, even I see Bill Devalis, he's going to speak, couldn't see the value of the 80% rule and why it's going to be so bad.
Now that they are trying to do it in Seminole Heights, he understands.
So it's having to see it in your neighborhood and causing the in-fill that isn't needed in those neighborhoods, that is the problem.
So I hope that council can find the solution, and do away with the 80% rule, and then you would have to put some ground rules on doing the PDs because it could also cause a problem.
But the 80% rule now is a problem.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Whale the next speaker is coming up, I would say to Ms. Vizzi and anybody else that's listening, and Mr. Massey I'm sure can confirm this, that there are many parameters already on the PD that speak about, in sort of an overwhelming need to overrule the Euclidean zoning.
There's five or six standards already on there that should in theory make it very hard to get any PD.
So I think it's just a matter of using those standards judiciously and make sure we continue to protect the neighborhoods.
>>> Steve Manski, West River Heights, Tampa.
On this list I put in front of you, representing clients for these 80% rules.
So I am very, very familiar with the 80% rule.
And I see it work in favor, for some people and slows down the process for others.
So as I said, I am in favor of abolishing the 80% rule.
You talk about how 70 to 75% is located in the South Tampa area.
70 to 75%.
One of the reasons that's probably so is since 2000 when we have seen this large surge of growth and development in the west Tampa overlay district and in the East Tampa overlay district, because of the overlay district being in place, we didn't have to come in front of you.
I probably have been involved with properties where I have had to go through zoning.
They put a note in the computer, yes, it's in the overlay districts, now it's a private lot record, I didn't have to come in front of you.
That I think was crucial as far as what the overlay districts have done with the lot of record.
The other issue like was said, when you do a PD, there are the stormwater issues.
You have to make those requirements when you do a PD.
You are going to see elevations.
You are going to see the size of the footprint.
You're going to see the trees.
You're going to see all of those issues.
When someone comes in front of you for a PD as compared to an 80% rule.
So there's a lot of control there, as far as doing a PD, as the 80% rule.
|
