Tampa City Council
Thursday, March 3, 2005
9:00 a.m. session
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 transcript may have been 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.
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Jasmine Gibbons.
She's a city employee who works in the employment division -- services division of the human resources department, and she's the president of the City of Tampa employees Toastmasters speakers club number 1639.
She has been a resident of Tampa for 15 years.
She relocated from Boston, Massachusetts, and received a B.A. degree from the UMASS Boston, CPM certification from FSU and currently working on a master's degree at Troy university.
She has a 15-year-old daughter and is a member of the Tampa Bay church of Christ.
May we please stand for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance?
>> Father, I come before you today asking for your blessing over this meeting.
I pray that you bless each and every person in this room and their family members as well.
Father, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today praying to you.
It is truly an honor and a pleasure to speak in the City Council chambers as a woman during women's history month.
I thank you for the women who have paved the way for me, women like Mayor Pam Iorio, like councilwomen Miller, Alvarez, Ferlita and Saul-Sena.
I also thank you for giving our president, George W. Bush, wisdom to lead our country.
I pray that he realizes that you are the one and only source of our wisdom.
You tell us in your word that if we ask for wisdom that you will give it to us.
I pray that he continues to ask you for your wisdom, since his decisions will affect the lives and happiness of millions of people.
Lord, you told King Solomon that he could have anything in this world.
King Solomon's only request was that you grant him wisdom to lead his people.
I pray that you also provide wisdom to council members and the mayor to make the decisions for the citizens here in Tampa.
Lord, I pray that you will give them a discerning spirit to know your will.
I pray for the troops overseas.
I pray you bring them safely to their homes and family.
I pray for the country as a whole, that you open their hearts and they have a desire to know you.
There are so many people out there that live in fear, living in fear because of the war, terror attacks, earthquakes, Monday as soon as, child abductions.
I pray these people come to know you and realize that you are the answer, and that if you will seek them, they will deliver you from all your fears.
I pray for everyone watching this program has an opportunity to know you and have a relationship with you.
I pray all this in your son's name.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (No response.)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to announce that council will be taking a lunch break at 11:00 o'clock, and we will come back at 1:00.
Council will have a recess at 11, come back at 1:00.
And I would like to yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to announce that we want to reschedule the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting that was scheduled for this morning at 11:00 to March 10th at 11:00 next week.
Thank you very much.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.
At this time we have a commendation presented by Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good morning.
There are a couple times during our tenure in council that we really are so honored, and today is one of those days.
As we are growing up, we all have heroes.
And of course my heroes are my parents, Simon and Adel, and my mother Adel is 75 years old today, March 3rd, and I wish her well.
And one of my other heros growing up is the man standing next to me, Sam Gibbons.
You have to get in the picture.
They don't want to see me.
There we go.
And I say Sam was my hero growing up because I do remember two events as a little boy, and I think I was six or seven years old, and one was taking the classic family trip to Washington, D.C., and being shown around, and my father took us into Sam's office, and as a Congressman, he was so cordial, and I can't imagine how many tens of thousands of Tampa families that you were probably equal cordial to.
But of course we thought we were it.
We were the only ones.
And then of course in 1963, a classic imprint on my mind is seeing Congressman Gibbons with then president Kennedy as they drove around Tampa and attended numerous events.
And we have that footage, if anybody wants to see it.
It's wonderful, wonderful footage.
And you can tell they were close, and they were doing great things together in Washington.
Anyway, as we all know, Sam was raised in Florida, and he's part of the greatest generation, as it's been called.
He answered the call to public service over and over again.
Of course, in the '40s he volunteered for the service and jumped into France on or around D-Day, after surviving that, he returned to Florida for continued public service for ten years in Tallahassee, in our state legislature, affecting this area in numerous ways, that I just heard about again this morning.
And then, of course, we sent him to Congress to be our representative for 34 consecutive years.
Quite an amazing run of public service for 44 years in elected office, plus his service in the military.
Of course, our own councilwoman Mary Alvarez had a big part of that, as she was his campaign finance chair and treasurer for 20-plus years during Sam's run in Congress.
And I know they have a special relationship.
And other people that Sam had special relationships along the way, of course, he and his wife Martha raised three wonderful children, one of which is here today is Tim, and Martha is watching somewhere.
We know that.
And Sam was recently remarried.
And it's good to have Betty, his bride today.
The French recognized Sam Gibbons recently, and he's not just our hero, he's obviously theirs, too, and they awarded him the legion of honor on June 5th, 2004.
And that's why City Council brought him here today to give us our commendation for receiving their award.
So I'll just read this commendation and give to the Sam.
I know he has a few words for us.
On behalf of Tampa City Council, in recognition of you being awarded the legion of honor on June 5th, 2004, in Paris, France, for your steadfast involvement during World War II, as a captain and jumpmaster on D-Day with the U.S. Army's 501st parachute infantry, 101st airborne division, Sam Gibbons led his troops into major combat actions.
Tampa City Council hereby commends our Congressman Sam Gibbons for his life long commitment to his country.
Honorable Sam Gibbons: Well, thank you.
Madam Chairman, may I have unanimous consent to just talk a little while?
You have anything you like.
>>> I won't impose much on your time.
Remember, I said "much."
Really, I appreciate this honor.
And you don't know how it moves me.
That D-Day, other than marriage and the birth of the children and all those other important things, probably changed my life more than anything else on earth.
And I appreciate, even though it was so long ago being remembered by my peers here in Tampa, for that duty that I performed at that time.
And, you know, I always want to thank Mary Alvarez, every time I come in the room with her, because for all those many, many years, she put up with me, and nobody knows how complicated handling campaign finances are as Mary Alvarez knows, because she had not only to comply with Florida laws but federal laws, and they were constantly changing, and, you know, I don't know how in the world she kept up with it, but she kept up with it perfectly.
We never have gotten in any trouble, Mary, and you know that's hard to do in 44 years of elected life over campaign finances.
So many memories rush through my mind as I come into this City Hall, and as I come in the streets of Tampa, that it's almost overwhelms me.
I first got involved in the business by annexing about 150,000 in the City of Tampa in 1953, and that radically changed what Tampa is from just a little town to a great metropolitan area.
And so I have followed the work of the city government.
Mayor Hixon, who took over bravely, and expanded police protection, fire protection, garbage collection, safety, our sewers, water, everything else in the suburban area, unfortunately died before he could see the real benefits that he had bestowed and the city had bestowed on that suburban area.
Now, sure, they paid more taxes, but I got very few gripes about it.
A few odd tomatoes.
But, you know, I have been so pleased that the government of the City of Tampa has performed so well during all those years.
I'm proud of you.
I want to commend you for what you have done.
I've got a few things to pick with you.
One of the things I did, and I got some promises from the city when I did it, was repeal the old Pat Whitaker law, that turned the Bayshore into just a single-family residential area.
At the request of the city, I repealed that law, and substituted a substitute law for it.
I don't know the exact status of that law now.
But I do remember the promises that were made.
And one of the promises the city made to me for doing that was not do anything this side of Howard Avenue as far as commercializing it.
There was some commercialization around Magnolia Avenue.
But between Magnolia and Howard they were to leave it alone.
And I trust that you all can stick with that.
I know that conditions have changed, times have changed, laws have changed.
But that was a commitment that was made to me at that time.
Also, about the high-rises along the Bayshore, I remember very vividly in one of the city engineers office talking about the heights of the buildings and what kind of commercial activities could be carried on, and they were all limited to residential, and by and large you all have stuck to that.
But the height of the buildings has gotten out of hand.
I was promised if I would enact this law that there would be no buildings any higher than the hook and ladder could reach.
And those buildings, unless you all got some new hook and ladders that I'm not aware of, you know, you won't get halfway up them.
Times have changed.
Conditions have changed.
I don't blame anybody for that.
But we need to keep the Bayshore as Tampa's jewel.
Unfortunately, the Bayshore is Tampa's truck route and speed track.
I live right off the Bayshore right now.
I live in a home for older people.
And, you know, I'm driving down the Bayshore turning right, out of the right turn lane, I turn on my signal indicator and everything else, get ready to turn into a place I have to park, and the traffic coming down the Bayshore, I drive no more than 40.
I value my driver's license, you know.
This will be the last one I ever have.
And people are honking at me to get out of the way.
I'm in the right lane, I got my turn signal turned on.
They don't give a hoot.
They have lost all civility, some drivers, on that Bayshore.
You all have got to get hold of it.
That's your problem.
I don't know how to tell you to do it.
If you want to hear me expand more on it.
But that's Tampa's jewel.
It's the best-looking part of our city.
People come here, and they exclaim about how attractive that is.
And we have got some other fine attractions around Tampa.
But, you know, we ought to preserve Tampa's jewel, the Bayshore.
We at least ought to enforce -- I think it's still the law that we keep the trucks off the Bayshore.
But, you know, it hasn't been done.
I can stand in the window where I live there and count trucks by the dozens coming down the Bayshore.
Some as many as five abreast or five deep at a time.
And that law is just being disobeyed, if that's still the same law, and I think it is.
I haven't seen anything in your actions that I know of that changed that law.
Now, I don't want to dwell on the past.
I want to talk about the future.
I'm still a young man at heart anyway.
And this is going to shock you.
And I'm probably touching the third rail of bad politics, the electrified rail when I talk about this.
But some day -- and I don't advocate it -- but some day, MacDill is going to close.
I don't know when it will be.
It could be sooner than later.
Or it could be later than sooner.
But it's going to close.
Just like Fort Brooke closed 150 years ago, after 40 years of existence here in Tampa.
There is nothing permanent in the military establishment that we can talk about.
The American military forces have to undergo a large base closure because it is so expensive.
The biggest item in the whole United States budget, discretionary item, is the military establishment.
It's a horrible part -- not a horrible part, it's an important part of your tax bill just to establish that.
So closing bases makes good military sense and makes good economic sense.
I am not advocating the closure of MacDill.
I want that clearly understood.
But I would not be doing my duty if I didn't tell you that I know it's going to close some day, and it could be sooner than later.
And I hope that the city has a plan for the redevelopment of MacDill once that ax falls.
I don't expect you advocate it being closed.
I am not advocating it being closed.
But you have got to plan for that, because that could be one of the most important things that happens in this city in a long, long time.
In the redevelopment of MacDill, I want to call it to your attention, it is a part of the City of Tampa.
I made it part of the City of Tampa way back in the 1950s.
Your jurisdiction stretches all over that.
You're not exercising police jurisdiction now and those kinds of things, but you at least have zoning over the entire area.
And when you are creating a redevelopment of MacDill -- and you have got to think about that -- you have got to plan on what is best for the City of Tampa.
And that's important.
You don't want to plan down there something that is going to vastly exacerbate the traffic flow in the peninsula out there now.
You are going to have to try to create the kind of community there that Tampa will be proud of, that will contribute to the growth and the life of the City of Tampa.
There is land down there that must be preserved because of its ecological sensitivity.
There's land down there that should be developed for its economic benefit.
There is land down there for all kinds of things.
A marina that you all talk about every now and then that would certainly add to the ambience of the City of Tampa.
And there's so many things.
And you all need to start thinking about it now.
You and the mayor and the planners and everything else.
What is going to happen if MacDill comes under the ax?
Maybe you've done it, but I don't know it.
And it never has been discussed.
Whatever the redevelopment plan is for that should be widely discussed in the public here.
And the redeveloper, whoever that may be -- and that could be a problem.
Let me outline what recently happened out in California.
The Pentagon put up a base out there for closure.
And they have closed it.
They are closing it.
They advertised it on the Internet.
They got bids off the Internet for the selling of the base.
They sold it for $680 million.
For that little base in San Diego.
Not the huge thing in San Diego but just a small one in San Diego.
Of course, that's income for the Pentagon.
You know, they may want to sell MacDill.
I hope not.
The law as I understand it, it will eventually come to the City of Tampa if nobody else above you in the pyramid of people gets that.
So I think you need to let the people in Washington and the defense department know that you all want to control the redevelopment of the area.
You're the elected officials of this area, and you all want to control the redevelopment of it.
Well, I think I've made myself clear on that point.
I don't want to belabor it.
But in the terms of you having office here, there probably will be nothing as important as what happens to MacDill, and when it happens.
I don't know when it's going to happen.
But, you know, this month, they are going to appoint the commission that has until July of this year to determine what bases get closed.
You know darn well that they are going to get most of their instructions from the defense department, and there will be very little input in it.
And I can tell you as from my experience as Congressman for so many years that for 34 years that I served in Congress, MacDill was on the closure list.
The first thing I did when I got to Washington after I got sworn in was go across the river and go to the Pentagon and say I'm here to try to save MacDill.
It was on the closure list at that time.
It's been on the closure list every time they have had a closure list.
But somehow we have escaped the bullet.
But we can't escape it forever.
So I think I've made that clear.
You all need to get with it on that.
I know you don't want to go out and touch the third rail politically and advocate the closure of MacDill, and I'm not doing that.
But it's going to happen.
And we've got to be ready for it.
We need local people to make local decisions, and you all at least need to zone the place so that you have got proper land use of it.
Well, if there are questions, I'll answer them.
But thank you for honoring me.
And thank you for giving me this time to express some of my opinions.
And I want to introduce my wife Betty, and my son Tim here with me today, and I know all the other boys wish they could be here, but it's impossible.
So thank you very much.
And I appreciate this.
And I will treasure it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Rebuttal.
Mary wanted to say something.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Gibbons, for coming today and honoring us with your presence.
>>> Just call me Sam.
>> I know.
But it's protocol.
>>> Well, we'll accept that.
>> It has been my honor and pleasure, and my privilege, to be working with you for 24 years like I did.
You were my hero at the time, and you still are my hero.
>>> Thank you, Mary.
>> And you became my mentor, or else I wouldn't be sitting here.
>>> Well, I hope they don't hold it against you.
>> The day that Harry Hurst introduced us was the best day of my life.
One of the best days, I should say.
Because I knew of you as an icon for Tampa.
And the United States.
But I didn't know you personally.
And you took us in as family when I started working for you.
And Manny and I treasure that always.
We talk about you constantly and we talk about Martha, and now we'll talk about Betty.
But we saw your boys grow up, and it was a wonderful experience.
And I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for making that happen for me.
>>> You don't know how much I want to thank you, Mary.
Anybody that can handle the amount of money it takes to get reelected to Congress year after year after year after year after year, and never make a mistake, and never get in trouble, she's a miracle person, believe me.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you (Applause)
And a wonderful friend.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And we have heeded your instructions.
We have heed you about MacDill.
We'll try to do something about Bayshore.
But we do have a Bayshore task force that Mr. Dingfelder has headed up.
So there's changes going to happen there.
But we will get back with the police department and see why there's so much speeding there. So we have heeded you and we will listen to your complaints.
But thank you so much for coming today.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sam, we all know why they call you guys the greatest generation.
Thank you for everything.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time we go to our department heads and city employees.
We have -- would you please pronounce your name for me?
>> It's Toyin Aina.
Good morning, council.
The reason why I'm here is because on item number 30, there's the resolution for the mayor's reappointment of certain contract compliance officers.
The title that was on the resolutions that were submitted to you had a typographical error in the title.
Instead of indicating Lynee Walder, it indicated Lynee Alder without the "W."
So I have submitted a substitute resolution to the clerk for that.
>>GWEN MILLER: The clerk has it.
>>> Desiree Valdez: Good morning.
Thank you for having me.
On behalf of Suzanna Martinez and the Women's Celebration Committee I would like to invite all of you to the 9th annual Women's History Month celebration which will take place on Friday, March 11th at the Tampa convention center.
This year's theme is "Women Change America."
Our mistress of ceremonies will be Deiah Riley of Action News ABC, and keynote speaker is Maruchi AzorinBlanco, the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Board of Governors and Executive Committee for the greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce.
Also, as a presentation of our annual Josephine Howard Stafford Award, the mayor will be presenting the award this year to our own Adriana Colina of our Business and Housing Department.
Thank you very much for giving us this time.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
I did make a motion but nobody seconded.
Make a motion for the Women's History Month celebration, the commendation.
The commendation for Adriana Colina.
>> Manny: Technology, here to speak on item 10, status report on the Palma Ceia plan amendment.
That plan amendment is being processed in the March cycle for the plan amendments.
It is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on April 25th at their public hearing.
Planning Commission --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 10, you say?
The Palma Ceia plan amendment.
The schedule is the Planning Commission public hearings on April 25th.
Planning Commission staff has a community meeting scheduled for April 7th.
I do have someone from the Planning Commission in case there is a question you want to direct to her.
Planning Commission is putting together a report right now.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You mentioned April 7th.
For the viewing public do you have a location on that?
>> The meeting on April 7th is going to be held at the Palma Ceia Presbyterians church in Palma Ceia.
It's right across the street from Plant high. The same location we held the community meeting on November 17th.
>> Everything else is moving along?
>> It's moving along.
We have met with the city departments regarding this plan amendment.
This is a very large plan amendment and involves over 800 parcels and ownership parcels.
So it is a little bit of a complex amendment.
But we are moving forward with it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We appreciate your efforts.
>>GWEN MILLER: Catherine Coyle and Morris Massey.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
Cathy Coyle and I are here on items 23 and 50.
Those are resolutions to set public hearings on April 21st at 6:00 relative to first a lease agreement between the City of Tampa and Florida Health Science Center, Inc. And then secondly a rezoning petition filed by Florida Health Science Center, Inc., for the expansion of Tampa General, just to set the public hearing.
We, in discussions with the administration, also with representatives of the Florida Health Science Center, Inc., believe that this will be a hearing that will take us a substantial amount of time.
Therefore we were trying to find a date where this would be the single issue or the single set of issues which you would consider.
You don't have any hearing scheduled for Thursday, April 21st, the evening, although I do understand there is planning award ceremonies that evening, so there may be a conflict.
We are here to discuss those dates and those hearings.
I think, also, I'm going to answer questions.
I believe Steve Stanley from Davis Island civic association and Andrea Zelman would like to also address council, or to help council in setting the dates relative to those public hearings.
And we're happy to accommodate council's schedule where we can.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We really want to set the evening, the 21st, aside so that we can attend the design ceremony.
So I would say to council members, I think this is going to be a lengthy discussion and maybe an afternoon or specific evening.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena in terms of not holding up that date because of the awards ceremony.
But at the same time I wonder if perhaps the chairman would allow those representatives from TGH -- anytime is fine but I think that night we need to reserve for what's already scheduled.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Before they get up, the site plan for the zoning has changed slightly to include the garage parcels that are under contract that the city -- that you all approved to sell to Florida Health Science Center, Inc., and also the land between the garage and a small portion of Marjorie park to expand those garages.
So that has changed.
Think there's some concern by the Davis Island folks that they would like some additional time to review those changed plans.
There is also a time, I think issue for the Florida Health Science Center folks.
We have what we believe complete petitions ready to be set.
We are happy to accommodate and meet whenever council wishes but we do agree it probably should be set for a single evening for this would be the only issue before City Council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Massey, I don't think we need to ask this but sometimes it appears we need to ask it.
It's very important that we get all these changes as council members early.
Not close to the fact or after the fact.
That's been somewhat of the history lately.
It's obviously a very contentious process.
As you say, some people are concerned about changes.
So are we.
So as soon as administration can share that with us, we really would appreciate it.
>> We will get the plans in draft agreement or anything else well in advance of the public hearings so you all can review them.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Zelman?
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: Fowler White, 501 East Kennedy, landmark rezoning Tampa General Hospital.
We do ask that you set this hearing sooner rather than later.
This rezoning application was filed June 30th of 2004.
We amended it on August 3rd to add the City of Tampa as a co-applicant since we were proposing to build the parking garage on City of Tampa land.
From the day the application was filed until today, what it is Tampa General is seeking approval for has not changed.
The only thing that's being changed now is the city has asked us to simply -- right now the parking garages are stand-alone PD and the rest of Tampa General is stand-alone PD and they just asked us to move -- it's actually only part of the garages, and PD part of them is already in it.
But nothing is changing about what Tampa General is seeking approval for.
Nothing has changed since June 30th.
We have been meeting with the neighborhood association since November.
I don't see any reason for further delay.
There have been numerous newspaper articles.
There's nothing hidden here.
This has all been out in the open.
Tampa General is up against a construction deadline.
Part of the application now effects the expansion that's under construction now.
When we filed the application back in the summer the administration asked us to delay the hearing on the zoning until the garage sale was completed.
That of course took much longer than anyone anticipated.
It was finally completed in February.
Tampa General has been very patient in waiting for the zoning hearing, but really does need it to move forward.
We look forward to an open discussion of the merits of the approval.
We've looked at your schedule, and assuming you do want to go the route of having it as a stand-alone hearing, your chambers -- originally we had all agreed on April 21st because that was a Thursday that you weren't already having a zoning hearing.
But when we learned that the Planning Commission dinner, we looked at your schedule, and your chambers are available the night before, which would be Wednesday the 20th, or the night before, which would be Tuesday the 19th.
I don't know of any reason you can't have a hearing on a night other than Thursday.
So those are the dates that we're asking for.
And I'm glad to answer any additional questions.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was going to say since you know what our schedule is, we are pretty booked up.
But maybe we can do something for the 11th, night meeting on the 11th since we do have one on the fourth.
The 11th of April.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They have to have 30 days.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The 28th --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was going to ask Mr. Shelby, are we allowed to have meetings on Tuesday or Wednesday nights?
I'm free the 19th.
>> My name is Steve Stanley, president of Davis Island civic association.
We've gone through the garage sale where the land wasn't included.
There was a legal description that was part of the zoning package.
It seems to be changing today as we speak.
And I just don't think this is fair to the citizens.
I think the citizens need more time to look at this.
First, the garage sales are not supposed to be contingent on rezoning.
The sale of the garages has not been complete.
The land that was not included, that was removed from the sale of the garages, seems now to be additional land in question to add to the park.
This is a new deal that just came up.
This has never been part of a deal that the civic association was aware of.
When the land was taken out from the sale of the garages, the citizens of Tampa believed that that land was no longer going to be part of a rezoning, much less the park.
Now, you know, the fact that the land was taken out seems not to make any difference.
We're just going to throw the land in another way.
So if legal descriptions in the exhibits of the contract don't seem to be complete.
What is it that's being sold?
What is it that's not being sold of all that land?
And now onto the zoning application, what land is in it?
What land is not in it?
I just heard council say that part of the garages are in it that weren't in it before.
I mean, we need an opportunity to really see what is going on, what is being proposed, what's being rezoned, what's being taken by the hospital from the citizens, or what's being proposed to be taken.
I think it's only fair.
I mean, don't think the hospital is going away.
The garages are there.
I would assume that they are going to close on the garages at some point.
Now, I would ask first -- and this may seem unrealistic -- but I would ask first, let's see if they actually buy the garages.
They are not supposed to be -- the sale of the garages isn't supposed to be subject to the rezoning.
If that's not palatable, I would at least ask for another 30 or 60 days past the April date to give the citizens of Tampa a chance to digest what it is that's being proposed.
I mean, are we supposed to hear today, on a date the hearing date is being set, all of a sudden it's not really what's being proposed, now we are going to add more land.
And we are also going to put on the agenda and seek to get a lease approved for the land that went for part of the garages, and a part -- is that contingent on rezoning?
If they don't get the rezoning, do they get the land anyway?
I mean, these are questions we need answered.
And what I'm beginning to believe is we need to see exhibits in black and white with the actual legal descriptions of what's being talked about.
Because the exhibits are important as to what is going on in this case.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Massey.
Steve, thank you for your vigorous, enthusiastic statements on behalf of the civic association.
Mr. Massey, let's talk about the sale of the garage first.
Sale of the garage, as far as I remember, is a done deal.
And there is no serious contingencies except for closing, correct?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: They do have a due diligence period.
But the due diligence inspection rights and the rights are not contingent upon the rezoning. The time frame for closing is a fairly healthy six-month time frame for them to inspect the garages, inspect environmental conditions.
>> Just like any other real estate deal-f they try to pull out of the sale of the garage we could take them to court, for some op other reason.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Don't have the contract in front of me but they did put up a $240,000 deposit, or $290,000, they would forfeit that if they terminated the contract without good reason to do so.
What the contract provides, if title is not good you can terminate.
If the survey shows problems you can terminate.
Those sorts of things.
Without forfeiting your deposit.
But if you just want to terminate to terminate it, then they would forfeit the $290,000.
>> The other thing is, in the defense of the city in regard to what Andrea was talking about, I think one of the things the city was asking to delay the setting of this hearing was not only because of the contingent rezoning but also because there was a DRI question.
>>> There was.
>> Has that DRI question been resolved?
>>> I understand it has.
I was copied on a transmission from the development of community affairs, directed to Susan Johnson, our DRI coordinator.
>> There was some issue whether or not they were going to go over the threshold and become a DRI?
>>> It was a vested rights letter and my leading is it was all that issue.
>> And then finally in regard to the changes, that Steve was talking about, to me, we have all been following this.
I don't think there's anything new, is there?
>>> The only difference to council because of the changes that were made to the contract, we agreed to sell them only the garage building structure itself.
If they are going to move forward with their expansion plans and the lease needs to be included between the garage building and the park area, the lease of the park area, and -- that's the major change that we have asked that be made in the rezoning application, to include the garages that were being sold to them, and the areas that they are proposing to lease from the City of Tampa to expand the garage facility.
>> But everybody sort of anticipated that because the mayor carved it out of the sale of the garage.
Everybody knew that it was going to come into the next level, which would be the lease process.
>>> And we had assumed, the city staff had assumed, that you all would want to have one hearing where all those issues were dealt with, so you didn't keep hearing these issues over and over again, so that we would have the lease, and the zoning issues brought to you simultaneously.
>>> I just want to run through this.
Because I think at the end of the day the city has been treating both sides very fairly in this process, without any favoritism toward either side, allowing the process to go forward, and now we are going to have a full-blown, two public hearings on the rezoning and the lease, and that will be a about a month from now.
And I think that's adequate time, Steve, for everybody to prepare for it.
So I'm okay with it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have two dates.
We have April the 19th and April 20.
Council members, which date?
Oh, we have a question first.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I just want to make sure if we are talking now about setting a special hearing beyond our regular Thursday night that TGH is going to be ready, it's going to be set in stone, what's going to be presented that night is not going to be a fluid concept, and that all of this will be presented to the folks on Davis Island in sufficient time for them to have a meeting and for them to form an opinion about it.
Because the last thing I -- and I don't think any of us want to do -- is come to a special hearing on a Tuesday or Wednesday night, and have it continued after we hear two or three hours worth of testimony, because something has changed at the last minute.
If a month is enough time for everybody, fine.
But, you know, I agree, let's get it done with.
Let's not be changing the terms and the target as we continue to go along.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Zelman, is that time enough, the 19th or 20th to meet with the association?
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: Yes, absolutely.
We have a meeting scheduled with the Davis Island Board of Directors next week and Tampa General is actually planning another meeting to which all the neighborhood associations will be invited and we'll show all the plans at once.
As I said, we have had a number of meetings already with the Davis Island neighborhood task force and the civic association, and the chamber and so on and so forth.
We'll be ready.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Alvarez I think since we are going to do that, I think maybe the 19th would be the date to pick, because if we do it on a Wednesday, we have to come to council the next day, we don't know how long this meeting is going to take.
So I make a motion we use April 19th.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I have to provide you all with a substitute resolution, item 23 of this meeting.
I'll be happy to do that.
>> We have a motion and second to schedule the meeting for April 19th at 6:00.
Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor say Aye.
Mr. Rolando Santiago.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While we are still on that, I thought the request made by Mr. Stanley on behalf of the civic association about having very clear graphic representations of what's being proposed, where, it was a very valid request.
And I would like Tampa General to be very, you know, clear, precise and graphic in what's being proposed so that everybody can understand it.
And I really believe this is more than six weeks from today.
I think that gives us all adequate time to really think about the proposal.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
And I think that's Mr. Stanley's issue from the beginning that sometimes there is not a clear-cut concept of what's going on or what's not going on.
And it's my understanding, Andrea, that you guys have some sort of a meeting next week?
And is that going to be early enough for you to come up with all those different designs and rendering, and specifics, that Mr. Stanley had?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Assistant city attorney.
I'm here on two items.
I'll address the briefest one first.
There was a closure scheduled for a hearing next week, that's closure 04-31.
Was set by resolution 2005-101.
There was an error in calculating -- it's not on the agenda.
It's a walk-on item.
The resolution, I believe, has been delivered to council, and a copy with the clerk.
We are asking that this matter -- that this be adopted.
It will effectively rescind and reset that public hearing changing from the next week to April 7th.
It also provides for the fee, and that the city will provide notice since there was an error by the city.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: The second item is unfinished item number 12, for city staff to appear and provide a staff report regarding their review and what triggers the payment of impact fees and whether that can be modified to the city's advantage.
I have looked at that.
The first part of the answer, our city ordinance requires a payment of impact fees at the time of certificate of occupancy, when the developers are going to be at that point, that's when the impact fee is paid, and that's set by ordinance.
The answer to the second part of that question is, what can be done to modify to the city's advantage?
That's a fairly broad spectrum.
And I would answer by saying to you that the most legally defensible way is to have it as close to the relation of the action.
I.E., in review of the cases and the general principals and the law, if you put it too remote in time, it's not defensible.
What does that mean?
For example, on a rezoning, on a project that requires rezoning to exact the impact fee at the rezoning period would be too remote.
It will be problematic.
At the other end of the spectrum, to exact perhaps a certificate of occupancy, that is close in time to when the impact of that development is going to affect the infrastructure.
So somewhere between that pendulum is where you would like to be if you wanted to make a change, and you would have to find a point within that pendulum that's legally defensible.
Amongst the different areas, the trigger points, you will have the certificate of occupancy, and you have the building permit point.
A review of the local jurisdictions, we -- in southeast Florida they do it at building permit.
I did a search, and actually on a list serve and some do it at building permit, some folks do it at certificate of occupancy.
I even had one jurisdiction that did it at the time of rezoning, which I just said would be very difficult.
Because it's fact specific, I wouldn't say it's generally prohibited, because you have to look at the amount of time or the remoteness between a time of requiring an impact fee and the time is development is going to impact the development structure.
We do see it in that reasonable area within the pendulum.
We do it by certificate of occupancy.
It is legally defensible to do it at building permit.
What would be the pros and cons?
And here's where the devil is in the details.
That really is going to be more of a policy issue, because there's going to be pros and cons.
The government would like to have it as early as possible so we can start acting and building infrastructure so the infrastructure is ready to go when the development arrives.
However, the industry is then having to carry that cost.
At the end of the day that impact fee is a pass-through to the homeowners or the ultimate user of that development.
The industry will -- probably won't be too happy because they are going to have to carry that expense if you exact add building permit.
At the same time the government would like it early. The reverse is the same. The industry would like it at occupancy but then we don't get in the time to act on it.
So the legalities of it I can answer to.
Too remote, not good.
Too late, passable, perhaps not practical.
Somewhere in the middle is where you want to be.
Right now city code has it by ordinance at certificate of occupancy.
If it's council's desire to change that to something a little bit closer or earlier in the system such as building permit, it could be done.
It would, A, require an amendment to the code, and I would certainly recommend discussion with the administration and perhaps input from the industry.
It will now be more of a policy and not a legal question.
And that is all.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you had the motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern is the money that we derive from these impact fees we want to use to make improvements in the area that's going to be impacted by the proposed development.
So the earlier we get the money, the earlier we can begin to make the improvements.
So hopefully the improvements we make and the development can occur closer in time.
And that would seem to me to be the advantage of getting the money closer to the building fee time.
That's my feeling.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we should definitely workshop it.
For the same reasons Ms. Saul-Sena indicated.
I haven't decided which way I would vote on it.
But there's definitely some good arguments to at least consider changing it.
And I think it's worth doing.
Obviously, the discussion came up when we were talking about Imperial marina, and that project and the other projects are going to have a huge transportation impact in that area.
But when the COs are issued, it could be, you know, three or four years after construction, depending on the phases and that sort of thing.
And then -- and then if we get the impact fee made then we just start to address it and cot another five years before we could actually build road improvements to meet those demands.
So that's just one example.
But I think it's worth work shopping.
Not that I want to workshop us to death but I think we have to workshop it in order to get the public input.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't mind the workshop.
It's probably wise to revisit the issue.
But one of the things I would suggest -- and I'm glad Manny just walked in -- is that over the last several years, in New Tampa developments we have been requiring a fair share development which is an up front payment of what the anticipated impact fees will be.
They pay at the beginning.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Permitting or zoning?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't know.
Madhi would have to address that.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Some of the developments, they are allowed the courtesy up to a certain degree of development and then that fair share contribution is required when we hit a second phase.
It's the first 400 units.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Also, these are negotiated agreements with the developers particularly when the property is annexed into the City of Tampa so this was a contractual agreement with the developers willing to enter into for the city to annex and maid make certain agreements.
We don't have that T benefit in the built-out areas of the City of Tampa which are part of the city.
So we have an ordinance that basically is set in place.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: But if we could somehow legally do this and say instead of collecting the impact fees over time the COs are issued and things like that, we collect it all up front, now maybe we can't do that, but if the trade-off is we are not going to raise impact fees, you are going pay it all up front but not really take a serious look at raising it, I think the development community would be very much in favor of that and would probably get on board with us trying to figure out a way.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The issues under Florida case law deal with impact fees is there has to be a nexus between the fee and the development so I'm not sure if we have the basis legally to charge a fee too much in advance of the development.
It has to be a nexus, and that's why it's tied to the permitting or the certificate of occupancy.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: The fair share concept, it comes out of Florida statutes.
The impact fees are ordinance.
And the fair share contribution process allows for what Mr. Massey just identified, that we do it by contract.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Have you talked it over with Martin Shelby, this part of it here?
Have you talked it over?
Because if you haven't, maybe we could direct Mr. Shelby to go back and talk it over with you and come back, and maybe like Mr. Dingfelder said, do a workshop on this.
Because I like that middle ground that you were talking about.
It's like we haven't explored that part of it.
>>> I haven't talked to Mr. Shelby about that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For workshop, as Mr. Santiago said, it's simply a policy decision of the counsel or the administration.
Between now and the time you do that, I will work with Mr. Santiago in any way, work together to be able to move it along.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was going to ask since it was Mr. Dingfelder's suggestion to do a workshop.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Workshop day in May is May 5th and we have a 1:30 workshop.
So how about a 2:30 workshop May 5th?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Can I clarify that?
Are wet zonings on the first?
Or the third.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion, May 5:5th, 2:30.
>> Make sure we invite the builders association to participate.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Whatever staff deems appropriate.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: And that motion should probably be directed more towards the administration than legal.
At this point if the administration is going to move it up to building permit, they should be probably leading the charge.
We will be in support.
But-but that now falls into more policy than legal.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The motion is to have a discussion about moving it.
About moving it, period.
And without any specificity.
And we would ask staff to organize that workshop, and to invite the appropriate parties.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Santiago.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman.
Subsequent to our discussion in setting the hearing for Tampa General, I just want to remind us, or administration or somebody, to do it on the 19th at 6:00.
I don't know if that effects anything in terms of staff attendance but the mayor is having her town hall meeting that same night.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't have any idea.
I don't think it's been announced.
I think the location is to be announced.
But the date and time is on the 19th at 6:00.
I'm just saying, if that involves any of the staff that needs to be here and that you request to be here, we ought to give her the courtesy of looking at it and finding out if it's an issue for her.
>>GWEN MILLER: The administration, I know they are listening, would you please get with us and let us know if the town hall meeting is going to be televised and held at someplace?
Let us know, please.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just looking at our calendar -- and I believe we got the wrong dates for May and June in here.
So do you want to check on that, Sandy?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Regardless of whether it's South Tampa or anyplace else, all given our schedules and allowances if there's an opportunity to attend it, then certainly we like to be there, because there's some issues that they bring to the administration that we can weigh in on.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: There should be May 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th.
>>GWEN MILLER: You have the wrong one.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The wrong dates here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are good for now.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to ask for reconsideration?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Good morning.
I was here on behalf of George Alvarez last week.
And I wanted to request reconsideration based on a couple of different things.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which item was this?
>>> Z0-5-21, 3105 West Grenada.
This is an existing building which has -- if we can go to the Elmo for a second.
An existing building which had a photo studio and residence in it since 1983, was built that way, was originally C-2 zoning.
And in 1987, for some reason, simply looked at the building and thought it was a residence, classified it as a residential structure, making it a legal nonconforming use.
The adjoining property owner to the west testified they had no objection and were supporting the petition.
We have zero lot line construction.
This is the wall and the commercial buildings to the east.
We are directly across the street from a commercial parking lot.
This building fronts on MacDill Avenue, which is the building, if you look at the brick wall in the back, that's the eastern-most wall of the structure.
This is a better picture showing you that this zero lot line for this building abuts commercial property.
Across the street is a commercial parking lot for the offices that front MacDill.
This is a picture of the same building.
Directly behind the building are two commercial structures.
This is immediately to the north.
It backs up to the commercial structures.
The adjoining property to the north is vacant commercial, Salvation Army thrift store and parking lot to the southwest is a brand new three-story townhouse development, immediately to the west is single family residence.
And put on the record they had no objection.
Many commercial properties along this area are remodeling and redeveloping into new commercial uses.
Many commercial properties along this area of MacDill are remodeling.
Bay to Bay is a vital functioning and mixed use area.
And in support of compatible development and redevelopment efforts.
The proposed rezoning constitutes both urban in-fill and urban redevelopment and does not alter the mixed use commercial multifamily, single family character of the neighborhood.
The existing neighborhood commercial residential offices which are legally built and existing in neighborhood commercial serving commercial residential office zonings which do not comply with the locational criteria outlined in this document.
When the original plan was adopted in 1989, shall continue to be considered legal conforming uses.
And this is a report by the Planning Commission indicating they had no objection, and they found it consistent with the comprehensive plan.
No testimony was given which indicated in any respect from anyone that spoke on this matter that they had any problem with the uses.
They were concerned about the future potential use of the property.
We provided a number of conditions and restrictions to ensure that the use would not be expanded, that it could remain in effect as it was.
And we respectfully request you reconsider that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to reconsider.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion to reconsider.
All in favor?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Set it for new hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I didn't get a chance to have a conversation.
Just to refresh everybody's memory, we had a number of residents come and speak.
They said while they don't have a problem with the existing use, what this rezoning would allow is, they are concerned about something being more intense.
This had six parking spaces that were stacked.
It was paved stem to stern.
If there would be any intensification on this site people would be parking on a street which is like 19 feet wide and has no additional parking.
There was grave concern about an intensification.
And we heard from a number of the neighbors on this.
And I believe that our own staff recommendation was not to support it.
And I just caution council members that by allowing this to be reheard, we force the neighborhood to tromp down here again and state the things that they stated first time around.
I thought we had a thorough airing of this the first time.
I believe the vote was unanimously against it although I don't remember exactly.
And I just really question whether we need to revisit something that I thought was well heard, well discussed, and suitably settled.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I am just concerned as for the basis for reconsideration.
I believe the photos you saw today --.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Not the same photographs.
Others were shown but they were not as clear.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And with regard to evidence that was available at the time of hearing that had not been presented -- let me ask you this.
Is there gnaw evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing, that you are requesting reconsideration?
What is the basis of your request for reconsideration?
>>> First is the timing of the issue that came before council, it was a long evening.
There was a variety of different things.
We had added notes based upon the homeowner association's request to add notes.
They had not had an opportunity to review that site plan, and in fact told me that -- they told the council, they told you here, they had no problems with what was happening there.
They were concerned about the future.
And I just wanted to reiterate, I mean the staff had removed their objections, the Planning Commission had no objection, the neighbors had given me specific language that I added onto the site plan at the last minute, the staff indicated to you that perhaps a continuance was in order for those notes to be reviewed again by that homeowner association, and for us to formalize those instead of writing them all over the plan.
I have a copy of what we added the night of the hearing and I have a copy of what the homeowners handed me and asked me to add onto the plan.
So in fairness to the petitioner, I thought that perhaps if you would consider rehearing this, or reconsidering your motion, we would renotice the property, go back and visit with them in a more formal basis.
We were never asked to go into a meeting with the homeowner association.
They asked for a copy of the site plan but no explanation.
I asked for an opportunity to address that with them.
And that never happened.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Reiterating what Mrs. Saul-Sena said, I remember not being that tired.
The conclusion of council was that the petition didn't meet the burden and the criteria of our code for a PD approval.
And specifically -- and I'll remind council what the discussion was -- there was a lot of discussion about basically the intent was to refinance this property.
It wasn't about anything more than that.
It was about the same owner just looking to refinance.
And I think the neighborhood was very clear on pointing out that that didn't meet our burden in our code and it doesn't.
The other thing I want to point out to council -- and I don't know anything about the individuals on this parcel or anything like that.
But finality, I think, is extremely important.
We make decisions.
We keep people here.
Those people stayed until -- not only were we here, but they stayed until 11, 11:30 at night.
Don't see them in the audience today asking for this reconsideration.
And if we just start all over again, then we have no finality.
And I don't think that's fair to anybody, regardless of which side of the issue it's on.
I don't care much for these reconsiderations.
I know it's part of our process.
And we had these discussions before.
But I think finality is very, very important.
Mr. Michelini, I'm sorry for your client, and it didn't work out for him, but I can't support that because we have no finality if we keep going over and over and over the same thing.
>>> If I could correct the record.
There were other issues.
He can't obtain permits to do anything on his property because now it's a legal nonconforming --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But the intent that was stated by the petitioner and its representative was that they didn't want to do anything, he wasn't looking to change anything, and he wasn't looking for any additional permits.
That was the testimony that was in front of us that night.
>>> To expand the use, that's correct.
To expand the use.
He's not seeking to expand the use.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It sounds like there is new evidence.
I wasn't here.
And I'm happy to have a chance to listen to it.
And so I think that would be the fair thing to do. But it clearly does sound like there is evidence available here today that was not put in the public record last week.
Regardless -- maybe it was -- could have been put in the public record and just wasn't.
But we have always had a very, very loose standard for what new evidence is.
And so I think that in order to be fair to everybody concerned, we ought to give the petitioner a chance to show the neighborhood.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just to chime in on what Mr. Harrison says, I believe there is new evidence.
Besides that, this piece of property is right behind another building.
It's not like it's abutting into the neighborhood.
Even those to the west, there might be an area, you can't really tell, because there's a lot of trees from what you showed me.
I think that it would be appropriate to reconsider this and go forward.
And listen to it.
There is new evidence that's being proposed.
So, you know, we were here a long time.
I was very, very tired.
And I probably made a misjudgment at the time.
So like I said, I'm willing to reconsider.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena, do you have a question?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I was on the prevailing side as well voting against the petition.
However, I think there were some council members that were not here that did not have the opportunity to hear it.
I think that there is some testimony that it should be in consideration.
And everybody's definition of finality is different.
We have that on our agenda simply because sometimes although it appears we made the right decision and we may come up with the same decision again, but that is the opportunity from the democratic process, that if the petitioner or petitioner's representative feels there's some reason to reconsider it and submits a request to do that, then I think that's the process.
Obviously we would like to go through everything one time, like Tampa General itself, but ultimately if we feel good about the fact we either supported what we supported the first time in terms of denying it or approving it, or changing our vote, I mean, that's part of the process.
And I think a second look at anything, if there is new evidence that warrants us to do that, obviously we don't want to do it with every petition.
And that's not to say that I am not going to support Mr. Michelini's petition.
But given what he has said and given some of the issues that were discussed, I will certainly support Mary's motion to reconsider.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that maybe after this vote we should work with Mr. Shelby and clarify what constitutes new evidence.
Because I think that's important.
I think after committing the amount of time that neighbors spend in our chambers waiting to be heard on something, they need to be able to feel with some degree of certainty that unless something pretty significant is revealed in the future, that I really believe the reason that the petitioner is back today is because it was voted down, and they want it reversed, and that's it.
And people in the neighborhood should feel when they come and they organize and support something, if it is turned down, that unless something extraordinary happens, that that denial will stick.
>> Call for the vote.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Saul-Sena, I agree with you to an extent.
Yes, the neighborhood is not here because they were happy with the outcome but any given day in any particular case that same neighborhood or any other neighborhood would maybe be in support of us looking at something and reconsidering it, if in that particular issue we voted against something they wanted us to support.
So we could have a philosophical discussion about that disagreement for a long time.
But the issue is where we stand now, the petitioner's representative has the opportunity to come up and ask us to look at it.
That's all I'm committing to.
And in the future, I agree, if we change our criteria, and Mr. Shelby wants to take on that charge, I think that will be a wonderful idea.
But that's -- not the issue at hand today.
>>GWEN MILLER: We call for the vote.
A motion for reconsideration.
All in favor say Aye.
All opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, Saul-Sena voting no.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, are we finished with this one?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If I may.
Next available date that meets your guidelines for scheduling is May 12 at 6 p.m.
We only have one continued case that night so we have two open slots.
And in your motion could you state that new notice will be provided and amendment fee will be paid.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Notice --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Desiree Valdez gave me a note, Town Hall Meeting, April 18, 6 to 8, will stand as scheduled.
There are members, 15 community and homeowner associations planning to attend.
>>GWEN MILLER: So we need to -- another date?
We need to rescind that motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to rescind.
>>GWEN MILLER: To rescind the motion to meet on April 19th.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I can let Ms. Zelman know if you move it to the 20th, I can call her and let her know.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to move to the April 20th.
>>KEVIN WHITE: On the 20th is a Wednesday.
I will not be able to make it that night.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I have a suggestion.
Perhaps the following Tuesday, which would be the 26th.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, you have a public hearing that week.
It's not mine.
So that's really up to you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me check with my legislative aide to see if there's anything that effect all of us.
So perhaps the 20th --
>>GWEN MILLER: Not the 20th.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's probably important we have seven members here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Tuesday, April 26th.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'll go check.
>>GWEN MILLER: We will go to the audience portion.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to any item not set for public hearing?
And I want to say for the first time we had someone here an honored guest or speaker, which is representative Gibbons, because I know representative Gibbons way back in the day when you could call his office and get some results on any issue you was having.
And representative Gibbons stated himself, hey, look, when he got to Washington the first thing he did 34 years ago was his first year of 34 years was walk over and got some representation for the City of Tampa to make sure MacDill Air Force Base didn't close.
And the irony about that is that representative Gibbons spoke of some of the same issues that I come down here week after week and speak about but nobody listens.
Nobody listens about what goes on along Bayshore, what goes on in South Tampa, building these big ugly monstrosity of houses like over other people's houses, single-family dwelling, these big buildings they are filling Bayshore Boulevard up with.
Nobody talk about how the district or that area is represented.
And the irony with that again inside our community, inside of T African community and other communities, there's no representation.
Inside the black community says since Perry Harvey has left nobody, no person on this board has got up, on this city committee -- this City Council, no African person has stood up and spoke out for the African community for district 5 or other areas where black people live in heavy numbers, or high numbers.
Absolutely positively no one.
Last week, some teenagers was down at Fuel.
Oh, the first thing was said, oh, they should have charged them -- they should have charged the owner, or should investigate charging the owners because the police hasn't come out there.
That's the police job.
That's their job to maintain peace and security.
That's what they get paid for.
Not to sit up and do a survey, by saying -- I don't know what they be.
I don't know what they be.
But that's their job to do that. No one has ever suggested when the Glazers have a game down at the Buccaneers stadium that when you see officers all around 301 and MLK, 15th and MLK, and Himes and MLK, controlling lights and on the things helping with traffic control, that the Glazers should pay for that.
No one has suggested that.
But when it's dealing something with black people, it's the kind of hate problem.
It's skin color.
And we get no representation at all.
This mayor's budget this year was $674 million.
What representative has got up and said, hey, what of that $674 million are for black community?
Absolutely positively nothing.
We get nothing.
Oh, we get a study for this and give more police money.
We don't need any more police.
He would don't need any police in our community, period.
Because the record is not good at all.
And coming in contact with the police, go down to the black community.
Our representative stood up and stated, hey, look, the police pull some black people in their yards.
In their yards.
Yes, look at surprise or not surprising but we need true representation down here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
>>> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Moses Knott, Jr..
I resign at 2902 East Ellicott street, three nights a week.
And then I thank God for his grace and he's his mercy.
You know, that's all I got.
I tell you that all the time.
You know, that's enough.
Whoo, that's enough.
I lost love and money.
Root of all evil.
Now money pouring to me out of trees.
But I want to say amen to everything Mr. Daniel said just awhile ago.
You know, Mr. White, you got very upset with Mr. Daniel when he said something about police, now, a bad relationship between polices and black peoples.
I operate my business many, many years.
The police represent me.
They said what are you doing with all this stuff here?
What are you doing with all this stuff here?
And I'm going to switch up.
I want to thank you all.
I can always come here.
I used to come here and talk about this prayer thing, you know.
I wanted to raise hell.
Ain't got time for no preacher to say prayer.
I want to turn this place out.
But now I spoke this morning on knowledge.
You know, that's all on my mind now, knowledge.
I want to die in a wheelchair coming to this place, and go to my church to Bible study.
You know, knowledge.
She spoke about Solomon this morning, you know.
I done a lot of studying in the Bible.
Whatever you want, your heart desire, he said knowledge.
But I went on down and read a lot about this thing.
This thing got all over the world getting this knowledge and this and that.
But God put a curse on him.
But then Mr. Sam Gibbons this morning, you know, I got a thing about politicians.
I tell you, I don't trust politicians.
But Mr. Sam Gibbons, thank God I was here this morning.
You know, a lot times, the devil try to hinder me.
Hey, man, you sick, stay home.
The devil don't ever tell me to come here.
I park my car and catch the Hartline bus to get here.
And I press my way.
And anything the devil says something good always happen.
But I'm glad I heard that man this morning and got him a new wife.
Oh, I want to get a new wife one day.
And give me courage from this man.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Those photos that I just delivered to you, some of them are representatives of what was included in a letter that I sent to Mayor Freedman --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Which item are you talking about?
>>> Your workshop on the landscape.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
>>> A letter with 38 photographs detailing what's wrong with the codes for the landscaping here.
Yesterday, I was in a forum, and it was quite evident with the people in attendance that what was going on when I moved here 21 years ago is still rife today.
Now, I have photographs of landscapes where code required, and the city sanctioned the planting of live oaks under existing canopies of live oaks.
This is insane.
The one photograph there shows Steve Graham encircled as a live oak under power lines.
Next to him is Richard Bailey telling him to move the trees.
It's two blocks from where this tree is being planted.
You can see the live oaks with trunks only this big around.
They are being mutilated because of the power lines.
Now, again, yesterday's forum was a circus.
In here it says we are not going to stop people from cutting down a tree five inches in diameter.
But at ten inches you can't do it.
To make some hard, fast rule such as that is ridiculous.
In many cases what you're doing is you are growing fractions of trees, and wasting the tree's potential to provide environmental benefit.
But what I see today is the same nonsense that I pointed out.
This is a small fraction of the photographs that I have, that I consider the nonsense that deals with planting your landscape codes, the trees, up here at the Sam Gibbons Courthouse, around the sidewalk in that building, are planted sweet gums.
Now, these trees, if they are not removed before they get as large as the one that was toppled up in Sulphur Springs this past summer because of the hurricanes, people will be killed walking down those sidewalks.
These photographs that I have here detail how we have the big hallow at the base of the trunk of this tree, and how there are many branches up in the tree with diameters like this that are going to fall.
And like they say, there will be death ifs those trees aren't removed.
But your staff here cannot provide a reasonable, rational landscape code.
They ignore what these trees are genetically planned to do.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak at this time?
We now go to our committee reports.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Do you need these pictures back?
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move resolutions 15 through 19.
>> I have a motion and second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move items 20 through 22 with a substitute resolution on 23, setting the public hearing.
Did we find out the day?
>>GWEN MILLER: Tuesday the 26th.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Did you all determine the time?
>>GWEN MILLER: 6:00.
Tuesday the 26th.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: That works for everyone's calendar?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Second if there's no second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Substitute resolution for April 26th at 6 p.m. on item 23.
And move item 24.
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move items 25 through 28.
>>GWEN MILLER: Substitute for 39.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's not me.
>>GWEN MILLER: Sorry.
Motion and second.
Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White has that one.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'd like to move items 28 through 36 with a substitution for 30.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we have a memo on 29.
>>THE CLERK: You have received a memo.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 29.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Then 30 through 36 with the substitution on 30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning committee, Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 37 through 42, and 43, 44 through 46.
>>GWEN MILLER: Transportation.
>>GWEN MILLER: 43 was left out because I asked her if she would hold off on that.
43, I've talked to the city staff, and asked if we could carry that over for two weeks.
There's some language in there that I thought they should consider adding to the easement.
So I'll move for a two-week continuance on 42.
There was no oh objection from staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move 47 through 49.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Item 50, move to schedule that for April 26 at 6 p.m.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move item 51.
>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our public hearing for second reading.
Items high pressure through 7.
Need to open those.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience that would like to speak on items 4 through 7, would you please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have one to be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Since we have been people waiting for the 10:30 --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to do this first.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item 4?
We have a motion and second to close.
Mr. White, would you read 4.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move this ordinance on second reading, an ordinance repealing ordinance 9143-A, an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine 2(COP-X) for couples on the premises only in connection with a business established in that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 900 south Harbour Island Boulevard, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 3 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item 5?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm not going to support it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez, would you read 5, please.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance repealing ordinance number 2004-175 an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP-R), for consumption on the premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 4010 north Armenia Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section 3 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
And I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience to speak on item 6?
>>THE CLERK: Madam Chairman, you need to take your roll call vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Oh, vote and record.
Ms. Alvarez is throwing me off.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's the way life is.
One minute she's getting all these compliments.
The second minute she's messing up this council again.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried Ferlita voting no and Harrison being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 6.
>> So moved.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance repealing ordinance number 96-147, an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(COP), for consumption on premises and in sealed containers for consumption off premises at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 402 South Howard Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section 3 hereof, waiving certain restrictions, as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second and roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 7.
Anyone in the audience like to speak on item 7?
>> Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, would you read 7, please.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content beer, wine and liquor 3 PS in sealed containers for couples off premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1720 north Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings providing for an effective date for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Council will have a five-minute recess.
Computer needs to be reset or something.
So we'll take a five-minute break.
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to order.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response.)
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
I would like to announce again at 11:00 council will be going to break and coming back at 1 p.m.
Now we will go to item number 9.
Is there anyone in the audience that is going to speak on 8 and 9?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 9.
>>THE CLERK: You need to open the public hearing.
>> Move to open item 9.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: When you state your name, please reaffirm for the record that you have been sworn.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
I have been sworn in.
The petition is an S-1 appeal. The proposal is for an extended family residence.
The petitioner -- and there is a typo in the staff report -- the address is 218 Powhattan Avenue.
The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing detached garage to allow for a unit for their mother.
It is located in an existing accessory structure.
The unit will be -- which is a nonconform structure, does not meet the required three-foot setback from the rear property line, at 2.5 setback, four feet from the eastern side property line.
They do show on their site plan with the renovation that the AC unit will be placed in that side setback.
They are asking for a waiver of that condition under the extended family residence requirements.
And it indicates that the unit needs to be in a conforming structure.
So they are asking for a waiver of that requirement.
However, they are indicating in the submittal they are requiring with all other aspects for the extended family residence.
There was a note on the site plan that indicated that sidewalks would be required.
The applicant has acknowledged that they are going to make provisions for the installation of the sidewalks.
Staff has no objection with the proposal.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> My name is Martha Gulledge.
And I was earlier sworn in.
My mom wants to come live, and I'm going to remodel the garage for her to use it and it needs a kitchen, and I plan to put in sidewalks, and an architect is redrawing the plans to include those.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item it?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> I have a motion and second to close.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Moreda, procedurally, are we reversing staff?
Is that what this is?
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Procedurally, yes.
It's my policy if anyone as an S-1 asks for a waiver of a condition, I don't feel it is my position to grant that waiver without the public comment that's necessary, and to really get a good understanding of what the proposal is.
So I will deny all petitions that come to me with a waiver request.
So it is going to be a reversal but --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In light of the fact there's really no staff objection, no citizen objection, and having read through this it sounds like a good mission to assist your mother, in and around your home.
I'll move to reverse staff and grant this appeal.
>>THE CLERK: We will be having an ordinance for first reading.
The wrong address was reflected.
It will be come back.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open 8, please.
>> So moved.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Assistant city attorney.
I have been sworn in.
Today's hearing was scheduled as a result of an appeal filed by Sol Fleischman on behalf of Melba Harris and Laura Brodsky, appeal taken from a decision of the architectural review commission to deny the appellant application for certificate of appropriateness for a fence to be placed on the front yard of the property located at 1403 Bayshore Boulevard.
The A.R.C. voted to deny the application for certificate of appropriateness finding that the front yard fence was inconsistent with the Hyde Park design guidelines.
The record on appeal is limited to the record established during the public hearing held by the A.R.C..
Since the record is closed, any evidence or argument not presented during the public hearing held by the A.R.C. may not be heard or considered during today's appeal hearing.
The record consists of the verbatim transcript of the public hearing held by the A.R.C. on January 5th and copies of all documents admitted to the record.
I believe Mr. Fleischman has filed copies of the complete record with the clerk's office, and that each of you were provided with a copy of that.
The standard of review on appeal is a de novo review meaning that the City Council must consider the evidence as if it were the initial trier of fact.
Council is not bound by or required to give deference to the decision reached by the A.R.C..
Today's hearing will be similar to the public hearing held by the A.R.C..
It is the appellant's burden of proof to establish that the fence as presented to the A.R.C. meets the city's code as well as the Hyde Park design guidelines.
At the conclusion of the appellant's presentation, staff with the A.R.C. will make its recommendation and be available to answer any questions.
Thereafter the public including individuals who did not participate during the A.R.C. public hearing will be permitted to address council.
As with all proceedings their comment is limited to three minutes unless the speaker waiver form has been filed and they can speak up to a maximum of ten minutes.
The public is asked to limit its discussion to matters on the record since today's appeal hearing is not permitted to permit introduction of any new evidence or argument.
Once public comment is concluded the appellant is permitted rebuttal. The action taken by council includes up holding the action of the A.R.C. or remanding it or overturning it and granting a certificate of appropriateness today.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
Sol Fleischman, Jr., architects, Hyde Park Avenue, I have been sworn.
I'm representing Melba Harris and Laura Brodsky, owners of the property at 1403 Bayshore Boulevard.
And I have Melba Harris with me today.
She would like to make some comments at the appropriate time.
Is that during my presentation or during the public comment?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is she part of your presentation?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If you choose her to be part of your presentation, it would be part of the 30 minutes.
If she speaks outside of it in support of it she would have three minutes during that portion of the comment.
So it would be your decision.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 30 minutes?
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we get 30 minutes for appeal hearings?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that's just on zonings.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, let me just say that with regard to rules of procedure, rule 4-J, it said, number 2, presentation by petitioners, and their agents and representatives, in quasi-judicial hearings shall be limited to a total of 40 minutes comprised of 30 minutes for the initial presentation and 10 minutes for rebuttal.
I'd like to read the entire section.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's okay.
Just a maximum.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fleischman, would you like to come back at 1:00?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, no.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to break at eleven.
>> We break in two minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's at 11:30.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
>>John: I don't know if it makes any sense procedurally to get started in this in two minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: We would like to apologize.
We are going to give you 30 minutes.
You have to interrupt your presentation and come back and somebody is going to ask you questions.
So would you like to just come back at one and do the whole presentation without interruption?
We'll come back at one.
>> And I apologize to our audience for this.
And we will be back at one and start with Mr. Sol Fleischman first.
We are now going to recess until 1:00.