Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, April 7, 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: The meeting is called to order.
[Roll Call]
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City Clerk for City of Tampa.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I notice Mr. Harrison is not here.
Do we know where he is, or is he on his way?
Should we just wait for him for a second out of courtesy?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I remember last year you weren't here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's an important issue.
If he's in the back maybe we can call him.
Can we do the pledge or invocation?
>>GWEN MILLER: Can't do nothing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Look at the agenda, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There he is.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: My name is Shirley Foxx-Knowles, City Clerk for City of Tampa.
We will now conduct the election for chairman and chairman pro tem for the City Council.
Here are the election guidelines.
The election of the chair will be first.
Nominations do not require a second.
Please wait to be recognized before nominating a candidate.
I will open the nominations and close them after all nominations have been made.
Votes will be counted by raising the hand.
The vote will be taken in the order of the nomination beginning with the first name nominated. The vote will cease as soon as there is a majority, which requires four votes.
Having said that, nominations are now in order.
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to nominate Gwen Miller.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to nominate Shawn Harrison who is currently the vice chair because I think this council raised the idea of rotation.
Think Ms. Miller has been a fabulous chairman but I think the concept of rotating the chairmanship is an important one.
And I encourage my colleagues to support that concept.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Are there any other nominations?
Are there any other nominations?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. 'Noles, I will respectfully decline the nomination, Ms. Saul-Sena.
I appreciate it but I am currently the chairman of the MPO.
I think in order to give that position the attention it needs, this would be too much of a responsibility to take on.
So I'm going to withdraw my name from nomination for the chairman.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Miller has done a phenomenonal job and I wrote that on a memo to everybody, and I think she could continue to do a phenomenonal job as long as she wished.
But I do agree, I think that it's for numerous reasons, I think it's good form for us to continue to rotate it.
I think it's a position of honor that everybody should share.
And with that, I'd nominate Kevin White to be our chair.
I think Kevin has done a great job as finance chair.
He's shown great leadership in that capacity.
And with all due respect to our chairman, Ms. Miller, and she knows it has nothing to do with her or her capabilities, would like to nominate Mr. White.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Are there any other nominations?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You don't have to have a second.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Is there a motion to close?
All in favor of Gwen Miller, please raise your hand.
Ms. Miller has been reappointed.
Ms. Miller.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Knowles, excuse me.
May I make a comment?
I didn't think that before was appropriate in the process of voting.
And I would like to since I was the one that nominated our chairman again would like to comment to some of the suggestions.
I think Ms. Saul-Sena and Mr. Dingfelder certainly made it clear that that was their preference.
Obviously by the outcome it wasn't something that was embraced, although I can respect the reason you said that.
And Mr. Dingfelder had reference to the fact it is a privilege.
And certainly it is to lead this council.
And I think it is a privilege.
On the flip side of that, it is also a great responsibility.
And I feel that if you have someone in a position of chairmanship that exercises leadership -- and I think Ms. Miller has done that -- then there is no reason to do that via rotation.
It's via performance.
She has done a good job.
And historically my colleagues that were here the last time, if you remember, I think we had a pretty good set-up when Mr. Miranda was chairman.
And Ms. Miller was chairman pro tem for four years, I believe.
And, you know, it moved smoothly.
He certainly handled that position well.
So I don't want to discount any of the qualifications and capabilities of leadership for my other colleagues, and I certainly respect what they do individually.
I think Ms. Miller has shown us the leadership we need to keep this moving and keep our process efficient.
And with the help of Mr. Shelby, I think we have made great strides this year and I anticipate we will do it again.
So in clogs, congratulations, Mrs. Miller.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Congratulations.
>>GWEN MILLER: I'd like to say thank you to my colleagues for your vote of confidence.
I think I have done an excellent job as chairman person but I didn't do it alone.
I do it without my colleagues because without their support I could not have done the work I have done.
I have some great colleagues.
They work so hard.
We work so well together, to make sure that our constituents and all the people in the community know what is going on in Tampa, and love to live in Tampa.
And they also help us to bring other people into Tampa.
So my colleagues and I have really worked, and we want to continue to work and make sure that this is the best council in the city and in the world.
And I want to say thank you again.
And let's have a good year this year.
Let's work together like we have done in the past.
And I know we will be very good.
Thank you.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Nominations are now in order for chairman pro tem.
Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to nominate Shawn Harrison.
>> Second.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Are there any other nominations?
>> Move to close nominations.
>> Is there a motion for acclamation?
>>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
>> Would the new chairman pro tem like to say a few words?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you to my colleagues for that honor.
I have enjoyed serving along with Ms. Miller for the last year and look forward to the opportunity for next year to keep doing that.
I think we have got a good team.
Look forward to a good next year.
So thank you all very much.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Congratulations to the -- congratulations to the new chairman and chairman pro tem.
I turn the meeting over to our re-elected chair.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Congratulations.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time the chair will yield to Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It is my high privilege and distinct honor this morning to introduce my own pastor, Brian James of St. James united Methodist church.
He will give the invocation this morning.
So if we could all please stand for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
>>> Would you bow with me, please.
Gracious God, this morning we thank you for your love and for your grace.
We thank you for the opportunity to live where we live, and to have the blessings of this Tampa community.
We ask that the measured blessing of your wisdom, guidance and assurance will be poured out on those who are elected to represent us.
May you guide them as they seek to make judgments, and assess issues coming before them.
Create in them a unity of heart as they seek to serve on our behalf.
Guide them through the distractions of position or self-interest or power, under the pressures of expectations, and be their encouragement as they share in this chosen sacrifice of personal time and energy.
Make this be for them a blessed day, and make them be for us a blessing.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
At this time we go to our department heads and city employees.
>> Eric cotton, Land Development Coordination.
I have a request for a walk-on for the Latino community coalition of Florida for temporary wet zoning.
I have the application.
For a temporary wet zoning in Centennial Park for full alcohol on April 24th.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cathleen O'Dowd.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I'm with the legal department here on items 40 and 41 on the consent agenda.
These are two separate resolutions setting public hearings on a total of six plan amendments.
Large-scale plan amendments, small scale plan amendments.
Originally we were looking at a date of June 9, 2005 at 5:30. Since I have prepared these resolutions, there has been discussion in my office as well as with Mr. Shelby as to the time of these plan amendments given what occurred last time.
They went late into the evening and cut into the zoning hearings that this H been scheduled, and council went very late that night.
One thought is rather than setting these at 5:30 to go at 5678901.
We are planned to start the hearings on plan amendments after 5:00. This would allow council roughly an hour and a half to get through the six plan amendments that date.
Another alternative, I don't know if it's a popular one, would be to schedule these for a different evening than the zoning hearings are scheduled.
I'm not sure I'll get any support on that.
But in the event council is receptive to scheduling these at 5:01 rather than 5:30 I have substitute resolutions for your consideration.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that after three or four hours of sitting in hearings our decision making quality diminishes.
And based on that I would like to suggest we pick a completely separate evening.
On that Thursday we will have met from nine till who knows when in the afternoon.
And I think if we start meeting at five, and by 9:00 at night we feel like we have been here for three days.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have to agree.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: How did we get to the point where we have -- you said six land rezonings that night?
>>> Plan amendments.
I believe you have 13 rezonings on the schedule.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's sort of a cycle, I believe.
>>> The Planning Commission has four cycles throughout the year.
This is one of the cycles where they have a total of six plan amendments being filed.
They are all privately initiated land use changes.
And it's my understanding -- I don't necessarily degree with DCA's position but they have taken a position in order for the plan amendments to be considered in the same cycle, they must have the same adoption date.
That then limits us to scheduling these at the same time.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, typically, these are not as controversial as rezonings, although you never know.
And do you have any indication this particular night in sort of advance warning that we might be here for awhile just on these?
>>> Not at this point.
Normally, the first indication we get of any controversy is when these are heard by the Planning Commission.
And these are going to be heard, I believe, in May.
So by the time we submit the resolutions to schedule these public hearings through notice requirements, we don't have any advance notice of any controversial that might be associated with any of the plan amendments.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. O'Dowd, I see the administration finally heard us about doing another meeting.
And I think that's a good idea.
I have to agree with Ms. Saul-Sena.
Once we are here for -- after 10:00, we're dead.
We just can't seem to concentrate on what we are supposed to be concentrating on.
And so I think it only happens like, what, four times a year, you said?
>>> That's correct.
>> So maybe just coming in and doing it on a different day would work for me.
And I'm sure it would work for our colleagues, if we are here, say, 6:00 on another day, and -- or 5:00, whatever it is.
But the question I really had was, is there a time or a date limit that we need to do these things for the DCA?
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: We try to schedule the City Council public hearings within 30 days of the Planning Commission's hearing, just to keep them moving.
Otherwise you are going to get the cycles running into each other.
The timing that comes in to play is once they are heard by council, what occurs thereafter.
So up until the City Council public hearings there are no statutory requirements on the time.
It's just a matter of preference to keep them close in time to the Planning Commission hearings.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. O'Dowd, I was kind of clinging to one of your comments, that wouldn't be a very popular suggestion, and obviously it is popular to the right, but to the left, I would prefer to come in at five as opposed to yet another meeting.
Seems like we have had this discussion before.
I'd be curious to see -- I'm sorry?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I make a motion.
We don't have any evening meetings scheduled on June 16th or June 2nd.
So my question, Ms. O'Dowd, would the 16th be okay?
Because we have a 1:30 on the second.
Is that too far away timewise?
>>> Either of those dates would work.
All we are required to do is 30 days advance notice.
>> I'll put it up for a vote.
Maybe a Wednesday sometime?
That's okay with me.
>>> One thought with regard to change in the evening schedule is I know we have other commissions and boards that use council's chambers for evening meetings.
So we would just have to consider that as well.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I think if we look at our schedule and when we don't have night meetings, you know, we make plans on those evenings as well.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Certainly.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: If we are going to have an extra meeting, I would prefer that it stays on Thursday.
Because we all typically try to clear Thursdays.
And I would prefer that it be as close to 5:00 as possible.
So that way, if we are downtown already, you don't have to come back.
And if they are not controversial we may be out of here in half an hour for those.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: That's correct.
And the timing and scheduling these plan amendment hearings are completely within council's discretion.
So what works for council will work for us.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me make a stab at the 16th at 5:00.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: It would be 5:01.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue to June 16th at 5:01.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Actually the motion would be to direct my office to prepare the resolution for that date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion?
>>ROSE FERLITA: So that I don't appear uncooperative, at 6:00 that day I will be receiving a political leadership award from James Evans, won't be able to attend.
>>KEVIN WHITE: For the record, Madam Chair, I will be presenting that award.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: For the record, I won't be here that night either.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: That will be a problem then because it would require a majority of five.
>>GWEN MILLER: So we need to come up with another date.
You need to withdraw that motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
I withdraw the second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Withdraw the motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to chime in.
I know we had a bad experience on the last one.
And I think we had gone a number of meetings where we were able to get through them within an hour, hour and a half.
So I think we should give it a try on the 5:01 for the date scheduled, see how it goes.
>>> CDBG hearing that night.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez and I won't be here that night.
>>> The small scale plan amendments require approval by five members.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But if one person dissents, then that's a problem.
How about on the 26th of May?
At 5:00?
So we do it at 5:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: 5th 01.
I'll be here.
May 26th.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, I will be here.
Madam Chairman, just a comment back to Mr. Dingfelder.
One of those rare occasions that I agree with you, Mr. Dingfelder, I think last time we had some problems and some concerns and dragged it out.
But typically the time that we consume on this is not anywhere close to the CDB issues and we run those the same time as a regular night.
I think a regular night council will probably work and would support it.
And I think we'll have enough people here.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Vote that we do it May 26th and direct the staff to come up with a resolution.
All in favor.
At 5:01.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.
Mr. Steve Daignault.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator, public works and utility services.
I'm addressing item 14 which is the Palm River utilities area.
Palm River area and issue of utilities.
I provided you a read-ahead and given you some maps.
I would like to kind of walk through those various maps.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: This is item 14, right.
With the handout.
We can look at the Elmo.
This is the area that we're talking about.
And in your handout there was an item like this, and with a pink line.
The pink line shows the city limits, which are on this map shown in yellow.
And then it shows the city service area outlined in a blue-green sort of color.
Down here it shows the city utility boundary.
It has this jog in it.
That jog area was previously owned and operated by a private company.
It was Florida water services.
And the county bought that service and that system.
So that system is currently operated by the county.
Those people do have services.
I'd like to then focus a little closer into that area.
On the Elmo you can see that jog area again.
What we're showing here is the blue, water mains and the red, and there is some green in there.
It's hard to see.
Our sewer force mains.
They are significant pipes.
So we have a significant water and sewer infrastructure already in the ground in this area.
However, the significance here is that these are not the lines that people would connect to.
These are the mains.
There would still have to be a smaller, local collection and distribution system installed for individual residences and commercial establishments.
So while we have a large capability and a large amount of infrastructure already in the area, it's not ready yet to serve.
There's not enough system yet installed to serve individuals.
To provide that local distribution and collection would require that the property owners pay for that, contribute -- pay for that.
There's been a couple of ways that we have done this sort of thing in the past.
One of the ways that doesn't fit this situation very well is if you have a large -- let's say if a developer came in in one spot in the middle and he wanted to put in most of the infrastructure and we had to run a line out to them, he would pay for that.
And then people could attach to that subsequently.
More appropriately, in an area like this would be an assessment sort of arrangement where you would determine the area to be served, and you would determine the cost, and then all of the property owners would pay based on some sort of geographical determination, whether it be frontage, or by total square area of their property.
It would include all of the property owners, both those that are currently developed and those that may be currently undeveloped.
There is a little bit of a problem there in that the problem there is since this area is outside of the city limits, it is not within -- at least I do not believe it's within our capability to impose this assessment.
It would require that the county impose the assessment.
So we would have to have an interlocal agreement with the county for them to impose the assessment, us get the money, us then install a distribution collection system.
There have been some comments made, if the city is not going to give us the service they need to give this area back to the county.
The reason that's not necessarily a better deal is the county would do the exact same thing that we would do.
They would require an assessment or some sort of payment by the residents, again property owners.
The problem that the county would have, again looking at this second map, is because we have so much infrastructure in there, the county would also have to figure out a way to buy our infrastructure, if they were to take over that service area.
So again I think there's a little bit of a problem there.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
You really provided us with valuable information.
The reason that I brought this up is that a main road through here, the causeway, 27, is being widened and improved, and it seemed to me that while the road was torn up it was a great opportunity to put in some of those lines.
And that's why I asked you to do this research.
It's one of these situations where the infrastructure is very expensive, and ultimately it will be a good investment.
But where do we get the money at this point to make that investment?
So I can't see, you know, given the tightness of our budget and all the commitments we already need to meet and make, I can't see our expanding this at this time.
But I think that we should keep this in some kind of file where we go back every couple years.
Particularly it's state or federal dollars would be available to help offset some of the costs to the individual property owners.
If you want to look at this map, you can see all of the McKay Bay and Palm River waterfront that's currently on septic tank which means -- it just doesn't seem like a very responsible way for us to be -- you know, this used to be sort of back water, and suddenly we approved 900 units on the other side of the bridge.
I do believe that this area will be developed in residential uses as well as industrial.
And I think as this redevelopment and reinvestment occurs, we should come back perhaps in a year or two and take another look at the opportunities to serve these people, who really don't care if it's city or county, they just want some service.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, thanks for this presentation.
I think the bottom line on this, and this is spelled out to a certain extent on the memo from Hillsborough County, dated to the Board of County Commissioners to the staff that you gave us, and there they indicate that they could -- the county could and the county does have the opportunity to establish one of these infrastructure improvement units for special -- or special taxing district, I guess, for the folks there.
And I think the other bottom line from our respect respective is we are sort of the wholesaler in terms of water and wastewater.
We are in a position just like we do in town and country and the unincorporated parts of New Tampa to provide these services as the wholesaler, but the county needs to step up perhaps as the retailer for these folks.
Is that pretty accurate?
>> Have we had any meaningful dialogue with county staff on this?
>>> We have met with their water department director Paul Vanderpluf and he reaffirms that they would approach this the same way that we would.
He also agreed with us.
We're hard pressed to find any federal or state money for utility expansions, typically all of the areas where we have growth and expansion, the developers are putting those in and the people are paying for it either in the price of their home or paying through it -- for it through some sort but there's some method that the residents or property owners make.
>> The bottom line is these are county residents.
We have for whatever historical reason, we are out there to service as the wholesaler, and we'll be glad to step up and work with the county to do whatever we can.
But I think since they are county residents the county should do it.
>>> And we are absolutely ready to move forward with that process.
Again the funding is the issue that needs to be resolved.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Daignault, we were talking about the interlocal agreement.
I thought we had an interlocal agreement with the county to work on this issue.
Second of all, Ms. Saul-Sena mentioned the Causeway Boulevard and the widening of causeway.
One of the things that you cross the causeway when you start going into that area, the lack of infrastructure and the services out there is what's stagnating the growth as well out there.
Developers are ready, willing and able to come in, and what a better time to develop it when you're doing your expansion in your road widening.
And I think the city and county need to some way expeditiously try to come up with a plan to try to work together and get this resolved.
Because there's no sense in tearing up the roads again trying to put in infrastructure afterwards, tearing up the roads and widening now, because it's only going to cost us double.
And maybe one other alternative which some of the residents mentioned out there in that area that I've talked to, why -- well, it's not us necessarily, it would have to come from the res dependents.
But since we are already out there, we are already servicing that area anyway, maybe look at the possibility of annexation.
>>> The utilities department isn't the annexation --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I understand.
I'm just regurgitating what some of the residents told me.
>>> Yes, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I agree 100% with Mr. White on that issue.
And it seems like if this has potential for further development, and it sounds like it does, as long as the infrastructure is there, then we ought to take a serious look at annexation.
And of course we have to sell that to the residents out there.
But if they are asking for it, we ought to, at a minimum, do a study on the pros and cons of it.
We did that for the Pebble Creek and cross creek areas of New Tampa several years ago.
And who would we direct that to, Mr. Daignault?
>>> Well, I believe the economic development part of the city, mark hue Y's area, annexation discussions originate.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Harrison, I completely agree.
I'm just worried about the number of major projects like our CRA areas that they are trying to get the plans up and running for.
I just wonder if the timing of this.
I think this is something we could put off a year or so and it would still be on timely, still be on septic tank out there.
I'm so concerned that we get the projects that are in the pipeline now completely or at least implementation phase before we commit that department, which is so overwhelmed right now, to another very large complex study.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Maybe we can have --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So I would like to support with the idea we put it on the agenda a year from now.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Maybe encourage the county to do that, to see if their residents are interested.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just to piggyback on what's been said so far, have the property owners in that area been talked to and to see if they agree with maybe paying their pro rata share of the connection fees and so on?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: In about June of 2003, Mr. Metcalf and Mr. Bennett went out and met with them.
Subsequent to that, they did -- talked to their commercial and residential folks.
And in a select area, along causeway and the select residential area, out of about 75 commercial, there were about 24 people that indicated that they would be interested in having utility services, and out of about 125 or so residential folks, again about 25 folks said that they would be interested.
Unfortunately, that doesn't approach the 51% of all the property owners in an area that you would need on an assessment.
Certainly they could probably work on that.
And it is important again that they remember that it's all property owners even for undeveloped properties, because if we put in a utility collection or distribution system in front of their property, their property is benefiting, and they would be assessed.
So again, it's important to get all of the property owners involved in that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I don't think that we should stop the dialogue because the county and the city, because I think eventually, and like my colleagues said, I think annexation will happen.
It may not happen in two or three years.
But it will happen because I believe that area is prime for growth.
And we want to do everything that we can to help them out.
And if the county can't help them with their water and sewer lines, then we certainly can go in there and help them.
But of course we need that interlocal agreement.
But I would like for you all to continue the dialogue with them and see how far we can go with this thing.
And then not in a year or two but give Mr. Huey time to recoup himself with all the CRAs that come out.
But I think within a year or so, year and a half or so, I think all the CRAs will finally be online, and we will be -- he'll have more time to devote to doing annexation plan.
So I would like for you all to continue the dialogue.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I was just going to suggest that we go ahead and ask the administration to take a look at the pros and cons of annexation.
And certainly there doesn't have to be any commitment made.
Just look and see if it's something in the future they may be interested in and report back to us in 90 days.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
[Motion Carried Unanimously]
Ms. Cathy Coyle.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
Before I rehash the rezoning, I would like to just put on record that Mr. Santiago is here with the ordinance for the vacating of Eunice Avenue, ZO 4-147.
It was placed on your pending calendar.
They had some issues with vacating easements and everything are drawn up correctly.
I just want to remind you which case this is.
If you look at the area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This has been awhile.
>>> It has been awhile. This is the property directly across from the forum.
They were doing a high-rise development with approximately 870 residential units.
I do need to note for council that following that hearing that afternoon I did receive an e-mail from Dave Riley with the Parks Department.
And it had appeared that there are two grand trees on-site.
And one of them had been pruned that is considered an effective removal.
And we are going to show you pictures really quick.
>> Assessed?
>>> Committed on the site plan to contribute to the tree trust fund for the replacement at $6600.
They will be going to the Code Enforcement Board as well for the code enforcement action for the finding for removing the tree.
You are not granting a waiver for the removal of the tree because they will be following up with code enforcement process.
I just want to put these pictures so that you can see the extent.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's crazy.
>>> I will pass them around.
This is the view downtown.
And that's the broader view picture.
There were three large arms coming out of the tree and they trimmed the one that faces south towards the building.
I will let Mr. LaRocca go into detail how and why, but I will submit these to the clerk for the record.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you pass those around, Sandy?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
This particular rezoning is accompanied with a vacating.
That vacating is C-04-34.
Watts last before you on January 28th.
At that time, when the vacating first came before you the request was to vacate all the other side.
That was the discussion on the 28th.
However, on the record, the petitioner brought forth that they don't really need the entire road to be vacated, only that parcel, that part of the road that's going to effectively be under a span going across the road for parking in the residential units.
Council at that time directed us to go ahead and get that sorted out.
You had seemed primed to approve the vacating once we get some of those issues resolved, and back to you.
The issue with you regard to what portion is going to be vacated that the point is just this portion which is approximately 109 by 60 feet.
109 long, 60 wide, the ordinance that I have got here is precisely for that area.
It also contains the easements.
Ms. Saul-Sena, you asked about bricks.
We do have our standard brick provision in here.
We also ask them to maintain the right-of-way.
There is a transportation easement under the span.
They are going to have a 30 foot clearance from grade to the bottom of the span.
It also provides that they are going to agree to relocate some facilities.
Upon relocating those facilities, then the required height will go down to 21 feet.
If they don't dot, it stays at 30.
All these provisions are in the ordinance.
And we will be happy to answer any questions.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So where is the tree in relationship to this map?
>>> I don't know the answer to that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd like somebody on staff to show me.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It's on the south side of the parcel.
Approximately here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They were going to do a courtyard around the tree or something.
>>> It's part of their public open space, correct.
They did commit on the plan to have an arborist and Dave Riley and Steve Graham with our Parks Department, they are going to go try to stabilize the tree to actually keep it on-site because they have designed the building a round it.
However, per our standards it is effectively removed.
So they will be entering into a maintenance agreement and stabilization plan.
However, it is removed per our code.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just as a follow-up.
This is one of those blatant --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Butcheries.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And frankly could be referred over for misdemeanor.
We could do that right now.
Not any change in our code.
The current code is if you violate our code knowingly then you can be referred over for second degree misdemeanor.
That's what our code says, I believe.
If staff wants to confirm that.
But I believe that's the way I've heard it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Santiago, yesterday I attended a walkable communities workshop.
And it was so worthwhile and great.
One of the punch lines for downtown and the Channel District and our entire community is connectivity.
And I'm very concerned about pedestrian connections, particularly as our population build up in this area people are going to need to walk.
Do we have a commitment by the developer there will be pedestrian-safe walkways to allow people to get east to west?
I need to know if there are walkways.
>>> Page 3 is a public transportation easement that will cover the length of the right-of-way being vacated for public and vehicle access.
>> But does it define the width of the pedestrian access?
And does it say that it will be like separated from vehicular traffic so it will be safe and it will be attractive and all that?
>>> It doesn't go into that level of depth.
It merely reserves a transportation easement for what is right now a right-of-way.
>> Can we add detail to that?
Or is it on the site plan?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
It is covered in the CBD-2 process, the site plan control end of it.
But you still have to meet the streetscape, pedestrian improvements per the central business district guidelines.
It is shown on the site plan.
In this particular area, you can see this box is the vacated portion.
The sidewalk is just continuous the whole way through except for the driveways.
>> Except for the driveways which are approximately a third of that.
I just want to make sure that it is really safe for pedestrians.
But you're saying that they are going to put back the brick, which helps.
Are there any representatives of the petitioner here who could speak to this issue?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I defer to them. That is all.
>> Gardner, South Franklin Street.
The architect is here and he can probably address it specifically.
John LaRocca is the planner.
He is at the Tampa downtown partnership meeting but should be here in ten minutes or so.
But if you want to hear particulars on the streetscape plan, perhaps Jeff can answer those right now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's supposed to be some discussion on the tree.
Were you doing that?
>>> In conjunction with the arborist and John LaRocca.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we just set this aside until he is here?
>>> That would be great.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Actually, here's John now.
>>GWEN MILLER: He's come now?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I restate my question?
Hi, Mr. Larocca. Welcome.
We have a question for you.
In the vacation request, I want to make sure that the pedestrian connectivity there are safe given of the 60 feet we are vacating it looks like 30 of the 60 feet are driveways and I want to make sure it's safe for people and the sidewalks are wide enough and marked clearly.
I need some reassurance.
>>> Sure.
And we fully intend to comply -- I'm John LaRocca, consultant agents for the petitioner.
We intend to comply with all aspects of the city's design standards for that pedestrian access, and wherever in the final design we can comply with even expanding those sidewalks and those pedestrian access, we intend to do that.
>> Specifically I saw a draft of the plan that the Planning Commission did of downtown transportation planning and they are recommending that sidewalk widths be increased from five feet, which is pitiful, from eight to twelve.
>> I believe in some instances our sidewalks are 15 feet.
>>> That's great.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We saw some lovely pictures of this tree that Ms. Saul-Sena says is, quote, butchered.
They are hacked up pretty bad.
Are you or your arborist here to talk about that?
>>JOHN LaROCCA: I don't believe our arborist is here today but one of the things we have done is addressed the issues in terms of the tree's sustainability and protection by put ago note on the site plan.
>> Do we have any idea when, why, who did that?
>>> Quite honestly, I can't tell you why it was done.
>> Who owns the property now?
>>> The property is owned by Channelside Development LLC.
It is my understanding that one of the property representatives, after the hurricanes, caused the tree to be trimmed up.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Trimmed is not the -- I'm sorry.
>>JOHN LaROCCA: I don't have a good reason or explanation for it other than it was done.
It was never intended to be removed.
It was a mistake. And we as consultants to the ownership group have tried everything to maintain the sustainability and protection of that tree.
I wish I could give you a better explanation as to why it was done.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we know who the tree company was that did it?
>>> We can pull those records but based on the tree trimmer who did that.
>> I think that would be valuable to the city because that company might also be liable under our tree code.
>>> That is information that we can pull and have available, and certainly will do whatever we need to do to make it better.
Let's put it that way.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena, do you have some questions?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After we address the vacating, I think we should address the tree problem.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If you do move to approve this be sure to read the vacating first.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you like to read this?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Do we close it?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance in closing an easterly known as Eunice Avenue between Morgan street on the west and Jefferson street on the east, in Hendry and knight's map, Tampa, Hillsborough County, the same being more fully described in section 2 reserving certain easements and conditions providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not going to support the motion today.
I think that there's a pending issue out there relating to this tree.
The tree issue is going to go to Code Enforcement Board, it's going to go to staff for determination about penalties, et cetera.
And I think the people shouldn't be rewarded with vacatings and grantings of city property when they otherwise perhaps flaunt a different part of the city code so I'm not going to support it.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
>>THE CLERK: Alvarez and Saul-Sena and Dingfelder no.
>>ROSE FERLITA: To the contrast, gentlemen, this is directed exactly to you, not that you had anything to do with it in terms of representation, but I would certainly be supporting Ms. Saul's opinion and Mr. Dingfelder's.
But it is unfortunate that this happened.
Because it's, well, if we can't beat the system we'll show the is system how we are going to beat it.
Clearly if I thought you had ethics and standards that would condone and support or in any way be involved with that, my support --
>>> I can speak for John and I, we agree 100%.
And not only is it unfortunate.
It's completely nonsensical.
Because the plan was designed specifically to keep the tree.
And it's still the same plan.
But obviously with a much smaller tree.
And so we wholeheartedly agree that it's unfortunate.
And I apologize even though we had nothing to do with it.
But we were just as shocked and appalled as you all are.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I thought but that's why I wanted it odd record.
Thank you, gentlemen.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder was correct, the City Council does have the ability to address the tree issue as a civil matter.
And because we have -- if you all look at the Channel District, with the exception of Shelby park, we have no open public space so the trees are really critical and I truly believe that you weren't informed about it but being able to tell that arborists act responsibly, and hiring a arborist is key.
So I would like council to direct legal to pursue the tree removal as a civil matter.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That we would ask staff to explore the possibilities --
>> the legal department to look into pursuing the tree removal.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Especially as relating to the tree company that may have done this in the middle of the night or a Saturday or Sunday.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Or perhaps without a license.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's wholly appropriate.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Only if it's the tree company, I wholeheartedly believe that Mr. Gardner and Mr. --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, the tree company.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or the property owner.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, we don't know that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If it's a property owner, they'll say it's the property owner's.
>> Tree company didn't come out there for free.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would support if it's against the tree property, and the property owner as you said.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we know who the tree company is?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have asked Mr. LaRocca to try to find out.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. LaRocca, we are not going to get pictures back of you with a chain saw?
>>JOHN LaROCCA: I want to concur that we were as surprised as everyone involved in this has been, and it was a disappointment on my part.
We will do whatever we can to provide the data that's needed once this thing moves forward.
As indicated, it was nonsensical.
It was not necessary.
We weren't trying to remove the tree.
We designed the project around the tree.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You showed a lovely courtyard.
>>> When we discovered that was done it was as much a shock to us as it was the staff that was involved with it.
So we understand.
We are trying to do from our advisory standpoint everything that we can to provide sustainability of what is left, obviously.
We want to make sure that it's protected.
It lives and it accomplishes what it's supposed to accomplish within a courtyard.
Obviously in terms of code enforcement action and of the action that council has just taken, we will do whatever we can to provide that information to the staff.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You already said they paid the fine, or they paid into the tree trust.
So from the civil standpoint, everything has been done that can be done from the council's perspective.
And it's my understanding of the motion -- okay, is that not true, Cathy?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
$6600 that they are paying is for the replacement of the trees.
When you remove a grand tree you have to do an inch by inch replacement.
A 2 inch tree, that came out to $6600 because they charge $300 per tree. The fine through the code enforcement is a completely separate action.
The finding for removing without permits.
So that hasn't been determined at this point.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that what we are asking to be pursued?
Or criminal?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Criminal.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: At least staff explore the possibility.
Mr. Massey told us on numerous occasions that any intentional violation of city code is potentially a violation of a second degree misdemeanor.
I believe that's the case.
Mr. Massey might want to confirm that.
All I'm saying is if we are now faced with ablate ant violation of a city code in the form of a tree code, then we would ask staff, speaking for Ms. Saul-Sena's motion, we ask staff to at least explore it and get back with us and tell us what they are doing in regard to the possible referral of this matter to the state attorney's office.
We can't, as a city, we can't criminally prosecute it ourselves.
We refer it to the state attorney's office and go from there.
And I think this is appropriate.
This is one of those classic situations where somebody has done something in the dark of night, for whatever peculiar reason.
And I think we should at least get down to the bottom of it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't have any problem with the investigation.
But as the legislative branch of city government, we also do not enforce the ordinances, that we ought to be asking the administration to conduct the investigation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Was that stated in the motion, Mrs. Saul-Sena?
And let clarify something else.
It seems to me, because I believe you all, I think that you might want to go after this tree company, too.
Because it's damaging a significant asset that you have spent not only design dollars on but part of the premise of your design is based on if this tree goes, it's going to take a long time.
I mean, it's really hard to replace something that provides that ambience and shelter.
So you might join the state in pursuing this against the tree company.
>>> I agree there.
And Ted Kempton is our arborist and he seems very confident the tree can be saved and hopefully it will stay.
Obviously it's a lot smaller than we would like it to be, and as a city.
But I believe the note in the site plan is kind of a worse case scenario, let's go ahead and deem it to be effectively removed, and then we'll follow this all the way down to the code enforcement.
But from what we are hearing, the tree can be saved, and they are confident of that, and Dave Riley feels the same.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want the motion re-read or restated.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion was that we request the legal department and the administration -- well, I thought that was given -- to explore the potential for criminal charges against the tree company who effectively removed this grand tree.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Possibly the property own er? Somebody paid the tree company for removing it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They'll come back and say whether the tree company can be held or the property owner.
I'm not sure how this should be pursued and I leave to the our legal department to come back to us with a region that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question on the motion?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I can't support it because I still don't understand it.
We are asking the administration or asking legal to directing somebody.
I think we are getting out of the purview of what we are supposed to be doing.
Not to be misconstrued as concern for trees that are mistreated like that one, but I'm not sure that we should be directing counsel or the administration to do that.
When we hear about people dumping trash in alleys and that sort of thing, we all get very upset about it and we direct, you know, the TPD and code enforcement and everybody to look into it and things like that.
This is the same kind of motion.
You know, we have been advised and shown pictures of somebody who has blatantly violated by cutting down a significant portion of this tree.
And that's what we are doing, is asking staff and legal to look into what they are going to do about it.
In this case it's a possible reference to criminal prosecution.
I think it's important that we show that we are serious about this tree code.
Otherwise, for $6,000 or $15,000, they are just going to continue to flaunt the tree code.
And if that's what we want, let's just get rid of the tree code because it's meaning HRS.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chair, speaking for myself that's obviously not what I want.
Ms. Saul-Sena went through a lot of trouble to recraft and revise the tree ordinance.
I'm simply state field goal we are going to ask somebody to do this that we ask the administration to look at it but now we are engaging the attorney to represent the petitioner and everyone else.
Pretty soon we will have a vigilant of tree cops out there they're looking for people.
Just simply said, if it was a simple motion that said ask the administration to look at this and see what can be done, I'll certainly support it. But with all the other --.
A simple motion asking the administration to look at this and see if it can be done.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And not because I don't respect your respect for trees, but it's becoming too convoluted.
Ask them to do it just like I have said many times.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I know that they would.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If that's how you are restating it I'm certainly in support of it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there another question on the motion?
Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
I might remind council to read the ordinance for the rezoning.
Have not approved it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Rezoning is attached to that item.
>>THE CLERK: The one that's on the agenda has the correct site plan.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 422 Channelside Drive, the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications CBD2 vacant land and warehouse to CBD2, high-rise multifamily restaurant providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, no.
>> Karen Palus: I have two items to discuss with you this morning. The first item I wanted to address is item number 24, regarding the schedule of fees for the city marinas.
We are requesting a walk-on substitute document for this item.
However, that is the item that you all received, that I provided you, and that you were briefed on this week.
However, at this time we would like to request a continuance of this item for two weeks.
We believe there may be some of ours that are unaware this item is coming to council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved for continuance on item number 24, two weeks.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>> Next item is unfinished business number 12.
This is in regards to the code revisions for chapter 16.
Just want to reiterate a couple items that we discussed previously. The dog park language was added to the ordinance in March of 2001.
And this particular code has been under revision with our department.
Basically over the past year.
But when my involvement became was in November when legal and staff reviewed all of the items within chapter 16 and determined it needed a full revision at that time.
We had planned on bringing all of the items together.
However, because of the issues that were raised with the dog parks, we felt it was important to separate it out and allow the public the opportunity to present their ideas and address those issues with council.
We are asking that you amend the chapter removing all of the dog park criteria, the reason being that we don't normally codify any of our park amenities, our playgrounds aren't cod I if I had, our skateboard parks, our ball field aren't codified.
We don't have specifics on size of playgrounds, type of trash cans, those type of things throughout any of our other park amenities.
You also asked me to give you an update in regards to the Palma Ceia dog run.
I apologize for being out ill when you requested my presence.
Just to reiterate, we did meet with the community on March 17th.
And we had about 70 people in attendance at that meeting.
One of the things that we did was presented three options so that the individuals had the opportunity to speak in regards to those options.
We can kind of hear the direction where the group is going.
One was to close the particular dog park at that site.
One was to leave it as it is.
And the other was to relocate it to the back of the park property and parallel to the Crosstown and the CSX railroad that's there.
According to the meeting, we heard from many differing views of opinions regarding the dog park, stay, go, issues that they had specifically, issues that we might be able to address.
And I do have copies of the minutes available if you would like those.
Based on those comments of the meeting, approved the potential relocation of that dog park on that site, and I'll share with you that particular map.
That could potentially minimize many of the concerns that were addressed at that meeting.
We have not made a decision at this time.
We are still addressing some of the transportation issues and items, as well as continuing to monitor the facility in its current state.
Just to give you a quick little show -- and if I could go to the Elmo real quick.
This is the property line you all are familiar with, with the dog park entrance here.
And all the activities occurs right here at this point.
The park property.
The redesigns have been presented.
This is the redesign where this is the entrance here, pulls all the activity of the dog park to this back portion of the property, the furtherest point away from any of the neighbors surrounding it.
We discussed opportunities for landscape bufferings and such, and working with the community on the final decision.
Obviously funding is an issue.
Again no decision has been made at this time.
But we did that present that to the committee.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could mention real quick, perhaps it's a trivial issue.
But if we go to this plan, the trees that are in the open play area, make sure that the new trees -- make sure we pick them up and so the boys and girls have a place to openly play ball and stuff like that.
>>> Yes.
And trying to relocate those.
And we typically can do that very easily.
One of the elements that was mentioned as well was to raise the height of the fence on the dog park, dog run area to a six foot high fence for safety and security.
So we will address that in funding on items.
Again no decision.
Just wanted to brief you all on what was presented to the group that night.
Again we had a great turnout.
Again, differing views.
>>GWEN MILLER: Another question, Mrs. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So what you want from us today is to amend the language on the dog park ordinance?
>>> Yes.
We are requesting the language be amended removing all the dog park criteria.
Again as I mentioned we don't typically codify those within the dog park property.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Motion to amend the language in the ordinance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Mr. Shelby.
Question on the motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Normally I understand the procedure is when there's an ordinance of this nature it's passed on first reading and the public hearing is scheduled two weeks subsequent.
My understanding is that there are people present today who wish to address that, and whether council wishes to hold this till after perhaps public comment, or to perhaps open the floor now to hear from people if it's council's pleasure to do so.
My understanding is there are people who wish to speak.
>>GWEN MILLER: Why don't we let Ms. Palus give her presentation first.
>>> That's it unless you have additional questions for me.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on the dog park?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: They are limited to time of three minutes?
>>GWEN MILLER: They have three minutes to speak.
>>> Good morning, council.
My name is attorney Brandon Callville.
I work with Luke Lirot's office and we represent several clients who weren't able to be here today.
Who wanted to speak on this issue as far as considering amending the dog park ordinance.
For the record, those clients we are speaking for are not here present would be Diane Bilazo, Richard and Debra Morty and Virginia Vickers.
Each of these people live in close proximity to the park located at Palma Ceia, which has been a focal point of a lot of the discussion as far as whether or not to change the ordinance or what to do about your ordinance.
Our clients wanted you to understand that even though they have been vocal about closing down the dog park at the Palma Ceia location, they are not interested in having the ordinance changed.
It's their belief that the ordinance is fine the way that it is.
The ordinance as it stands on the books requires an acre of property for a dog park.
And it requires for there to be adequate parking available.
The existing ordinance takes into consideration everything that you should take into consideration when you're having an area where animals are going to be able to run loose.
The city doesn't regulate the size of trash cans or how much area you have for kids to play.
But the city also doesn't consider children public nuisances.
In other parts of the ordinance, the city refers to animals, particularly our dog kennels, where you would have a large congregation of animals as public nuisances.
For that reason my clients feel that it's very well thought out to codify and give specific restrictions to where you can have an open dog park.
The area provided for in the ordinance allows for the Department of Health considerations, transportation considerations, the larger area even allows for more design considerations.
There has been some suggestion that some people prefer the smaller parks to larger parks because they can be closer to their dogs as opposed to larger parks, and let their dogs run, on an acre park where you are required to have an acre for the dogs to be in, and you are required to have the six-foot fence which has been suggested to add to the Palma Ceia park.
You can design areas in there that that community around that park want in there.
If they want tighter areas, where the owners can play more intimately with their dogs, or large areas, where larger dogs can run, that can be accomplished in the acre requirement.
My clients wanted to make sure that you understand that even though they are opposed to the roughly half acre park at Palma Ceia, they are not asking you to do away with dog parks and they are not asking you to do away with the site requirements that are there.
The ordinance is fine the way it is.
(Bell sounds)
Their concern is that it simply be enforced the way that it is, the same way that you would want to enforce your tree ordinance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Well, I certainly having spoken before you on this issue want you to understand that the one acre is not arbitrary.
>>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record please.
>>> Hillary Frank Robin, San Nicholas.
The proximity of putting dog parks so close to where children play is not a safe thing to do.
It creates multiple issues.
I will address one issue that Ms. Palus showed in the reconfiguration of the dog park, that there continues to be a common entrance for the children as well as the dogs that. Has already been shown to be a problem because one child has been bitten, in that situation at this playground at this time.
The children and the dogs should not enter through one location.
You have very large dogs being brought to these dog parks.
And that creates quite a safety issue for the children.
The other thing is, this playground has not opened yet.
It has been going on for almost -- over a year in its construction and we don't even know the full impact on the neighborhood when the playground, in addition to the dog park, is open.
You have taken a 1.7-acre playground, put a dog park and a playground on it, and it's too high a concentration of traffic for the neighborhood.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, point of order.
I think I have a point of order that might take precedence and is probably the same thing that you all are talking about.
I thought we opened up the discussion to specifically address the ordinance that's in front of us and the ordinance is a very general ordinance about dog parks generally not about Palma Ceia dog park.
And I think that, Madam Chair gave the community an opportunity to speak to the ordinance, generally about dog parks as opposed to specifically about Palma Ceia or any other particular dog park.
So I have a problem with that.
I don't know if legal has a problem with that or not.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: As a matter of fact, the subject before council is specifically the ordinance, not the specifics of any particular dog park or particularity of any particular issue that may be somewhat related.
I want to reaffirm that council does also have rule 4-I, which states the chairman shall rule out of order any discussion by City Council matters that are the subject of any litigation.
It's my understanding there is litigation relating to some issue relating to Palma Ceia dog park. The issue before council is specifically of this particular general ordinance, and it would be appropriate for the chair to --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you understand?
>>> I understand that.
And in regards to that I will say that one-acre issue was not arbitrarily done.
You go back to the discussions of the dog park that occurred on Davis Island.
That's where this discussion came.
As I understand, five of you members were serving on the council at that time.
The discussion was not arbitrary.
One acre was discussed.
There were facts and issues that led this council to support a code that allowed for one-acre dog park at that time.
I would recommend that the council go back, find whatever information pertains to that discussion that occurred, and not look at this as an arbitrary figure.
And in that regard, I appreciate your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> My name is Elizabeth Smith.
I live at 2907 west San Carlos street.
I have owned this home for about 17 years.
I'm a fifth generation Tampa native.
I tell you this because I want to emphasize that my family grows up here.
We sometimes move away but we always come back home.
If you change this ordinance, it will effect the Palma Ceia playground.
It will affect every small neighborhood playground in the city.
You put our children, I feel, in jeopardy.
There's more traffic.
There's more parking issues.
There's new parking spaces on Marty which just plain jeopardize the lives of all of our residents, and particularly our children who can't gauge the speed of oncoming vehicles.
With summer fast approaching can you guarantee that the summer rains will not wash the dog feces and urine into the areas where our children are going to throw football, Frisbees, try to catch a baseball?
If not you are not placing very much challenge or our children.
We tell our kids they need exercise.
I feel strongly this is important to their health and well-being, as a good night's sleep or healthy diet.
Yet we are not giving them a safe place to do this adequately.
I don't feel that we should be subjected to all of this when there are other viable options such as an underutilized park on Swann and Hyde Park.
It's premature to change the code without understanding the full impact on hour neighborhood.
And you won't have all this information until the children's pavilion area has been completed and open.
We have yet to have a dog park and children's playground utilized at the same time.
Please take into consideration the concerns of many of the parents in my neighborhood.
Our children are our future.
Please don't jeopardize it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> I'm Gale Marie and I live at 2900 San Nicholas, our residence is impacted on this.
The City Council had voted on this four years ago, unanimously 7 to 0 for this code.
Two of you were not on it.
The reason why I'm approaching this is to say why change the rules in midstream?
The ordinance was passed four years ago.
Remember, this ordinance changed.
If this is changed it will change all small areas.
That means any park in any of your districts can put a dog park in there.
So if you have a small green land that is less than an acre and the Parks Department wants to put a dog park in there, they can without this ordinance.
Please remember the traffic Yule bring in, into a small neighborhood.
We are not talking about recreation centers right now.
The traffic you will bring in, the noise, is unreal.
We have lived there.
I'm sure you wouldn't want your family member to have to live that close to a dog park.
Remember, it is in every district.
You have 149 parks.
If you release this code, it's open to anybody.
Safety, not to mention the noise.
You, the City Council, are always looking out for the best interests in our neighborhoods.
Why would you change the city code to disrupt the quiet, peacefulness in a neighborhood?
Please, people asking you to change this ordinance are not even thinking that this will go city-wide.
As you said, it's not just our little park we are talking about. You're talking city-wide.
This ordinance effects all of us.
And I would like you to really consider it to keep it there.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Good morning, council.
Grazenberry, 2900 San Nicholas.
I lived in our house for almost three years.
When we moved there Palma Ceia playground was a sleepy little park with a playground area.
Changing we have seen the problems of the dog park put in the neighborhood with and you the City Council voted for one acre of land for dog parks a mere four years ago.
In fact, five of you sitting on the council in front of us were unanimous in that decision.
Why change something prematurely?
The ordinance change would effect every little park and green space in the entire city. The idea of a dog park is great.
But not in their own backyard.
This is not a dog issue.
Where is the consideration for everyone's right to peace and quiet in their own home?
I stand before you and represent myself as well as the silent majority of people that are either too busy or too afraid to take an unpopular stand.
And a stand that is right and just.
Every homeowner deserves the same civil liberties of peace and quiet.
Just because the city made a test case of Palma Ceia park and realized their errors doesn't make it right.
One of the original dog parks in Davis Island was actually moved when it was found to be disturbing the neighbors.
Until you personally live close to any dog park, you cannot imagine waits truly like.
The dog park is placed in Palma Ceia but without realizing the full impact on the neighborhood.
Don't change the rules in the middle of the game.
Keep your ordinance at one acre.
Continue to upkeep and improve your other much larger and more excluded dog parks and let the neighbors and the neighborhoods go back to peaceful co-existence.
Kim Powell stated earlier moving the dog park to the back of an area may alleviate the problem.
How much longer must we go through this?
How much longer must our neighborhood be torn apart?
I thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>> My name is Seth Nelson, I live at 2902 west San Nicholas street, Tampa, Florida.
I have with me -- and I'm just going to read it into the record and submit it to the clerk if I may -- a citizens petition to change chapter 16, section 16-8-C-1 of the City of Tampa code entitled parks and recreation.
City of Tampa code chapter 16 section 16-H-C and states as follows: Parks director may establish dog parks in appropriate locations within dedicated parks.
The dog park shall include but not be limited to one acre or more of land surrounded by four to six high chain link fence with a double gated entry to keep dogs from escaping and to facilitate wheelchair access. The citizens below hereby petition the Tampa City Council to change the above referenced ordinance by removing the one-acre requirement for dog parks established within dedicated parks.
We believe that the one-acre requirement is arbitrary and unnecessarily restrict the park's director from establishing dog parks in location that is would benefit the city of -- the citizens of Tampa.
Although we are aware of the current controversy surrounding the dog park located at the Palma Ceia park, we believe that the issue is more encompassing than this one location.
The code effects the entire city, and would prohibit the establishment of dog parks in on the areas of the city that are currently being developed such as our urban core.
We thank you for your service, time and efforts.
If I can submit this to madam clerk as part of the record.
It's signed by just over 700 residents of the City of Tampa.
>>GWEN MILLER: Give it to the clerk.
On the questions from council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anything else?
>>> No.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Palus, did you want to say anything else?
>>> Karen Palus: One other comment in regards to leashing of dogs.
We want everyone to understand that our current ordinances allows for individuals to walk their dogs on property throughout any of our City of Tampa facilities, leashed.
So I think that came up earlier.
Also regarding the actual fence location and such for the relocation that was presented at that meeting, there are two areas for entrance at that park.
Just to clarify that.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Palus, does the current ordinance absolutely require one acre?
Or more for a dog park?
>>> It says the park's director may establish dog parks in appropriate locations within dedicated parks, the dog park shall include but not be limited to.
So when it was set up, the one-acre or more was kind of like that "limited to."
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Shall not be limited to one acre?
>>> Yeah.
But that's the difficulty.
When we talked with legal, and that should have been one acre or more.
And Donna can clarify that too.
But when staff was working for it --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The language makes no sense.
Shall include one acre, but it says then be limited to no more than one acre.
>>> Which is why we took this out way back when we first started working on it, in litigation long before any of the issues arose because of this language.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Massey, did you want to clarify?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I just was getting up to just state what Ms. Palus said.
I think part of the reason why this ordinance is being brought forward is to try to clarify some of the confusing language in the code.
Again caution council the discussion should be about the ordinance solely, not about any factual situation which may be in litigation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
We have a motion on the floor.
Do we need to repeat the motion?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: To amend the language in the chapter 16 related to the dog parks.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are we reading for first reading right now?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: You may read the ordinance that there will be a noticed public hearing two weeks from now if you do that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Are we changing the language already?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: At this time paragraph in there.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
>>GWEN MILLER: Discussion?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I can do it during the time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Read it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance the city of Tampa, Florida repealing and deleting all provision of the City of Tampa code pertaining to dog parks, amending City of Tampa code chapter 16, article I, section 16-6 by repealing and deleting subsection C and D, pertaining to the establishment of dog parks, criteria for selecting dog park locations, promulgation of rules for dog parks, amending subsection E, pertaining to responsibility for damage or injury to public and dogs in parks, providing for severability, repealing any other ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?
>> Second.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a couple points of discussion, Madam Chairman.
I'm certainly not bringing this up for debate.
But just observation.
I think Mr. Dingfelder and I were both pretty actively involved in that and talked to many of the neighbors in that same area on both sides.
And I know this doesn't have anything to do with the ordinance primarily, but secondarily it certainly does.
Our city is built for the strength of neighborhoods and it is unfortunate that this particular issue brought some animosity between neighbor to neighbor.
And I think maybe had it been decided on earlier, with more input, I don't know.
That's after the fact, and that's certainly hindsight.
So what the challenge has been both for Donna and for Karen is to come up with something that perhaps comes in the middle of the road to try to solve it.
We went to public meetings, some colleagues, particularly Mr. Dingfelder and I, met with people, and attended your meeting.
And this is not going to be perfect at all.
It's not going to be perfect at all.
The people that are opposing this feel that we are modifying the ordinance simply to do what we are probably going to do shortly.
The issue is historically with some historical data.
I remember from talking to people that were involved in some of this process, when it was defined, maybe the language was not exactly definite, but it was defined or intended to define their criteria to be a one acre requirement.
And that was because some investigation had been done in other municipalities and in the county particularly, because we do have the leash law that you, Karen, just referenced shortly ago.
There's a safety issue.
What we felt was an acre will protect that safety issue because we do have an existent leash law.
And if we had a parcel of land that was one acre, that perhaps that would protect the safety of the dogs, safety of the children, safety of the neighbors that surround that park, and one acre was seen to fit the criteria so they have enough room to roam.
Now we seem we are going to take the initiative to downsize that.
In addition to that to try to accommodate this neighborhood -- and it may come up someplace else.
So what we are doing probably and we have to go forward is talk about reconfiguring where it is.
And anytime we make a decision to go with some accountability, and there's always the risk of having to go back to that decision and see whether or not we did the right thing.
So we are moving hopefully in that in some cases we won't be so disruptive to the lives of some people and bring back some kind of compatibility with the neighborhoods, whether you are for or against this.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I would warn council to avoid talking about the facts.
So as we often do in looking at revisions to ordinances, I'm supportive of it.
But certainly open minded to the fact that as often we do, for a general type standpoint, as a general comment.
But if we ever have to look back at an ordinance, this one or any other ones, but certainly I think you will be willing to sit down and talk to any council member who has any concern.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just as we do with many other ordinances, I think it's important to kind of state what our intent is and why we are doing this ordinance.
And for one thing, I believe that the motion that I seconded is well-founded, based upon staff testimony.
I think that staff has provided us not only in this hearing but also in the prior discussion with competent, substantial evidence, related to this particular ordinance, and why this particular ordinance needs amending.
Attorney Wysong has briefed us, and I know she briefed me and I know she's briefed the rest of you about the fact that she started looking at this issue back in the fall.
And realizing that sometimes ordinances are flawed.
And we change ordinances on a weekly basis.
And our modification is not related directly to any particular park.
Specifically, what we are trying to do is recognize that park management issues need to be left in the discretion of the park's director and administration generally.
Staff has pointed this out, that we don't direct her and tell her how many ball fields to put on Davis Island, Bayshore little league field, and how many skateboard facilities to put in any particular park, how many senior shuffleboard courts we should have over in west Tampa, et cetera.
And I think this is right in line with that.
And I just want to make sure the record is clear on that.
>>GWEN MILLER: A question on the motion?
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Morris Massey.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
I have a couple items.
One is, I need to substitute a proposed form of easement in connection with item number 38 which is the TECO easement affecting Rogers Park.
Let me provide that to the clerk and copies to City Council.
This is an item that councilman Dingfelder raised.
This proposed easement actually was approved by City Council resolution back in the mid 70s.
TECO has had transmission facilities at Rogers Park since the mid '70s.
When they upgraded the facilities recently they discovered they did not have an actual recorded easement.
All they had was a City Council resolution.
So they are asking City Council to formalize this by the grant of an easement.
In discussion was TECO and councilman Dingfelder, we have limited the terms of this easement to the existing voltage that goes across those transmission lines as acceptable to TECO's 230 KV.
That will limit the ability of TECO to expand the facilities in the future to carry greater voltage.
I think that's a reasonable compromise.
I just want to make sure council was aware of the situation.
The second item I have for council -- and again I apologize -- is a walk-on item.
This is so the Tampa Fire Rescue department can use the days in at Rocky Point for fire rescue training.
We did not conclude the negotiations of the terms of this agreement until late Friday so we could not get it on council's agenda and there's a real small window of opportunity for Tampa Fire Rescue to use that facility from April 10 to 20.
So we ask council to move that item today and would like to recognize councilman Ferlita in helping us get that done as well.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Way to go.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to make some comments to this.
You know, awhile back, colleagues, if you remember, we tried to do the same thing with the Jim Walter corporation and time and issue and legal documents didn't allow us to do this.
There's a bunch of people to acknowledge and thank, and first of all, Chief Jones is he lated with the opportunity.
It was very intent when we started with these negotiations and I met with Mr. Michelini, and we had talked about the opportunity or possibility of extending an invitation to other bodies, the county, et cetera.
But because the legal documents weren't fine tuned early enough, there's just not that opportunity.
But that being said, he feels -- and I'm certainly he late that he had does feel -- that even with the limited amount of time that his men and women of Tampa Fire Rescue are going to benefit greatly from the experience that they are going to have.
I would like to thank Mr. Massey, I would like to thank David Smith, I would like to thank Marty Shelby.
Steve, we certainly appreciate your input in terms of Dilip Tamge telling me it looks good, it look bad.
He has been wonderful, wonderful, I can't impress it enough, corporate citizen who had nothing going on this issue for himself.
It was certainly not self-serving but it is going to benefit our fire rescue.
And I'm going to tell you what, as public safety chairman, I am elated.
I kept in close contact with our mayor.
She was supportive at the end.
-- I mean at the beginning.
And at the end, she was trying to track me down to let me know, because there were some sometimes it was on-off, on-off, to let me know there was still hope, it was alive.
I hope I didn't miss anybody because this is just so important to our public safety.
On behalf of this council and our administration, Steve, please thank Dilip for his efforts and help.
It's going to be so well served.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm hear on behalf of impact properties.
This concept came up some time ago.
And he's very pleased to be able to offer this to the city for training purposes.
And we have worked very hard to get this agreement in place.
And Morris Massey has worked diligently, long hours to accomplish that, as well as the folks over in the real estate office.
We thank everyone for making this become a reality and offering a training facility that's so unique for the fire department.
So thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Marty Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm here on item number 17, the faith based community initiatives, and the chairman pro tem asked me to prepare a memo regarding that.
The model that council passed with the city of Orlando, I traveled to Orlando, I met with a representative of the city.
And grateful for providing that information.
I have backup documentation for Mr. Harrison and the council if you wish to have it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Shelby, for taking this and running with it.
And colleagues, we made significant progress on this issue.
And we have a meeting scheduled next week with several members of the corporate community who are quite interested in funding this program on a minimum dollar to dollar match for what the city funds the program with.
And I think it would be actually more than dollar per dollar.
So what we need to do in advance, what I would like to see us do in advance of that meeting, is to essentially pick a number that we feel comfortable asking the administration to fund this program with. And it's not a big number.
But we need to go into that meeting next week with an idea of what we are going to be asking from the private sector once we get that commitment from the private sector, then we can go to the administration and say, here it is, it's all in program format, we're ready to roll this out.
Orlando does not have an ordinance.
There's no resolution.
City Council doesn't have much of a roll in it over there.
I would like for us to have a little bit more of a roll in it than they do.
But I don't necessarily think that we are in a position now to create an ordinance or do anything along those lines.
It is administered by the mayor's office in Orlando.
And my view of this would be it would be administered by Shannon Edge's office here.
It's not big enough so that we have to worry about hiring a new person over there.
I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of effort necessary on the administration's part, until this grows.
We need to start slow.
We need to go with a pilot program to see if it's going to work.
So my motion would be we are going to request the administration to fund this for $25,000 in the coming fiscal year.
I think we will get at least that commitment from the private sector.
If we limit our grants to $5,000 apiece that gives us the potential of starting off with ten grants next year, and we'll see where it goes from there.
And by opening it up, it's not limited to only religions organizations or faith based organizations.
It's community organizations as well who might not be quiet sophisticated enough to go through the normal CDBG process.
And as Mr. Shelby and I have spoken, Orlando requires that anyone making application be a 501(c)3 entity.
If you're sophisticated enough to be a 501(c)3 you probably don't need this sort of assistance.
What I'm really trying to do is reach out into the communities in the city where they have got people, organizations, that are really reaching their constituents, doing good work, and we are going to say government is going to help awe long with that.
We want to be a part of that.
So my motion, council, is that we ask the administration to fund this $25,000 for the upcome fiscal year, and that we continue to move the project forward.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Question on the motion.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is a really worthwhile initiative.
I have a couple of concerns about it, which are fiscal responsibility.
How do we not spend a fortune monitoring the fact they spent this money on programs and not just going into somebody's pocket.
I was at a new unveiling the other day in Sulfur Springs, a group called "stepping stone kids" with an art professor has been trying to get his students, provide classes for the kids, gardening, and art and helping them with homework.
It's a real small-scale.
It's a real small scale thing.
I see this being the kind of thing.
So my concerns are -- and I'm going to support the motion.
I just want to make sure we have some vehicle in place to track the recipients or fiscally responsible, and because of my concern, of course, for the distinction between church and state, that it isn't being used -- I don't think it would be appropriate, if it's government money, it be used for like Bible study.
I don't know how you deal with that.
If the word faith based.
Like the YMCA is not a preachy organization.
I believe that it has a religion basis, but in all the soccer games and things I've seen, the YMCA do, it doesn't have a religions doctrine attached to the services they provide the public.
So that's a concern I have, too, which I think is a valid one because of our explicit limitation, separating church and state in our Constitution.
So I just need to be reassured on that point.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was just going to say that this has been done in Orlando, and it's probably done for a number of years, that they do have some criterion that they have already created on this, that maybe our neighborhood administrator, or Shannon, or whoever we give it to, would look into it.
You know, I agree with you, there has to be some stipulations in there that they look into who will be eligible for these grants.
But, Shawn, I think it's a great idea that you have come up with, and I certainly will support it.
Of course, we are not going to willy-nilly give away money.
But because it's going to be checked into, and make sure that the money is going to the proper organizations.
So I will support this.
>>GWEN MILLER: I know Mr. Harrison is working closely with his program.
He wouldn't have brought oh it to us if he didn't know it would work in Tampa.
Mr. Harrison, we have all the confidence in the world you are going to make sure this program is fair and we will have no comments from nobody saying it's not done right, because you will be right on top of it.
I know you are going to do the right thing.
Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
I am certainly supportive of anything that helps some of these smaller organizations.
And sometimes I think we all are aware of the fact that because the number of dollars that are limited in terms of CDBG grants, some are always left out.
And that's not intentional.
But this money just goes so far.
Ms. Saul-Sena raises a good point, I think, in the sense that in our efforts to be inclusive, we somewhat end up being exclusive in the giving of that money.
And so that's a concern.
And I think as we go forward, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Harrison will look at some guidelines.
I know that awhile back this subject was talked about and initiated by Mr. Harrison and Mr. Shelby took the charge that was given him.
And about that same time, there was an article -- and I'm sorry I don't remember, and I don't have it at hand and not enough time to go find it -- but there was an issue that you came up in the Tribune about a faith based organization, that did allocate some dollars, and finding -- in looking at their performance and looking at where they used those dollars.
As I said, don't have enough time to find it.
It says here, doubts swirl about halfway house, a faith based program, after complaints such as lack of counseling, Pinellas County jail stopped referring inmates to this particular program.
So we have to just be careful, because once we put our stamp of approval on something, ladies and gentlemen, we are part of the process.
So we will approach it.
I will certainly support it.
But let's approach it cautiously.
Because of issues that happened like this.
And it was in the times on 2-7-05.
I just want to bring that to your attention.
But thank you for all the work you did, Mr. Shelby.
I know he looks the traffic going to Orlando.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second on the floor.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For some reason, I was just talking with my assistant.
So I looked at Mrs. Alvarez.
And all of my comments were addressed with what the Orlando people did.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Orlando, I think, has gone a bit overboard in their restrictions.
But we can't go wrong if we follow the Orlando model.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's exactly the way I felt.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have all the confidence in Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Shelby is going to be right there behind him.
So we have a motion and second on the floor.
(Motion carried)
Is there anyone in the public that would like to ask for reconsideration?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on any items that's not set for public hearing?
You may come speak for three minutes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Knott is on the way.
He will be here in a half hour.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>> My name is Patricia Schafer, 5407-24th Avenue South Tampa, in reference to issue number 14, Palm River water and weight waft services.
I am the current vice-president of the Palm River EDC and own businesses and property in the Palm River area.
I want to thank you for your assistance in investigating the lack of infrastructure in this area, specifically the water and wastewater services.
During my previous presentation to you on March 10th, I discussed the issue with you in some detail.
First of all, did I get your attention when I brought up that annexation proposal?
Apparently so.
>>GWEN MILLER: Got all our attention.
>>> Obviously that's a suggestion from us, from EDC and the residents developed from many years of frustration.
It has been demonstrated adequately by the Palm River EDC that these services are needed to upgrade the quality of life.
We have over 400 signed petitions saying yes to hooking up to water services that were submitted to the water and wastewater departments, years previously.
We have been working on this project for over six years with Hillsborough County BOCC, Hillsborough County Planning Commission and the Tampa water and wastewater departments.
During this time, we have gone over and over, the city has, in the interlocal agreement to provide these services.
The estimate for putting the water down Causeway Boulevard, 24thth Avenue and St. Paul was about a million dollar some two or three years ago, which is just pocket change.
The city says they don't have time.
They need to assign this project to a department such as utilities, someone that has more time to address this particular issue.
Ultimately, the question will be answered today, is the city ready to provide water and wastewater services to the Palm River area in the next year?
In not it's time to turn that responsibility over to Hillsborough County expressing the opinion that this is a feasible solution.
The county can still buy the water from the city but that needs to be part of the solution starting with surcharge, et cetera.
But Palm River would get the services they need.
The time for a decision on action is here.
This needs to be done in conjunction with the road widening project for Causeway Boulevard which has a May 2006 construction date.
It is unacceptable to wait one and a half to two years to revisit just the annexation portion of this issue.
Thank you for your time and your assistance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just for clarification, we ask the administration --.
>>GWEN MILLER: 90 days.
>>> I'm not sure if this is the right time to bring this up so if I'm in the wrong area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let me know.
Is it anything on the agenda?
>>> It has to do with the park, the dog park ordinance.
But it has to, instead of talking about the ordinance, it's more talking about our specific --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We can't talk about that.
>>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
Did you want to come speak on number 11?
This is the time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is the time.
>>> Robin Nigh with the City of Tampa public art program.
We are here today.
I brought a PowerPoint presentation to discuss response to information on taking the public art ordinance city-wide.
I am going to present to you an overview of the public art and private development.
I will tell you where we are with the City of Tampa program, other applications of public art, and alternatives to public art.
The history of the public art program -- excuse me, I should really say the ordinance, it's in public art and private development cited in chapters 4 and chapter 27 of the city code.
Today in speaking specifically to chapter 27, the ordinance was adopted in 1989 and amended in 1998, and the ordinance is specific to the central business district.
The ordinance requires that .75% of the total cost of the project be set aside for public art, or in lieu of that, they may do half of 1% may be given to the public art fund to be administered or given into the central business district area.
And there was a cap of $200,000.
I know this map subpoena probably difficult to read on there but the central district boundaries are north -- north boundary is Scott street, south is Garrison Channel, the east is Meridian Avenue, and the west is the Hillsborough River.
The purpose and intent of the ordinance to expand accessible public spaces in the CDB concurrent with new development and of course promote the downtown riverfront open spaces is part of the new development projects and of course enhance the character of the CDB.
What public art can do for a developer is to improve employee and tenant working relations, create a unique la for landmark feature for the project, demonstrate larger civic commitment and translate into higher rents and more desirable office locations.
We have some wonderful examples of the Tampa program.
One of the things I must mention, our developers have done a great job.
When I was doing some re -- reef search on the web site it's amazing to find how many times our own sites were given as examples.
And what public art can do for private citizens -- public art in private development does for citizens.
It creates a space to mingle and gather and highlight and publicize agencies activities, initiatives, missions and/or objectives.
Contributes to the community's acceptance of a particular facility.
How the process works in the CBD is a public art plan is submitted to the urban development and that is managed by Wilson Stair, who works with the urban development guidelines.
If for any reason the urban development department questions the compliance of the art work as defined, the representation that goes to the Public Art Committee for further consideration and review.
Cities with similar ordinances, these particular cities here are all examples of city-wide ordinances.
Philadelphia has the oldest program that started in 1959.
Tempe, Arizona has a very strong program.
Their ordinance was founded, I believe I want to say, in the early '80s.
Miami, Los Angeles.
Those that are specific to -- specific to Florida, you can see Coral Springs, Delray, Palm Beach Gardens, other than Miami.
Some cities encourage -- do public art through incentives.
New York City has a well-known 1961 zoning ordinance that has gone through several refinements and such to allow other things.
Portland has a floor area ratio program and St. Pete has similar incentives.
With the Tampa being the city of the arts, it is one of the mayor's strategic arts areas and one of the more art city-wide.
This includes not just public art in the downtown and neighborhoods, but we are also looking at reviewing the ordinance and process with a vision plan for the CBD.
Applications for public art, there are some wonderful things of course county do in animating a space with activity is one of them.
Of course Philadelphia's ordinance has brought art throughout the entire city and all neighborhoods and such.
It presents opportunities to tell stories about a community.
And at one time thought I would bring the exploding chicken here including the PowerPoint because it's a great story that people love to talk about it.
And it really isn't whether you love on the are hath hate it but whether it engages you.
It can be in a number of ways that that functions.
Providing opportunities for social interaction.
And people sometimes, the great thing about public art is you don't necessarily need to know that it's art to be in it and to be part of it and for you to interact with it.
Enhancing pathways and places.
These are both examples in Miami.
On the left is the historic overtime district.
On the right is solution to a signed walk.
Of course public art innovations.
It has been well documented that public art does help reduce crime, gives people a sense of safety, a place for people to look and stop and cause attention.
Of course public art reinforces an existing identity.
Both of these programs -- projects are in Tampa.
The one on the right was nationally recognized as one of the best public arts projects in 2003 when it was brought forth.
And of course it can also have a functional application, as you see here, with the arts center, the way it functions as signage.
Blank walls are opportunities to celebrate the community.
And we have one of the best examples right here in Tampa in which -- if that were nothing but a cement wall it would just be dismal.
And it could be applied as a landmark or Gateway.
And what better example than the well-known Bean in downtown Chicago as part of millennium park.
And no matter what size of the city, it can become a destination for any and every community.
This is in Ft. Myers at their old federal courthouse.
It is an incredibly engaging piece that people actually drive to and park their cars.
It's a wonderful piece.
Some of the in lieu of options for public art.
And in Tampa we have some fabulous examples here in downtown Tampa.
Most developers do opt for the first option which is having it integrated into the development.
It is viewed as an as set forth facility, certainly hope that it works and functions for the developer.
As was mentioned they can give a contribution to the public art fund if so desired.
Other examples, creation and maintenance of a cultural space or facility.
Tempe, Arizona has developed a program on that.
Works such as a mural.
Again I look to Tempe for that.
Philadelphia has some similar examples to work with.
Adopt the care and maintenance of an art work.
That is done specifically to Miami.
They have had a very successful program to help with their maintenance costs.
It has worked very well.
Another one is on-site culture use.
The city of Los Angeles does this program.
And they particularly move so they can pool the funds.
It not necessarily limited to one particular neighborhood or district which generated the dollars but move it the to the community.
Pocket parks through block arcades, covered pedestrian walkways.
Pretty much that's the overview of the status whereof we are and what it can do.
>>> Thank you, Robin.
I'm Wendy Ceccherelli
I apologize for getting here late.
You started before eleven.
I want to introduce Robin to you.
I'm glad she went ahead and gave the presentation.
We are so fortunate to have Robin Nigh as our public arts coordinator.
Any of you who worked with her, very good at leveraging public dollars and private dollars to make something wonderful happen in our communities.
And she's really done a great job with what is actually a pretty small and conservative program.
And I just wanted to mention that when this ordinance was first written in 1989, our downtown environment was very different and is really a commercial office environment.
And if you think about how development has changed, even just looking at downtown since 1989, and we are now focused very much on a lot of residential pedestrian oriented residential development that didn't exist in 1989, the role of public art in place making has even more significance today.
I have had the good fortune of working with different public art ordinances in a number of different cities, Sacramento, California, and Seattle.
Most recently before coming here to Tampa.
I want to thank Ms. Saul-Sena for asking us to report to you on what's happening with our private development ordinance.
We are, as Ms. Saul-Sena knows, she sits on our Public Art Committee, looking at our ordinances that effect both city construction and the public art requirement on that, and the private sector development ordinance that Robin just spoke about.
We did have a meeting before today.
It was two days ago with four developers.
We managed to get a little meeting put together, just an initial meeting to get their sense about the city's public art requirements, and how we should revise our current ordinance.
Those developers, I want to mention who they were because they are incredibly civic minded developers who are doing great design and are all very involved in supporting arts and culture in our community.
And they included Greg Minder from Sky Point, Roger Gatewood from Seaboard Square, Trump Towers and Joseph Batalli.
So we have those representing different parts of the city as well.
They were very pleased to be asked to participate in this discussion.
They were very enthusiastic about the city's vision for city of the arts.
They thought that our ordinance ought not to be restricted to the central business district, that we should have a beautiful city full of art, that a number of creative ideas.
Really wonderful, imaginative and creative ideas about how that might be done.
And they were most appreciative that we were involving them in the discussion.
So I just want to stress that that was the first of what we hope will be an ongoing discussion with the developers as we move forward on revising our ordinance, exploring our ordinance, getting back to you with any specific recommendations.
But that we do want to hear from developers.
We want to involve them in discussion.
We would also like to hear from the public.
So with that, we have got Wilson Stair in the audience, Julie BRANIS in the audience to answer any other questions that might come up about our urban design guidelines or legal issues related to the ordinance, and Robin and I are happy to answer any questions.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm glad you're here, you made it, and of course welcome to Robin Nigh.
But what you failed to mention was the preview that you gave us Monday at the University of Tampa, lights on Tampa, which I think is going to be absolutely fabulous.
I think this is something that I think the City of Tampa will really be grateful for when all this comes on together.
And I believe it's supposed to be in November.
>>> Robin: Right.
Beginning of the fall this year.
Lights on Tampa.
We will be doing individual briefings for all council members on lights on Tampa.
We would be happy to come back and do a public briefing to Herald that new program.
That's focused on the downtown but it does involve a lot of private sector involvement, from property owners, developers, and business people that care about all and care about downtown and the power of art to economically transform our downtown.
>> And I'm glad you're looking at the ordinance.
And thank you, Ms. Saul-Sena, for bringing that up.
The ordinance, it was only for the CDB part of it but -- CBD.
>> Central business district.
>> And we have other parts of the city that are just as beautiful.
And one of the instances was the Sulphur Springs tower that we lit up that. Was absolutely beautiful and it's something that could become one of our landmarks.
>>> And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the Channelside is not included in the central business district.
Maybe you didn't know that.
And the city engaged the services of Wilson Miller company and are looking at a variety of ways to include public art along with other amenities in the list of options for developers that are looking for increased floor area ratio.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I wanted you to mention the lights on top, because that's going to be something for everybody to see.
>>> Thank you very much.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Wendy and Robin.
Currently in the CBD district, are there any minimum threshold?
In other words, if I rehab a residential unit, something, is it automatically kicked in regardless of the dollar amount?
Anybody want to help?
>>WILSON STAIR: Urban design manager for the city.
No, basically you have the threshold that they start with, when they are required to do it.
But the way the ordinance is right now, it used to be major renovation would trigger a public art requirement.
But now it's just new construction.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So rehab is not included?
>>WILSON STAIR: That's correct.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that something we're looking at?
>>WILSON STAIR: I think we will.
Because of the timing of the vision plan, we are going to go back and take a second look at all our land development regulations.
And especially public art, engaging more discussions in terms of that. But --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll defer to Ms. Ceccherelli on this.
But I think if we are looking specifically at this code I don't think we should tie it. If you tie it to the Land Development Code and all those other things it's like tying to the an anchor and you are not going to get it changed.
So I would say move forward by yourselves, and I would look at rehab in the central business district, because a lot of those rehabs, what's the Florida hotel people are talking about again?
That's going to be a major rehab.
And it should be included.
And the other question I had, when we look out to the rest of the city, I think it's important that we do look at a threshold because obviously, you know, you can have a single family home.
There might be a million dollar.
But is that -- are we expecting that single family to participate?
I don't know that it should be just limited to commercial because it might be some big multifamily projects that we want to include.
So I think we need to look at what kind of threshold.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So to follow up on what Mr. Dingfelder said, I would like a report back in 60 days.
Because the reason I wanted to bring this up -- and I'm glad you did such a great presentation -- is that we are losing all these opportunities, all these big projects are coming in, and Channelside, downtown and Hyde Park, and Westshore, Gandy.
Large, tens of million dollar multifamily and mixed use commercial projects are coming in for permitting now who don't have to do anything.
Now some of them are doing something anyway, because we don't have anything on our books now and as you all know we have to seize the moment.
Way would like to propose is you come back to us within 60 days that addresses a city oh wide public arts ordinance with a minimum threshold of maybe $2 million for multifamily or mixed use.
Maybe 2 million isn't enough.
You all gauge it.
Either rehab or new construction.
And any other improvements that you would see, but particularly the Channelside and Hyde Park projects that are going under permitting without any requirements.
I'm concerned about losing that opportunity.
And that's why I know 60 days is a long time.
But the timing I think of this is really critical.
And I'm sorry for cutting you off.
I'm so eager to get this going.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I eagerly second the motion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: As someone that has been directly impacted by our requirement, because we do have new construction in the CBD right now, I can tell that you threshold is a lot lower than $2 million.
And I would encourage us to use the carrot as opposed to the stick.
When you are developing and you have this requirement that's placed on you just because of where you happen to be building in the city, you have to pay it, but you're not happy about doing it.
It's just one more bureaucratic hurdle that you have to cover.
But if you give developers the incentive, and you say, if you do provide this, you can get a few more extra space to develop, or you can maybe get an extra parking spot.
There's got to be some way that we are making people want to do this as opposed to just being one more requirement.
And I think that we have to be flexible based on-site plans, and I just think that that developer may be much more interested in doing far and above what he would be required to do if there were some flexibility with the issues that he's got on his particular site.
>>> We totally agree with you and, in fact, that was some of the feedback from these developers.
Admittedly this was a great group of developers who are very civicly engaged and the variety of ways in which they support arts and culture in the community is really phenomenonal.
And I think one of the messages they wanted to communicate to us is just recognizing that when they are doing these wonderful things, that we appreciate it, that that makes a difference, and that there are intangible benefits that result, not only do they have a better building, and create this fabulous gathering space, and sense of community, but their connection to the community is strengthened by having a variety of flexible ways in which they can express that.
So we'd like to serve as staff here, as really resources to developers that it's not always about a sculpture right in front of your doorway.
There are lots of different ways to incorporate art and what you ought to be doing and we ought to give them credit for that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Saul-Sena mentioned Hyde Park and Channelside and so on.
But you failed to mention west Tampa where they are planning to build this humongous complex.
And I'm glad they are included in this discussion because I think they will lend a lot of support to this.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the armory.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor.
(Motion carried)
We now go to our committee reports.
Public safety, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move items 18 through 22, please.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Parks and recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to move item 23 and continue two weeks on item 24.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move items 25, 26, 27.
And I just wanted to point out 26 and 27 are applications to get money back from the federal government for hurricane Francis and Jeanne related to transportation impacts of the storms to the city.
So a couple million.
It's taken a long time because they have a lot of forms and procedures.
I talked to staff about it.
But this is a couple million dollars that will be coming back to the city.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'd like to move items 28, 29, 30.
And direct legal to prepare a resolution to be presented to City Council on April 14th on item 31.
Move the resolution.
>>GWEN MILLER: Not yet.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To item 31, I was really excited about that, because when the Bayshore task force met and one of our recommendations to the mayor was that we initiate a public information, public awareness campaign to get people to drive more carefully and be more sensitive to pedestrians, not only on the Bayshore but all over the city.
And so I think it's wonderful that WFLA and the Tribune are participating with the city on this public awareness campaign.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena, building and zoning.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move resolutions 32 through 42.
>>GWEN MILLER: A substitute.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The substitute on 38.
And the change for the public hearing being set on 40 and 41 to May 26th at 5:01.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just to 41.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: We took care of that, I'm sorry.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Transportation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 43 and 44.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to set petitions 45 through 52.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We go back to ordinance for second reading, is there anyone in the audience to speak on item 2, 3 or 4?
Please stand and raise your right hand if you are going to speak on items 2, 3 or 4.
Need to open the public hearings.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone to speak on 2?
>> Motion to close.
>> Second.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Number 2.
Move to adopt ordinance on second reading ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending chapter 3 alcoholic beverages amending article 13, section 3-80, records, semiannual reports, revocation of "R" classification zoning by replacing the words "business tax division" with "City of Tampa" providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public would like to speak on item 3?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance approving an historic preservation property tax exemption application relative to the restoration, renovation or rehabilitation of certain property owned by the Florida Department of Transportation located at 1818 east 15th Avenue Tampa, Florida in Ybor historic district based upon certain findings, providing for notice to the property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date, and I do this at second reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to be speak on item 4?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading: An ordinance approving an historic preservation, property tax exemption application relative total restoration, renovation or rehabilitation of certain property owned by the Florida Department of Transportation, located at 1906 east 15th Avenue, Tampa, Florida, in the Ybor City historic district based upon certain findings, providing for notice to the property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that's going to speak on item 5 through 8?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing for 5.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And when you state your name please reaffirm that you have been sworn.
Thank you.
>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
I have been sworn in.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate 35th street, north of 12th Avenue, south of I-4, east of 36th street, west of 34thth street.
This is the property highlighted in red.
35th street.
Running from 12th to 13th.
This is 13th Avenue.
Running from 34th to 36th street.
35th street looking north.
This is 35th the street rogue looking south.
Petitioner owns on both sides.
This is 13th Avenue looking west.
Towards 34th street.
This is the I-4 exchange.
13th Avenue looking east from 35th street.
This is 13th Avenue looking east from 34th street.
13th Avenue looking west from 36th street.
Based on the objection received from FDOT, staff objects to this vacating petition as it's filed.
However, petitioner has agreed to remove the portion of 13th Avenue from the vacating, therefore staff would approve that request.
As long as the easement is reserved.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
This orderins has not been prepared.
When don't prepare ordinances when there are objections.
If it's council's request to prepare the ordinance, you would be required to make a motion asking legal to prepare the ordinance.
That is all.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Michael Henry.
>>GWEN MILLER: What are you planning to do?
>>> The plan for the vacating was part of a master plan to more than double the sides of our existing manufacturing facility, which is located on both sides of 35th street.
With the expansion of I-4, 35th, we virtually have all the property on both sides of the section we're talking about.
And we wanted to get 35th as part of our property so we could bring the trailers and trucks in off the main streets, and therefore they would be unloading our -- our streets rather than on a public right-of-way.
We have been there for sixty years, and we had also intended to use the 13th Avenue as a new employee entrance, again to reduce traffic in residential area.
But we do understand that the state needs that property right now.
They have extensive construction work going on there.
Truck traffic, things of that nature.
So we will defer on that and possibly in the future come back and ask for that, to reroute our employee entrance.
For now we can use the same entrance that we have been using for the last 60 years.
But allowing us to have this 35th street will allow us to more than double the size of our facility, and get truck traffic off city streets.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
>>> And I might add, that by doubling obviously the size of the facility will allow us to hire more employees it.
We are relocating facilities currently located in Ft. Lauderdale which will move jobs from Ft. Lauderdale to Tampa, and we do -- most of our employees are Tampa residents.
>>GWEN MILLER: What does the company do?
>>> A manufacturer of hair care and cosmetic products.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the in the public that would like to speak on item 5?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Send to legal for preparation.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 6 cannot be heard.
Make a motion to pay the amendment fee?
>>THE CLERK: Item number 6, we just received verification that they have paid the amendment fee.
It will require legal to set a new hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 7 is a continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
I have been sworn.
Just to refresh your memory, this petition is at 1907 Cass Street, a rezoning petition from CG to PD.
The aerial shows that there was an existing -- and multiple lot.
This is the structure in question.
Just to remind you, the site plan itself.
It had a layout with the building essentially on top of the parking covering the majority of the parcel.
This is within the west Tampa overlay district.
There were numerous discussions at last council hearing in the morning about how to redesign the site.
And I believe it was Mr. Dingfelder that had essentially directed the petitioner to potentially change this redesign so it was more of a residential structure with a different sort of entrance on the property.
Of the street rather.
This is the structure they had proposed, the main entrance right into the middle.
If you recall, Annie Hart had objections in the staff report from historic preservation comments, August 23rd of last year stating that this is a contributing structure.
However, it is not within a historic district at this time.
HPC is considering having this designated as a west Tampa historic district.
But she still had objections to it.
You had directed in your motion for Mr. Michelini to go back, revise the plan, and deliver it to city staff no later than 12 p.m. on March 3rd, 2005.
I have not received a new site plan.
The plan that's on file before you to either approve, deny or continue at your pleasure is still dated October 14th.
I have had no contact with Mr. Michelini about the case with the exception of an e-mail that he copied me on that he sent February 16th to Annie Hart advising that the Liss company would be willing to donate the house for relocation and then donate the expense to demolish to that relocation.
Apparently there were no takers, only one inquiry.
I spoke with Ms. Hart yesterday, and she said in her survey of the area there are no available lots south of the interstate for the house to be moved to.
What she did with DOT, there were many houses to be moved and no lots to move them to so realized this would not be able to moved as well.
She did give me a memo this morning and says please be aware that although not currently designated the property located at 1907 west Cass Street has been identified in the west Tampa historic resources survey report as a contributing structure, proposed Westshore historic district, stands in the middle of a block of other buildings that have also been identified as structures that would be contributing.
Therefore I stand behind my earlier comments that the HPC would discourage demolition of this structure.
Please understand that because this building is more than 48 years old, an application for a demolition permit will require demolition review by the HPC.
Any offer to allow relocation of the structure does not circumvent that demolition review process.
At this point, council, I have nothing else to say.
He did not give us a new site plan.
Did he not revise the design as directed by council.
I did mention this to Mr. Michelini before the hearing this morning, and he said that he may ask for another 30-day continuance.
I would remind council that this case was originally heard November 4th, continued to January 13th, continued again to February 10th, continued again to today, and that would be the fifth delay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did thoughth go to the west Tampa overlay committee?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, and they did state opposition at the last hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: They did state opposition.
Now, Mr. Michelini, we want to hear from you?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would ask our council, just because we have this procedural thing, you know, in terms of submission of the new site plans, it wasn't necessarily complied with, staff testimony, do we even continue on?
Or do we just do a continuance or what?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: There is no site plan for staff to have reviewed or give a report on other than the original.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Otherwise your decision would be based on the plan dated October 14th.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Which can be to accept it and approve it or reject it and deny.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just wanted to ask Mr. Michelini, give him the opportunity a reason why he hasn't submitted a new site plan.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: First of all let me tell you what we have done, okay?
And go back through this process.
>>GWEN MILLER: Name for the record.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Steve Michelini here on behalf of South Tampa land group also known as Liss development.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You have been sworn?
>>> Yes.
I contacted Annie Hart and went through this whole discussion about whether or not the building was worth salvaging or not.
We also put two letters in the record which the staff failed to mention, one from an engineer, one from a contractor indicating it was beyond salvage ability.
In spite of that, I offered the building.
We went off.
We agreed to contribute whatever the demolition costs were to anyone who would take the building, so it would be essentially a grant to anyone who wanted to build it.
I got one call offering to come in and salvage the remaining materials inside the building that might be of any value, and indicate there was no value that they could determine, and this was from a historic preservation, very knowledgeable person about the field.
I don't think I have the ability to disclose their name.
But they said there were some architectural elements that they wanted to salvage.
And beyond that, it was in their opinion worth redeveloping, reconstructing.
We also went back and looked at the site plan ton see what we could do in terms of redesign.
We also met with the north Hyde Park civic association who came out in support of this.
We met with them, showed them the elevation, and they start supported this.
I am not aware of the west Tampa overlay district individuals opposing this at all.
Wilson Stair came back and looked at our two various elevations in support.
That's new information: I don't recall them ever coming before you and saying that they had any objection to the.
I do recall very specifically Annie heart had a problem with it being demolish.
Do you want me to stop?
We had a 64-foot wide lot.
We really don't have a lot of development space.
We incorporated in the front the entrance requirements that are in the west Tampa overlay district.
There has been no new commercial development in this area.
There are existing offices within 50 feet to the east, and then diagonally across the street there are other commercial offices.
The buildings immediately adjacent to it on both sides are rental properties, and use the vacant lot.
I don't know what else we can do.
We compared alternatives on the site plan.
We have very few alternatives available.
If you wish for us to continue and go back and restudy it, we can restudy to the see if someone wants the house and maybe we can relocate it.
But it is not salvageableable in the current condition.
The ceiling has collapsed on the inside.
It's in very poor condition.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We don't have that letter, do we?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I think you have bought both letters.
They were in the file before.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean council, the file.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I entered them into the record.
You should have them.
I have copies of them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wouldn't mind looking at them.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: If you open the front door-I have been inside the building as recently at two weeks ago.
You can't close the front door after you try to leave because the seals are collapsing.
You have to brace the sills on the side to get the door to close.
I don't know what you want us to do.
We tried any alternative.
If you can suggest something.
I thought that offering to pay and give somebody a gift of approximately 3 to $5,000 which it would be cost to demolish the building, we'll give to the somebody to help pay for the relocation.
Let me get those letters for you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Michelini, since this came up previously, I had the opportunity to go and look at it on-site.
The two blocks, it's block facing the one across the street from it on Cass Street, are filled with historic structures.
There is redevelopment of the existing historic structures occurring.
And I have to tell you that the rehabbability of the structure is in the eye of the beholder.
I saw the houses that the Department of Transportation moved in north Ybor City.
And they were situations where the termites were holding hands, and they have been rehabbed beautifully.
And the investment that you make in this pays off immeasurably.
I truly believe that your client does a lot of great new development, but it shouldn't be at the expense of our historic fabric which is limited and precious.
I they've if you were to put this back on the market that somebody could buy it and rehab it for an office or a residence and would do just fine.
And I really -- what I would encourage my colleagues to do today is deny this request, because it does not respect the historic fabric of west Tampa.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's exactly what I was going to say.
Across the street is all residential, and it's pretty much residential.
Those houses have been there for many, many years.
It was a really nice neighborhood.
But one thing that you said about the north Hyde Park, did you talk to Robert Allen there?
>>> Yes.
I met with their committee.
They endorse this project.
>> That's really strange because he's in the west Tampa overlay committee.
>>> That's why I said I was surprised the west overlay district had any problem with this.
That's the first time I heard of that.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If I may, Michael Randolph was here at the last hearing and he did speak with you before you.
Robert Allen was ill and didn't make the hearing and that's where the confusion got.
And you, Mrs. Alvarez, had actually directed Mr. Michelini to talk to the west Tampa overlay committee, the CDC, because there was a disconnect between the two.
Well, Mr. Michelini, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think this project goes into this area.
It's just not compatible.
And I don't know whether I can support it a continuation on that or not.
So we'll see where that goes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two things.
An affidavit to authorized agent.
I can't tell from this scribble who owns the property today.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Tampa land group.
>> They purchased it fee simple?
>>> As far as I can tell, yes.
If I can look at it I'll tell you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just wondering.
Obviously sometimes developers take options.
The second point, council, there's a letter here that Mr. Michelini submitted from a very competent engineering, James CASALANO, and he says, although we are not qualified to make recommendations as to the potential cost effectiveness of remodeling this home, and then goes on to say other things N.reading this letter he has not come to an ultimate engineering that it cannot be rehabbed.
I think it's just a function of how much money somebody is willing to pay.
And he does go into detail about the fact that there are some structural problems with it.
And he doesn't recommend -- he recommends that be careful when entering the building now because there are problems with the building.
But he stated, quote-unquote, that he's not qualified to make recommendations as to cost effectiveness of remodeling this home.
So that's the evidence of record right now.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: In the worst case, a chance to go back and see if we can redevelop the site as it is.
That's from my file.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: She doesn't have a copy.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Can I get a copy of my file back?
That was already submitted.
But anyway, in the worst case, gives us a chance to go back and look at whether it can be restored or rehabbed.
And we'll bring in some more experts and see if there's a possibility.
It's in very poor condition.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Michelini, we are now back dealing with the October site plan?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I believe so, yes, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The reason that we had continued this previously was, I remember we asked you to go back and talk to the west Tampa overlay folks.
But now what you're saying is you spoke to Mr. Allen, who also represents the west Tampa overlay folks, and he doesn't object to it.
>>> I met with the committee of about five or six people.
They had a regular homeowner association meeting.
That was Robert Allen was the chairman.
As a matter of fact, they were the ones that chose the elevation that they preferred.
We prepared two different elevations based on staff comments.
This elevation was prepared in response to the staff comments which Wilson Stair signed off on.
And this was the original site plan elevation that was prepared.
Both of those were presented to the north Hyde Park civic association.
And they did not like this one.
They chose this one and didn't like this one.
And I don't know if you remember, we presented that as well.
We can sort this out.
I just -- the staff changes at the city staff level, and quite frankly, I missed the opportunity top go to the west Tampa overlay district, west Tampa committee personally, to discuss the alternatives.
But at the very worst case we can go back and see them and what they recommend.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The only issue that I have left, if the overlay group has an objection I want to hear from them.
Speaking only for myself I'm ready to vote it up or down based on the October site plan that had already been submitted.
And we have gone back and forth.
>>> I understand.
It was a surprise to me they had concerns because we sat down and discussed these at length with the committee.
I didn't do it with the west Tampa overlay committee itself.
I did it with the neighborhood association.
And that's my responsibility and it was my shortcoming on that.
But that will happen given the opportunity.
>>GWEN MILLER: So you will be able to meet with the west Tampa overlay committee?
>>> I'll be talking to Robert Allen today.
And schedule something before the west Tampa overlay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just wanted to make comment on what Mrs. Saul-Sena said.
I grew up in this neighborhood.
And neither one of those are the character of that neighborhood.
And I don't know the salvagability of that home, either.
But I concur with Mrs. Saul-Sena.
We all saw the condition of houses that were relocated on 17th.
The five or eight bungalows that were there you can see from the front to the back and through every wall in between.
And Mr. Michelini, you were saying you had to adjust the door jams in the floor, and might fall through the floor, and Ms. Saul-Sena said the termites were holding hands.
And I think it may be a major cost issue, but aesthetically at the end of the day, I think what is there is more the character of the neighborhood, and especially on that same block, same side of the street, in the three-story attorney's office that was renovated some years back was in the same deplorable condition.
I don't know if Mrs. Saul-Sena got a second to her motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make that as a motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just -- my question to Mr. Michelini was to make sure it was part of the character of this neighborhood, was I don't recall there being more than one or two, two-story facilities or buildings in this area.
I'm real familiar with that area, too.
And I can't recall.
I think there was one probably on Albany and Cass Street that they just put in a building there which is two-story.
But I don't think the rest of them were two stories.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: This story is a two-story building. The one immediately east is a two story and the one to the west is a two-story.
But there are some two-story bungalows as you get closer to Howard Avenue.
But Liss is not beyond taking risks and doing something in a very progressive manner.
Certainly this is one of those challenging sites.
Sew but we can go back to the drawing boards and figure out what can be done.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like for you to do that.
But I don't think -- I mean, I just can't -- I can't support this one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know where we are going on this exactly.
And I think I'll hold my comment until after we go on this one.
It's related to staff and procedure.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be for denial, but giving the petitioner the opportunity to come back.
Well, no, it's for denial.
And specifically, because I think when he met with Robert Allen, he said, do you like A or B?
And I think what council is saying is because of Annie Hart's strong recognition of the historic character of this house, neither of the above is the appropriate answer.
So I move for denial.
>>THE CLERK: Your public hearing has not been closed yet.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Now a motion for denial?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion for denial.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question on the motion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am going recognize -- wait, and if you would recognize me after the vote.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't recall there being any opposition when we heard this other than a person from the west Tampa overlay district who said we just haven't had a chance to weigh in on it.
And Mr. Allen, as I recall, who is being represented by the petitioner, was in favor of one of the projects.
So I'm not sure what the record evidence is.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The staff recommendation for denial.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I appreciate that.
But according to the folks that live there in the neighborhood, I don't think they feel that same way.
So I would prefer to give the petitioner an opportunity to have the west Tampa overlay folks weigh in on it so I will not support the motion for denial.
>>GWEN MILLER: I agree with Mrs. Harrison and Mr. Alvarez to come back with another site plan or whatever.
And --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't like the site plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: You said needs to go back.
I agree with that.
And if he can meet with Mr. Randolph and give the opportunity for them to look it over and come back, I would vote on that, too.
Any other questions by councilmen?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion on the floor is to deny.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of denial say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Miller and Harrison, no.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Coyle, when we talk about the petitioner taking it back to the west Tampa overlay, it sounds like a loosey-goosey procedure with no fault of the owner.
I know you have plenty of meetings to attend and things to do.
But my concern is when that happens all we have to do is rely on the petitioner's assertions regardless of who the petitioner is about what his meeting was and that sort of thing.
Does the staff typically attend these meetings?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: No. Typically we don't.
When we deal with neighborhood associations, and neighbors, we generally try to stay as the third party, the objective party.
We get feedback from both sides.
We generally don't go to the meetings unless there's some large outcry to get us all in one room.
In the west Tampa overlay district, it's actually codified that the west Tampa CDC is part of the west Tampa review committee.
They do receive plans from our 's office to review, and Mr. Grandoff and the other gentleman, I can't remember his name, they do contact me on these cases and ask questions or they come in and go over the plan with me.
They are just like another agency or staff member in that respect.
The only one in the city that's like that.
So Mr. Randolph did have opportunities to weigh in.
I can't speak as to why he's not here today, other than he didn't receive the new plan he didn't know to come, because there hasn't been a new site plan.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's extremely important since they are part of the codified process that either you guys attend those meetings with them so you know firsthand what occurred, or that at least we affirmatively make an effort to call them and say, you know, this issue is coming up, and we need to know what your vote was, and that sort of thing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: So far that has actually happened.
And they either sent us e-mails or shown up at the hearing or came into the office and met with us and told us the issues and we walked through the process and case itself.
This particular one like I said, there's just been a disconnect.
Mr. Michelini was going to the north Hyde Park and not to west Tampa overlay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I don't expect to you go out to all the neighborhood associations because that would be huge.
But because this is part of the codified process I think it's clearly a different creature.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: My concern about that, Cathy, would be that where do you stop?
Because somebody else thinks their issue is important enough for you in southeast Seminole Heights or somewhere else.
I think as long as the line of communication is open, I certainly just from the standpoint of opinion -- I don't think we are weighing in on any kind of motion for or against -- but I think staff is overwhelmed already if we start asking you to attend meetings, then that's some additional hours that you have to absorb.
I don't think that would be prudent.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to make one more comment on that.
When I helped work on the west Tampa overlay committee -- overlay district guidelines, we specifically put in there that there was going to be a west Tampa overlay committee, and they don't have any powers other than to say Aye or Nay and to go through the design guidelines as we put them in, as they put them in.
That's what they wanted to do.
So for people to circumvent that, just drives you nuts, because this is one of the things that we worked on.
And it seems like every time -- not every time but it seems like every other time we have a project, or agenda item that's come up, and ask the same question, as the west Tampa overlay committee been -- and you tell me no, well, why?
That's the reason I keep asking these questions.
Because it's very important.
And for Mr. Michelini to go to the north Hyde Park, which is fine to go, but Mr. Allen belongs to the west Tampa review committee, too.
So I don't understand that part of it.
There's in a that confusion for me.
So the committee that the north Hyde Park people said, yes, they like it.
But I can't see Mr. Allen saying the other.
And it's very important that the west Tampa overlay committee be put into these discussions, and for these guidelines to be followed to the letter.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I understand.
What happened was this was early on in the process, and before -- actually, the referral of the site plans and the change in the site plans started occurring with the west Tampa overlay district.
In terms of our relationship with them, the first time that it started to happen was on Howard, and we went back and met with the west Tampa overlay district design guideline people and they came back and made some recommendations, and we accommodated them.
We had some setback issue problems that occurred in the code.
On this particular project, this was submitted at about the same time.
And it was my understanding that they didn't have a problem with this project per se.
It was my responsibility to go back to west Tampa overlay design group.
And because there were a lot of other things, Angela Hurley originally was a reviewer on this project.
And when we went back, quite frankly, it slipped through the cracks.
And that's why I was saying please give me an opportunity to go back to the committee, sit down with the design team and see what we can do here.
It may be that we can modify the building and additions onto it that are in keeping with the structure, some other opportunities.
But that was my responsibility, and also we had staff changes that ended up it just slipped through the crack.
So I prefer going back to them and discuss that as opposed to an outright denial.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, Mr. Michelini, I'm not blaming you per se.
It just that it's been a recurrence of this thing.
And there's been other buildings that have gone on in the west Tampa overlay district that have not gone to them, and you happen to be the brunt at this point.
That's the only reason I'm bringing it up.
We only had three projects in the district and they have been probably the first three new ones coming in in the area.
So we are sort of blazing new trails here.
And we are also trying to deal with how you preserve structures that are viable and those sorts of issues.
So it's a difficult I shall to you deal with.
And that's why I said give us a chance top go back.
We have had a lot of other things going on.
And with the district itself trying to get established, and trying to figure out what these codes -- what these references mean, and how they translate to real site plans.
There are some issues there.
But that's why I said give us an opportunity, an incentive to go back and figure out how to solve them.
That's why I ask for the consequence answer.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 8 is continued public hearing.
Yes, we did vote.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
I have been sworn.
I do have -- just so you know, the site plan has not changed.
What did change were the conditions that council had discussed.
And over the last couple of weeks, many e-mails and phone conversations and personal meetings have happened between Morris Massey, myself, Dave Mechanik, and the neighborhood, representatives.
And there are 14 additional conditions being placed on the site plan.
I have a copy for each of you.
They are imposed as City Council conditions.
And by code, if someone were to come in to the zoning administrator and ask for substantial change to the PD, any council condition cannot be changed by staff.
There is no administrative lenience for that at all.
They would have to come back for rezoning.
I don't really want to read all of them, because it's three pages.
If you could just peruse them and I guess hear testimony from the applicant and the neighborhood, as they wish.
In reference to one thing in particular, the discussion that Mr. Dingfelder had about Alabama, I did receive and I forwarded to you an e-mail from Greg Yurcus and his recommendation of placing a wall especially along parcel A, there are approximately six or seven trees on a line on that side and it's very narrow.
In his evaluation given that he's on the construction side, and potentially span the footers, the span would probably reach anywhere from 40 to 60 feet between those footers, and the structural stability of that wall would be in question.
His recommendation is to use some sort of fencing that would be appropriate or viable for that area, and somebody in the household and neighborhood could agree to.
I believe one of the conditions did reference fencing.
On the plan, it does note that it's a 6-foot wood fence which Greg Yurcus is in favor of if council so wishes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
Did you want to say something, Mr. Massey?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
I have been sworn as well.
I just want to briefly summarize some of the items that are on this long list because I worked this out with Mr. Mechanik and with the neighborhood associations as well.
These were derived largely from a list that you all received from Ms. Crawford at the last public hearing as relate to the zoning.
Some of the items on Ms. Crawfordt list after valleys we didn't think legally we could do.
For instance, there was a concept about area zoning.
We can change zoning.
City Council has that authority.
If there's a change in condition.
But you can't make zoning decisions based on that against the person or the property.
And that's what they were asking council to do.
We place very serious limitations that will in any way intensify any impact on the adjoining property.
And that's what this condition 13 provides.
And that's probably the key condition that we all focused on.
I think both Mr. Mechanik, myself and the neighborhood groups.
There's no way that any change of use could be allowed without going to City Council first for approval.
I just want to make that clear on the record.
The zoning administrator would have to review any change, as to whether or not that change of use would intensify impacts.
If it would she has to deny it.
The neighborhoods would be noticed of any application for a change of use, with the opportunity to monitor that and to appeal that decision.
And that's all written into the conditions to ensure safeguards.
And we also placed time lines, to ensure that the applicant did make progress in implementing this plan, because that's been one of the problems the neighborhood has faced here.
They must apply within 90 days to A.R.C..
After they receive A.R.C. approval they must apply for permits between 90 days.
Then after they receive permits they have to implement the plan as to parcel B which is the north parcel within 90 days, and then the commercial building parcel to the south they have 180 days, and we have added other conditions conditions, on the concerns raised by Ms. Crawford.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Massey, number 22, stormwater retention on-site shall be evaluated to ensure it complies with our technical standards.
We have already seen that this petitioner provides only 50%, maybe 55% of the required parking spaces.
It's my observation over time that what they do for stormwater is completely ineffective drainage ditch.
The only way -- I don't see how they can meet their stormwater obligations without doing something that's going to lose additional parking spaces.
And if they lose additional parking spaces, they are even less in compliance.
>>> I'll let Mr. Mechanik address it.
I believe they are going to do some work underneath the ground.
>> It is my honest opinion on this, if they had to come in today and meet the current code, they would need to do underground vaulting for stormwater and structured parking, and I think -- it expensive and they don't want to do it but I'm really concerned how they are going to meet the stormwater and the parking.
>>> I think listen to Mr. Mechanik on the issue.
Part of the issue that staff, the property owner, petitioner and the neighborhoods have all been dealing with is that we have an existing situation.
Council -- if council wants to reject it, obviously, if you are giving sufficient grounds you all have that right.
But whether that actually would result in improvement to the neighborhood is something we have all struggled with.
And I think what we have derived at is perhaps a compromise that will make the situation better and will result in a better result.
But that's always subject to interpretation.
And you will hear testimony as to that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Massey, in regard to this fence -- and I did read the memo from Mr. Yurcus, and that's fine F.the trees are in the way we want to protect the trees but they still need some appropriate barrier there.
My concern is number 21, which says proposed fencing, alterations, landscaping, not depicted by this plan on-site shall be subject to plan and review of the A.R.C..
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I can put the language a little further if you like.
That was meant to address the landscaping issues.
So without the material --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In other words the fencing that Mr. Yurcus was talking about will still be subject.
>>> Yes.
>> You mate want to take a look at that language.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, here on behalf of the applicant.
We will just address Ms. Saul-Sena's question after I do some preliminary remarks on the petition.
Just to sort of reiterate what Morris said, I think it's important for council to understand the context of this request.
We do have a special use approval that was approved in 1989 for the site.
It's a very minimal site plan providing minimal landscaping.
It allows for dumpsters to be placed in the right-of-way along Alabama Avenue.
It allows for a driveway onto Alabama Avenue.
In our discussions with the neighborhood, especially the immediate neighbors, those are things that were important to them, A and is part of this PD application we are in fact, I think, making dramatic improvements to resolve those issues.
We are closing off the driveway to Alabama.
We are taking the dumpsters and moving those on-site, building a fence on the outer edge of the property so that they would be completely enclosed and obscured from view from the neighborhood.
So while we have the ability to proceed with the 1989 special use approval, it was my client's preference, and I believe at least the immediate neighbor's preference, to proceed with an improved plan as we have presented in this PD zoning application.
While it is not up to all code standards as are required today, we do believe it's a significant improvement over the existing conditions that are out on the site today.
And for that reason we believe that it's appropriate for the council's approval.
We have met with the neighbors on numerous occasions.
And as a result, and after meeting with Morris, we have come up with 14 additional conditions conditions than are, in fact, as Morris indicated based upon the request submitted by the neighborhood at the last meeting.
We believe we have come a long way since the last meeting, and we believe we have a good plan for council to vote on this morning.
And with that I'll just ask Mr. Henry to speak to the drainage issue.
And then I would just like to reserve an opportunity for comments, for rebuttal.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A quick question.
Mr. Mechanik, there's been a lot of discussion about sidewalk, doing a sidewalk all the way up Mississippi, which I think will be valuable to all the neighborhood.
I see on your site plan from the last time that you're showing a sidewalk on the outside of Mississippi.
It says "proposed 5 foot sidewalk."
I assume -- it looks like in the right-of-way?
>>> I believe so.
Partly in the right-of-way.
Because there's just so little room there.
>> Right.
And I recognize --.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: There's also a problem on the site plan to the extent the sidewalk goes into their property.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So it's part of this plan to build a sidewalk on the south side of the city for the entire length of the property?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> Except for obviously the entryway?
>>> yes, sir.
>> And you all are paying for that?
>>> Yes.
>> To the extent where along Alabama where there's not room for a sidewalk because of the trees, we are required to pay the in-lieu fee pursuant to the city ordinance, and that money could be spent, you know, in the discretion of the city.
>>> Good morning.
Steve Henry, I have been sworn.
Just briefly talked about the drainage.
As you are correct now the drainage system out there doesn't work very well.
It's actually a mechanical system that pumps the water when it comes in back out onto Howard Avenue.
What we are working on right now is a design that actually will be an underground system that instead of a pump system will be hydraulic as a normal bond does and flow out so -- I don't know that it will solve all of the problems but will certainly make it a lot better than what it is today.
That's what we are looking at from a design standpoint.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And we won't lose any more parking?
>>> No.
It will be underground.
If it's an underground system.
>> It will drain in the parking lot?
>>> Yes.
There's a number of systems out today that you can put under parking lots, and made specifically for this purpose.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just wondering if we couldn't, while we are doing this major excavation, work with city staff, stormwater staff, to super size it, possibly to pick up some of the drainage off of our street, and vault it understood your parking lot.
We have asked that question before of a project on Dale Mabry, and they weren't able to work out those details.
But I'm going to ask you personally if you would at least contact stormwater staff and see if there's any opportunity for that.
>>> We will certainly look into that.
Part of our problem is the same thing on Dale Mabry that you run into, is that without raising the site up a lot, we are running against the groundwater and existing paved elevation.
So there's not much room there for additional retention.
We'll certainly look at that.
>> No guarantees, but at least if you talk to them, there are some opportunities, because that whole area, you know, has problems.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 8?
>> I'm president of Historic Hyde Park neighborhood association.
I have been sworn in.
I haven't been to many of the meetings.
But our association has participated in quite a few meetings with Bayshore Gardens association, with the developer, and there are a lot of concerns.
My concerns and my comments are going to be of a more general nature, and not specific, because my partners here will speak more specifically.
I'm concerned about PDs in general.
I'm concerned that we hand out PDs like candy.
I have had three calls this week from developers that want to have PDs for various reasons.
And they go into all the reasons they want PDs.
I look on just today's agenda and I see a long list of people that want PDs.
It just worries me.
I'm not a zoning person but I just wonder when we are all not here anymore what can happen with those PDs.
And we do have a lot of conditions worked out.
And I think conditions are very important with a PD.
And I think they have to be adhered to.
But I'm very concerned that so many people are coming to us and, "we want a PD, we want a PD," no matter what the circumstance. This week one of the people said, they wanted to make an office into -- into a residence.
I said what do you need a PD for that for?
What kind of zoning are you going for?
No, what was the specific zoning?
And they said, PD.
I said, why would you need a PD?
I'm not a zoning person.
I'm asking these questions but I don't really know.
They said, well, turns out it's an 8-story condominium.
That's the kind of a conversation that neighborhood, if they are not savvy -- and we are not trained in this -- we are not able to catch some of this stuff and deal with it appropriately, because wee we either don't have the time as volunteers or don't have the education that we expect our city departments to handle.
So I'm just mentioning that because I don't want PDs to trump zoning code because I want to make sure we stick to our comprehensive plans throughout the city, and west Tampa everywhere, that we stick to the plans, that we spend so much.
In the 1970s there were a lot of single family bungalows designed for condominiums.
35 condominiums.
But historic correcting bungalows, we have a whole list of them.
If we don't fix that then we can put condos, or we can do that across the street.
So what I'm telling you to do is, number one, respect our A.R.C..
When our A.R.C. comes with recommendations, respect that and don't vote against that because they are put in place to protect us and they are all we have.
So we need to respect that.
I'm asking you to respect our history in west Tampa write worked for 14 years with the Tribune and Hyde Park where I presently live.
Our history is really important and I don't have a lot of it.
I know I only have three minutes.
Anecdotally I'll say I was in New Orleans a few weeks ago, stood on a sidewalk.
They were building a Popeye's Fried Chicken.
And I said to my son, look at that, it looks like that building has been here all along.
He said, Mom, New Orleans isn't trying to be anything but New Orleans.
They respect their history.
So the Popeyes Chicken looks like it belongs there. I saw Starbuck's, and that Starbuck's looks like it's been there forever.
Went to the super Wal-Mart store in the warehouse district, looked like it had been there a hundred years.
Please let's respect our history.
I vine it to you come plant trees Saturday morning, the Boy Scouts, the mayor's beautification program, and home deep or going to be there.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's on Swann.
>>> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
We have struggled with this issue for hours and hours.
And as a segue from what Jeanne said, we are so concerned whenever a PD comes before you, and bordering on our historic neighborhood.
I would like to first compliment Dave and the city staff.
Dave Mechanik has been exceptional in terms of attorneys working with us.
And for we and neighborhoods who at times have suffered what we feel is vindictiveness sometimes by attorneys, we really compliment his willing to meet with us.
However, while we have struggled to W this and while a lot of the conditions -- I worked with Mr. Massey on, we have ultimately come to the conclusion that we cannot support it had history of this, as you know, is a series of violations, and the PD we still feel, unfortunately, even with all these conditions, would enshrine a lot of these existing violations.
Our particular concern is a memo to Cathy Coyle to Del Acosta regarding the A.R.C.'s region March 8, and they said adding to the site plan of a fence maximum 6 feet in height along Alabama, the north end of the parking lot, Mississippi and Howard Avenue.
And what we have heard is that staff does not necessarily agree with that A.R.C. recommendation as it relates to Howard Avenue.
That concerns us because, as I read to you before, page 94 of the guidelines, historic guidelines, states that vehicles and machinery shall obscure parking from the view of pedestrians.
Landscaping, fencing, walls, and general arrangement of the site is in the conjunctive, not the disjunctive.
So what we hear is, we don't have enough room, there's not enough room to do a buffer on Howard, that would shield that park that we are all fund-raising to and trying to make look more pretty.
No, we don't have the money for it because we don't want to build a historic parking garage because we don't want to accommodate in that fashion.
Again when residents of historic districts are compelled to accommodate, the historic guidelines and put in extra windows and things like that, we put up our hands and ask, what about the commercial?
Can't they be held to the same thing?
My final comment is with the South Howard overlay district of the Tampa city code state: Those design criteria shall be applied individually where appropriate and list as an example a request for a change in location or amount in parking.
So that's what's going on here.
My concern is -- and I've said this before -- we have these wonderful newspaper articles about how we have a Soho overlay district, but when it really comes down to it, do we really pull out our code and enforce it?
I feel like the very good work that the city has done here, and that owners attorney has shown exceptional willingness to meet with us, that we can't support this.
Thank you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And, Ms. Johnson, have you been sworn?
>>> Yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask you a quick question?
>>> Sure.
>> Do you think that if this were continued, and the petitioner agreed to put up the kind of fencing and do the things that they are required to do, that you could support it?
I understand it isn't productive to remain the way it is because the way it is makes us all crazy.
We wanted to improve.
So do you think if we were to continue this with a specific drive to the petitioner to do the things you just outlined that you could get --
>>> I think we are very close.
I think we're like 98% there.
And we were just upset with the lack of buffering on Howard.
>> That's doable.
I mean, that's doable.
>>> Well, they say it is not.
>> Well, they need to rethink that.
Thank you.
>>> That's so much.
Thanks so much.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Putting that buffering on Howard Avenue, wouldn't that have something to do Do with transportation?
>>> No.
>> What I'm saying is, would it mean that people going up and down Howard Avenue wouldn't have a clear view?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's just a brick pier.
>>> Exactly.
And I think that there's been some misunderstanding about little walls the A.R.C. requires, just the little tiny thing that would shield the grill work of the cars and those ugly things but not something that would be up in the windshield range.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you mention something about a six-foot wall, six-foot fence?
>>> Yes, I guess that's true, that they call for six feet.
And again, we would like the A.R.C. to be respective but we would accommodate given safety concerns obviously.
I feel like we're close.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Also, was the overlay district put in before Bela's?
>>> I think Bela's was in first.
But what the district -- my understanding is what the code says is that when you then have a change in your parking, then you're triggered and you fall under the historic.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.
>>> Roger GORN, I have been sworn in.
I am also a board member on the Hyde Park neighborhood historic association.
I do want to explain, try to help you understand the thoughts behind the A.R.C. deliberation here.
It's part of the historic guidelines of Hyde Park and also of the Soho overlay district that you should shield the automobiles and other machinery from street view.
The second idea is that these walls, it could be a wall, could be a fence, but that is for A.R.C. to work out that. Is to give the feeling, when there is a parking lot, is to give the feeling of the continuance of the facade of the building, which is what the urban atmosphere and the urban fabric is about.
We don't want the suburban pattern brought into Hyde Park.
Do you understand?
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>> Crawford, 1406 applewood Avenue and I have been sworn.
We were asked to try to resolve issues and try to work with legal to come up with some appropriate language and after much discussion, lawyers, Mr. Massey, Mr. Mc, And Ms. Johnson, put their heads together in the language, and the little list of pending issues kind of grew up a lot.
We really appreciate their efforts.
They have worked very hard on our behalf.
I do want to say that Mr. Mechanik and on behalf of his petitioner, there is no responsibility for the actions of the previous owners, the developers, the agents that represented them, and commitments that were made to us that were never fulfilled.
We are certain at this point that Mr. Mechanik's responsibility, the owner's responsibility, and the city departments, are going to ensure compliance with whatever you approve today, that their responsibility is not going to end if he -- at the conclusion of this hearing like it did in the past.
While there's no perfect solution to remedy all the problems, we feel that this site plan and this landscaping plan are superior to the existing condition we had today and they are superior to the 1989 plan.
I really don't think it makes sense to go back.
The information I have been provided by the city, code enforcement and what that special use permit means, is it won't do anything to alleviate the parking issues or some of the other things they talked about.
So I think the things we can address and that we can do something about, that we have done that.
And in a spirit of compromise by all parties, the resident and the Bayshore Gardens neighborhood association, accept this rezoning request.
I respect the opinions by the Hyde Park historic district.
They are the experts when it comes to the historic district.
They are not.
So I would ask you to listen to them on those issues.
But our blocks most effected by this in our neighborhood has -- is willing to accept it as it stands.
Although we can learn from looking backwards, we can only live by going forward.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>> Good afternoon.
I have been sworn in.
I am president of Bayshore garden neighborhood association.
And a resident of the 1300 block of Moody Avenue, which is directly behind B of the parking lot.
I could not tell you the number of e-mails, phone calls, and meetings that bring us to this point.
Although this has been a long process, and our neighborhood coping with some of these issues for over 18 years, we truly feel that we have worked out a compromise.
It not perfect, ladies and gentlemen.
There are things that we wish we could make better.
But considering the limitation for the size, and the parameters involved, we really truly feel that this work between Mr. Mechanik, Mr. Massey, Ms. Coyle, our neighbors in Historic Hyde Park, we do understand much belter that this plan, this PD, is an improved one.
It not perfect.
But nothing in life is perfect.
We hope that in the future, no neighbor has to go through the ordeal we have had to go through having a plan that was voted on by the City Council, followed through on.
It took us 18 years to get here, folks.
And I don't think that's fair to anybody.
We're so happy to be here.
We think this is a much better plan.
There are sidewalks funds, not building the sidewalk on Alabama, I ask you to allocate those funds to the 1402 Moody Avenue residence.
He's willing to sign over that land and it's a side parcel, the whole length of the side of his lot on a corner lot.
It would be wonderful.
And although we agree with Judy, we don't agree the PD-2.
We really question the use of the frequency.
But in this case, I really think that this is a good plan.
And it deals with our immediate neighborhood concerns.
And we really appreciate all the energy put into it.
And especially with Mr. Mechanik.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number number -- condition number 24 at the back of your home, maybe the front of your home.
A 4-foot wood fence be installed adjacent to parcel B.
And I understand staff's concern about the other section of fencing, because there is six or seven oak trees of adjacent parcel "A".
And so we are going to have to figure out something else there.
Maybe some other type of fence that's elevated off the ground.
And on parcel B, I'm not seeing any trees there.
And I'm just wondering, is that something that you guys desired or whatever in terms of a wood fence?
Because we all know that cypress fence on a good day might last five to ten years, and especially if it well trafficked might last a lot less than that.
>>> Thank you.
We were surprised when we got the copy.
We did not specify wood.
We started asking for a six-foot fence and we understood there were some CPTED concerns about people hiding behind the fence so we went down to the 4-foot fence.
Our primary concern was to help diffuse noise from the parking lot.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But a 4-foot masonry wall --
>>> there's going to be new trees planted.
And there's supposedly three new trees to be added to that section.
So I gather that the fencing could be built around the new oak tree.
There's only one existing oak tree, the big one on the corner.
They are going to be planting three more.
Whatever fencing, it will allow those trees to grow, but it be maintained, and also the light and signed barrier between that residence behind there.
>> Things for the petitioner to consider.
I don't see on the site plan where the three trees are shown there.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It's page 2 of your site plan.
The landscape plan is page 2.
I want to go further into that.
And I wanted to discuss --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Also to the petitioner.
My other question is for Mr. Massey.
Going back to that provision about number 21, if it not implicated on the site plan, subject to vee view, by the A.R.C., how does that relate to the buffering stem wall that's being discussed by the historic neighborhood?
In other words, as I'm looking at the site plan along Howard and along Mississippi, there's really no reference to the potential for wall.
So if it's silent, does that give the A.R.C. jurisdiction to go ahead and mandate it?
>>> No, I don't believe so.
I'll let Ms. Coil address that issue.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The design of the wall or fence or whatever the A.R.C. would put in there given that note, they do have the ability to do that but they cannot circumvent the other codes that we have.
And chapter 27 and as part of the transportation technical standards for visibility purposes, fences and walls have to remain 2.5 feet or lower and be set back 12 feet from the back of the curb.
There's only a six-foot, if you look.
That's one of the things I want to -- wanted to address.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I said Howard and Mississippi.
Let's talk of Howard.
If you put a 2.5 foot step wall there to block those cars, the fronts of the cars, why would that be a problem, visibilitywise?
>>> It is not.
The only thing is that might trigger some change in the landscape that's up to council.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Somebody pulling out of this driveway, they would have to pull out onto this street.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I understand that a little better now.
But I am very concerned about the Howard side, because we are making a big investment across the street, in that Burns park.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: But it is something to add and then they would just add that to their landscape plan.
The only thing I want to clarify for council, the reason, as Ms. Johnson mentioned, the motion made by the A.R.C. was for six feet along Howard as well which I thought personally and the reason I recommended against it is on many other zoning cases and other issues that come before council, areas like along MacDill Avenue you guys have consistently said that these are tunnels, because people are putting up six foot walls and fences and MacDill is no different than Howard in width but it's a two or three-lane road.
You hate to see something solid going in there six feet high.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak?
>>DAVID MECHANIK: A few comments in rebuttal.
Dave Mechanik.
I don't know if I indicated but I have been sworn earlier.
In respect to the reference to the A.R.C. guidelines, I would like to refer you to the guidelines as Ms. Johnson referred to page 94, and she indicated that these guidelines are in the conjunctive.
And this is the section that deals with how parking is buffered.
And what it says is every attempt should be made to obscure parking from the view of pedestrians by the careful placement of buildings on the site, landscaping, fencing, walls, and general arrangement of the site.
She had suggested to you all that that should be interpreted to be read in the conjunctive.
I suggest to you that that's not logical or possible since they are talking about both fencing and walls.
No one could possibly be talking about fences and walls both being required simultaneously.
We have submitted and have submitted an extensive landscape plan which we believe, in fact, satisfies the guidelines of the A.R.C. guidelines.
And I would point out to you another quote, which is not mentioned by Ms. Johnson, on page 95 of the guidelines, and it says it is permissible to screen parking from the street with landscaping, fencing, walls, or buildings.
So those are stated in the disjunctive.
What I'm trying to say here is that landscaping is an equally appropriate means of buffering.
We have a landscape plan which, as Cathy indicated, is on page 2, and with particular interest in the Howard Avenue frontage, that is where we have been able to supply the greatest amount of landscaping, because there's a little more land there for us to deal with.
So I'd like to ask Mr. Steve Henry to speak to the details of the landscaping and some of the concerns about the fencing requirement.
But we believe we have satisfied the guidelines with the landscaping plan.
And there is of the four foot fence and the fencing on the Alabama site.
So there is a complete fence along the boundaries of the property that abut the immediate residential neighborhood.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was suggesting something instead of a 4 foot cypress wood fence something longer lasting.
That was my suggestion.
>>> I would like to ask Mr. Henry to speak to that because we do have significant trees along both parcels, frontage along Alabama.
>>> Steve Henry again.
I have been sworn.
First I want to talk about the Howard Avenue frontage.
This shows the landscaping that we are proposing along that area.
We have a couple of issues trying to provide along this area.
We have the drainage here that will remain in there obviously as we said, there's an issue of drainage in the area.
Then put the additional drainage underground.
So we have got to try to provide -- these are all plants that will survive, so that they will survive within that area.
>> What are they?
>>> One second.
>> I want to know if it going to be thick, grow fast, and be able to maintain.
>>> What she's planned here is a fire brush, which three foot high, the lower end and then the trees to get the canopy up at that standpoint.
Also there's elms out there.
She's trying to tier it so there's a low level amount of plantings, fire brush, which is also water tolerant, and then as you can see, as far as the low level and then trying to -- from a buffering standpoint.
We can certainly work with the landscape, the Parks Department, to provide, you know, a significant amount of understorage, plantings, in addition to what's here, if that's what council wants.
Our concern is with trying to put a wall there, that the only place you can that's potentially feasible to put a wall is right up against the parking which these are compact spaces.
Now you have a wall against compact spaces and the visibility when you come into the site, you have no landscaping.
Off wall and put your parking right up against.
So the aesthetics interior are diminished greatly from what we are trying to do here.
Also again you're parking right up against a wall.
So that's our concern with putting something there.
I think what we can do is achieve what council is trying to do as far as the buffering with landscaping.
Buffering on Howard Avenue.
Again, I think the staff talked about along Mississippi.
Obviously we have an issue with you that just from a technical standpoint, visibility.
But also if bee were to put a wall there, we have only got two and a half feet between putting a sidewalk in, and if encroaching onto our property.
We only have two and a half feet between the parking and the sidewalk.
If you put a wall in there, there's no landscape.
Now you have the landscaping either on the right-of-way side, or our side of that wall.
So what we have tried to do here is work within what we have got and tried to aesthetically make it a lot more pleasing and also provide the buffering that we are able to provide, given the constraints of the site that we have got.
From the four-foot fence on Alabama in the north lot, the same issue on the south side, we have a 24-inch oak there that obviously creates a problem with trying to put the footer in.
We'll be encroaching into that.
If you look at the land sheet plan sheet 2, it shows a 24 inch oak.
You see the canopy.
It extends beyond the property.
So we would end up with cutting into the roots of that with the foundation wall.
So planting additional oak trees, then potentially a problem with future maintenance.
I will say in the conditions that we have got, one of the conditions state that we have to maintain the fences and the walls and the landscaping.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What does that mean?
>>> They have to be in good working condition.
And that's one of the conditions that are in here.
Specifically, that they have to be maintained.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's probably the conditions of the existing PD.
We have seen the maintenance on that.
That doesn't inspire me.
Maybe you can jack up a masonry wall and get it off the ground, get it off the roots.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, instead of a masonry wall, why not an ornamental type fence like Home Depot has or Loews where they have the bars, now?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think they want noise protection and light protection.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: They can put up a six foot and then ornamental shrubbery going around there.
That will buffer.
But it's not CPTED, I don't think they will approve that.
You don't have any visibility between --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They are proposing a 6 foot cypress fans.
It's pretty much six of one.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for Mr. Shelby or Mr. Massey.
If a commitment is made in a PD to maintain something, what ability does the city have to make sure that two years down the line it is maintained, or three years down the line?
Code enforcement?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Code enforcement.
Fountain were to be a wooden fence that would go into disrepair it would be a violation of code enforcement.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With respect to the petitioners, the problem is 18 years of misery by the neighbors.
So there's a skepticism that's even greater than usual about the ability to maintain stuff, based on their frustrating experience.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: Let me respectfully make the comment again.
At this point, I think Ms. Crawford also pointed out, my client has only owned this property for the recent several years, and most of that history if not all of the issues with noncompliance and failure to make promises, they are not suggesting my client.
So I would just like to point that out.
>> Well, could we like make the liquor zoning contingent upon maintenance or something like that?
That would get their attention.
>>> We certainly have no problem.
We added the condition in there about maintenance for that very reason.
The neighbors asked for it.
I think it's implicit in any PD approval of that you must maintain that which a S approved.
We are more than happy to add that as an explicit condition because of this very reason.
We understand the sensitivity.
And again we would respectfully suggest that the landscaping is more than adequate to buffer.
There are numerous examples throughout the city and in the historic district where landscaping has been an acceptable means of buffering.
Where is it more sensitive in the immediate neighborhood, we are proposing the fence there.
And there is also landscaping in that area as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
We need to close the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: What is pleasure of council?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move to approve this with the provision of a two and a half foot wall where the landscaping is going to be on Howard Avenue.
In lieu of the guy said he couldn't do both.
Both if possible.
He said he couldn't do the fence and the landscaping.
My feeling is fences last longer than landscaping oftentimes and it would provide and absolute, and it would have to be approved by the A.R.C. so we know it would be attractive, two and a half feet would be shielding.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: That's on Howard?
>> Correct.
Just on Howard.
I think the only problem that he raised before was the footers.
You are going to have a substantial amount of footers placed in that stormwater pond.
>> Well, you can design the stormwater pond to feed into another drain then.
That's what he said in the site plan figure it out.
We spent a fortune on LUNA park.
Spent a fortune on a park a couple blocks away.
And this should look good.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number one, the site plan is conceptual only.
So if they have to twist and turn and push and pull a little bit, they can do that.
To make that little wall work.
>> Mr. Mechanik, you can address that?
>>GWEN MILLER: Come on, Mr. Mechanik, clarify for us.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have to reopen the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: He's just clarifying.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's still testimony.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Mechanik, I'm asking you a question.
Would you respond, please?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
Let's get clarification.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Whether to reopen it or not?
I believe you should reopen it.
>> Move to reopen.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Mechanik, go ahead.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: My client has instructed me to advise council that he is not willing to construct a masonry wall as suggested by the motion.
>>> Stem wall.
>> That's where he's going to dig his heels in the sand on this entire -- and ask for a denial?
Withdraw the petition?
Is that what you're telling us?
>>> I have no other discretion.
I'm sorry.
>> Is your client here?
>>> Yeah, he's here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let Ms. Ferlita ask a question.
She's been raising her hand for awhile.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to ask the same gentleman.
I think his representative has already said that to us.
Sir, will you just come forward and restate your position and I could ask you my questions or make my comments?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And tell us what the big deal is.
>>> My name is bill Curtis, one of the owners of the building.
And to be honest with you, I spent about $40,000 with my attorneys, and Steve, and we're done.
We have worked with these people.
We have come to an agreement with them.
And it changing again.
And we can't keep going with it.
And that's our position.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
Sir, I happen to wholeheartedly agree with you.
I think one of my colleagues said we needed to twist and turn and push and pull.
I think we have done all of the above.
Karen has been very vigilant and protective of her neighborhood.
And some of the other people who came up to speak.
I mean, we have looked at a reconfiguration, reconfiguration again, and, I mean, when Lee look at skepticism that somebody else talked about because of what has happened there historically, it is not Mr. Mechanik's, you know, the petitioner's fault.
I think we have made so many improvements that it is a shame that somebody on this council, not that you are going to blow the deal because you are not going to put the two foot fence up, I think it is a shame that this council will not also bend a little bit.
We have some improvements.
The neighborhood seems to be exceptionally happy.
Ms. Johnson is a neighbor and friend of mine and that is an obligation and responsibility self-imposed to talk about what she would like in terms of the wall.
But to me if we are buffering this with some nice landscaping, and I'm not a horticulturist, I don't know what's good and not good.
And I think that that is going to be very complementary across the street.
But at some point we have to see that if some strides have been made between neighborhood and developer and representative, we should take that, too.
So I will support the motion to pass it, but I will not support the motion based on the addendum that Ms. Saul-Sena is talking about in terms of the wall, and the landscaping and everything.
I mean, I think you all have come as close as possible.
Even in her objection, Ms. Johnson has said, gosh, we really had a good relationship with David Mechanik.
That's God to -- got to count for something.
The developer can't have everything they want.
The developer probably would have preferred to spend less.
To spend less instead of more.
The neighborhood probably would have liked to have everything.
But I think we have protected both sides by going as far as we have with this dialogue.
And I think enough is enough is enough.
I am very comfortable to support it just like it is without that wall, because I don't think that there's enough room to do the landscaping, the wall, everything else.
Go to bell A's often.
That parking lot is a nightmare.
It drives us all crazy.
So we have sat through it.
You have tried to work with the neighborhood.
Karen and the rest of the neighborhood have tried to work with Mr. Mechanik.
I think this is as good a project as we are going to have.
And I would hate for anyone to walk away from it, sir.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Let me make one clarification just after speaking with Mr. Mechanik.
I just wanted council to be aware that the motion that is on the table now --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We don't have a motion.
Withdrew it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I didn't withdraw it.
>>GWEN MILLER: You can't have a motion with the public hearing open, can you?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're right.
It's withdrawn.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: If a motion was made by council again made by council with that condition, then the petitioner is notifying me that they would be withdrawing their petition.
I just want council to be aware of that.
>> Move to close the public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question before you close the public hearing.
>> We didn't vote on it yet.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to clarify something what Mrs. Ferlita said because it not just what Mrs. ion son said from her perspective with historic district.
I just want clarification from staff that you said that this was Del Acosta's and his staff's request from their perspective, from the A.R.C.'s perspective, to put up a six-foot metal wall along Howard.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I'll read into the record the motion that they made.
This is from the A.R.C., March 7, 2005 at its meeting.
A.R.C. voted to recommend approval as presented at the public hearing with the following considerations.
It's the very first -- it says add a note to the site plan for a fence, a maximum of six feet in height along Alabama Avenue, the north end of the parking lot, Mississippi, and Howard Avenue.
So it is very specific.
That is a six-foot fence.
It doesn't say what type.
Along Howard, Alabama and the north end of the parking lot.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With that clarification, I think it's extremely important that this is not just the druthers of one or two neighbors who stood up in front of us.
This is our -- Mrs. Ferlita? -- this is our commission that we have appointed to address these Historic Hyde Park issues.
Now, I believe that the motion -- that Mrs. Saul-Sena tried to make was a compromise.
Instead of building a 6-foot metal fence, which I frankly don't think would be appropriate along there -- I think instead, what would be appropriate is this two and a half foot stem wall.
I just wanted to clarify that for council because this is not just about two people coming in front of us and asking us for a stem wall.
This is the A.R.C. commission.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think he has said two or three times it is not just the direction of Ms. Johnson and a couple of other neighbors want.
I realize that. I am very well aware of that. I am also very well aware of the fact this is A.R.C.'s recommendation.
But if my memory serves me correctly, my colleague Mr. Dingfelder in some cases has disagreed with some A.R.C. positions.
This is one in which I will disagree with them.
I think that what we have works.
And I'm not sure I want to start that type of precedent to start putting 6-foot walls up there.
So just not to discount what I intended when I said that.
I'm very well aware of the facts that Mr. Dingfelder has posed.
And my position remains the same nonetheless.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: What is the pleasure of council?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would move to approve in its current configuration, discounting the consideration of that two-foot wall.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Question on the motion.
Mrs. Alvarez has a question on the motion?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You have to read the ordinance?
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The six foot wood fence along Alabama on parcel A exists, where all the line of trees are, the southern side.
There is a six foot wood fence on the site plan currently.
There are no other fences or walls on any of the other sections.
So the A.R.C. recommendation is simply a recommendation.
It's not on the plan.
>> Not on the plan.
Thank you for the clarification.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really appreciate all the energy that everybody has put in to coming to a better solution on this.
I'm not going to support the motion because I really think that the wall would be more dependable to landscaping in terms of screening and parking.
It would respect the A.R.C.'s recommendation.
And it would provide an edge, a continuation of the building rather than the suburban parking lot.
And I have just been very disappointed in the ability of most commercial folks in keeping their hedges alive.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not going to support the motion because I don't believe that council should be held hostage hostage on this type of issue.
This petitioner, by the way, is in front of code enforcement for numerous violations on the existing PD.
Is that correct, staff?
And so if they want to continue along on that course, the fact that their existing PD is under code enforcement and they have to get it together on that one, that will disappoint this neighborhood, and that sort of thing, and frankly it's not a great solution.
But this council is not going to be held hostage on that basis.
So I vote no.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you read the ordinance?
Mrs. Saul-Sena, I appreciate your concern about the wall and if there was more room I think that would be nicer but dealing with what they have in the front that's the reason I'm not including it in my motion.
The second issue is that at 1:30 this afternoon this council can certainly weigh in on how we want to go forward more aggressively about code violations.
And that would include the petitioner or anybody else.
But it's not relative to what I am going to support.
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1405 and 1413 South Howard Avenue, 2307 west Mississippi Avenue and 1316 south Alabama Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications CG and RM-16 to PD, retail professional office restaurant, commercial parking, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder and Saul-Sena no.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I think that 1:30 will be 2:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Council will go into recess until 1:30.
>> Are we going to finish the unfinished business real quick?
Come back.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'm not going to be back at 1:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to make a motion then if we are going to come back later.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We need to do some unfinished business.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'd rather come back at 1:30.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a problem with this afternoon, personal, a doctor's issue.
I'm not sure I am going to get back to any of these meetings but I had an item that I wanted to bring up.
As a -- anyway, I just need to bring up an item.
>>GWEN MILLER: The ring I said take a Rae sees, now it's 5 minutes till one and we have to be back at 1:30 and I know council members want to go to lunch.
And we cannot go to lunch and be back at 1:30 if we continue to go ahead on the meeting.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just had like a two-minute item.
My own two-minute item.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh, your own two-minute item.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's an information report, just because I don't know if I am going to be here this afternoon.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
And I apologize for this.
It's not a huge deal but I just wanted to be done with it.
The county commission made a great suggestion this week.
And I think that I'm going to ask our administration to follow suit and give us a report back in let's say four weeks about giving servicemen a tax break.
I just thought that -- and I raise it since MacDill is in my district.
I don't know that we have a huge number of servicemen here, and active duty overseas.
But I think when they are in active duty overseas we should look into giving them a tax break like the county suggested and other communities.
So I would move for staff to get back with us on that idea in four weeks.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for that courtesy.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Not that I am going to start any other issues, but because Mr. Dingfelder brought it up, I thought this was an appropriate time for me to mention something that I was going to do some work on first.
But it's part and parcel to what the county commission has done.
I have met with commissioner mark Sharp.
He and I have done some research.
As a matter of fact, in my hand I have got copies of the board, expressway authority, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And mark Sharp and I have every intention to partner on an issue that I think will tell MacDill Air Force Base and our armed services what this community thinks about their importance.
And we are talking about something that has been talked about for a long time, and that's either some sort of a discount in terms of using the expressway authority, I was going to talk to senator Hargrett, the rest of the people here.
In addition to Gwen miller who is also on that board.
And then I was going to go forward in bringing my report.
But if we are going to start an enthusiasm which I think we should start -- should start and continue from the standpoint of this city and it's support of the military, I do want you to know that that is an issue that commissioner Sharp and ir working on.
We have talked to some well respected communicate leaders.
As we go forward with this initiative, and configure what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, so it's not unfair to any other party that might want to be considered in terms of discounts, I think it will be all about the City of Tampa and the county of Hillsborough supporting the Armed Forces.
I will be coming to talk to you about some of those issues, and I will come back, and I thought that was something that was very complementary to what occurred at the county commission.
So I'm happy that Mr. Dingfelder brought that up.
Thank you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I apologize, but (off microphone) I would caution in this issue either in the sunshine or through memos with public records.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Well, no, the fact come to her doesn't mean talking in the back room.
Commissioner sharp would probably be the appropriate person to talk to her and I certainly, certainly, always, Mr. Shelby, because I respect your involvement in protecting us, I would come to you.
And I would ask you how we should configure it.
I obviously don't have a plan in hand.
But I had a concept in mind.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just the perception on the part of the public.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I appreciate that, Marty, but I know I was going to do that.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: One more thing.
>>THE CLERK: This morning, Morris Massey presented a RESO for the days in for the fire rescue but was not adopted.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we are going to recess.
Be back at 1:30.
(Meeting recessed at 1:00 p.m.)

**Code Enforcement Workshop - Separate captioning file**

9:00 a.m. continued...
We go back to our regular agenda from this morning.
Item number 9.
Mr. Shelby.
A long day.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A long day.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I this we have all taken what we can take for the day.
I don't know how much more we are going to try to get done today.
But we have 9, 10, 13, 15, 16.
I don't think this is going to be a short discussion we are about to embark on here.
And I don't know that we can embark on another two-hour discussion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is just that we look at the agenda at the beginning of the agenda.
Not the whole schmear. This is just that we have an orderly --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a discussion.
There was a motion last week to get that in place prior to the other discussion.
I just made a resolution.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you want to wait on it that's fine.
>> If council reads it today it would have to be set for two weeks down the road for adoption at that time.
And then it would take effect on the April 28th meeting.
It would be the first time you have the new agenda.
It's just the order of business.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move this resolution.
Resolution amending rule 4 of the rules of procedure governing meetings of City Council and the City of Tampa modifying order and transaction of business.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison, number 10.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Number 10?
I move the resolution.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
We have a memorandum from Chief Hogue to receive.
Any further action just to receive and file?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We got that from Chief Hogue.
And I think that we need to do something about more about the child protection ordinance.
I think we need to close some loop holes in this thing.
There's a lot of people.
Not a lot of people but they are taking advantage.
There's people in there taking advantage of what we have already set up.
So I think we ought to ask the legal department to find a way of closing that loop hole and making it part of the ordinance.
I would like legal to come back and talk to us about adding Sundays to the child protection ordinance.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: When do you want them to come back?
>> In a week.
I would think they would have enough time.
>>THE CLERK: Two weeks.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Two weeks is fine.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: A motion to come back in two weeks.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Harrison, I would also like to make a motion we have legal also in regards to this same thing look at trying to maybe draft an ordinance or something of that nature that would require wet-zoned establishments within the city limits of Tampa that want to throw dances, party or gathering, if it's a wet zoned establishment, to require the same security personnel at these events that they would do on any other regular night that they operate.
>>KEVIN WHITE: If that's not in force now I would like legal to investigate to see if we can put that in an ordinance to further enhance the child protection ordinance.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
That will be addressed at the same time in two weeks.
(Motion carried)
Motion carries.
All right.
Item number 15.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file.
They are going to get back on it.
I'm pleased they are making progress.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
Another memo we need to receive.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, the two responses from the chief I thought were excellent.
I'd like to move that the first one says that if a balcony is open that an employer should have a security person on the balcony.
And the second one says that the security person should make sure that there are no glass containers allowed on the balconies so that people can't throw glass down on the heads of people below.
I thought both those were excellent suggestions.
And I would like to move that we forward this to legal, and that they write them up as -- and it comes back to us in the form of ordinances.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
Is there discussion?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a time frame on that?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Probably 30 days. The only question is should the person be a security person or should the person on the balconies making sure that things are copacetic be an off-duty police officer?
I think an off-duty police officer would be more substantive.
>>KEVIN WHITE: More substantive but more costly to the establishment.
If it's just a balcony, I don't know whether all balconies -- are we talking about wet zones?
>> Talking about wet zonings if there's people out there drinking.
If there's nobody out there drinking they don't have to have somebody out there.
I hate to interrupt council.
But I know it's a timely issue and it's very important for public safety.
But I think it would perhaps be more appropriate to ask legal to come back in two weeks to at least give them some sort of direction, and perhaps let council know how long it would take for them to come back.
Because I really can't speak for the legal department in terms of --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Request that they come back in two weeks.
With a response to these two issues.
And hopefully a draft.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If that's the case but I can't speak for the legal department.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Further discussion?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Not on this, but I do have something to bring up.
Go ahead.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All in favor of having legal come back in two weeks.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What I was going to talk about, I know there was some especially in the knight parade, even the Gasparilla parade, we need to look into the fact that these parade goers, parade participants, are throwing the beads out there with the big seals on them and they are throwing them overhanded and I know one person got hit in the head and had about three stitches put on.
They are becoming obstacles, not just beads.
And if we need to, if we need to look into changing some kind of -- changing instead of just being just plain old beads, then we have to do something.
Because now they are becoming dangerous missiles.
I don't know whether we need to call administration, or special events people or what, but it's something that needs to be addressed because this is becoming -- these beads are getting really ornamental nowadays, and they are becoming really dangerous.
Martin, you can help me on this if you want.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you asking the administration to look into addressing this issue in some fashion?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't you ask him to do some research.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Into regulating -- let's see if I understand this correctly -- because what would it be?
Would it be from balconies, or from multi-story buildings, or from floats?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: From floats.
From participants in the parade.
I will bring you --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Oh, I have seen them.
Oh, I have felt them.
>> These things are dangerous and a friend of mine got hit right here.
She had three stitches.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Could I ask for three weeks on that?
Is that possible?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Three weeks is fine.
Do we need a motion?
He knows.
Thank you.
All right.
Now, do we have anything else on the agenda?
If not we will go to new business by council members.
Starting on my right.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real short.
I received a letter from Walter Pestric saying the Dan Kiley Park in downtown should be saved.
I would like to have a meeting with the parks people, citizens interested in saving this park on April 20, a Wednesday morning at 9 a.m. in the Mascotte room.
And any council members are invited and I'll notice it and invite the downtown partnership and anybody else who I can think of.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Received a letter from a lady that lives on Matanzas and Swann about a petition that we heard back in September.
I'm sure that everybody got a letter of it where instead of putting 8 townhouses they were able to put seven townhouses but they still have the same conditions that they had before with the parking and spaces.
And I don't know whether we can ask them to come back.
They want to request a public hearing on the issue.
So I don't know whether we can handle that because it's already done.
But it seems to me like they weren't approved for aid, so they were administratively approved for seven -- for eight but approved for seven which doesn't make us -- nobody was going to listen to what we had to say.
So I guess what I would like to do is maybe have Mrs. Beahm come over and talk to us about what happened.
She is the lady that's requesting a public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: May I make a suggestion?
I had the opportunity to speak briefly with Ms. Coyle about this.
I don't have a recollection of the fullback ground of the case.
But perhaps Ms. Coyle can appear to discuss this.
I don't believe it's first of all ripe for public hearing or appropriate for public hearing and I also caution council about inviting somebody to discuss this at a point in the agenda when it's something that's more appropriately discussed during public comment or general public comment.
But if council does have questions with regard to the background behind this, and how such a thing can happen, for instance, I don't know whether there was a small scale plan amendment previous to that, that came before council, or it was rezoned for -- was it RM-24, I believe?
But if council has specific questions about that, you can inquire of staff to have perhaps provide a report or if the letter writer wishes to address council, my recommendation would be at the appropriate point on the agenda.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So would you say that we would ask Catherine Coyle to --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If the letter raises sufficient concern to have addressed then you could have Catherine Coyle to give you some background of what brought this property to where it is.
But as for public hearing, this is through the regular zoning process.
It's not administratively done.
I don't believe council has any official role at this point in time.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So the thing to do is ask Ms. Coyle to come and give us a letter on this answer?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes-f council has an issue about things raised.
And if council wishes to give her sufficient time to be able to do that.
I don't know how long that would be.
But that would be my recommendation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that what would you like to do?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, I would like to do that.
I'm sure everybody got a copy of this letter.
She was here at the meeting when we denied that request.
And then came back and they are putting 7 houses on there.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My impression of reading that letter is I don't believe her peering here will give you any more information than you presently have in the letter which will be sufficient amount of information for staff to be able to respond to it.
So if she wishes to come, she's welcome to.
But I believe staff has enough information in that letter to be able to formulate an answer.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Staff can.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Staff can respond.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: She can come in a week under unfinished business.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you think a week is enough time?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: All she has to do is read the letter.
>> She's seen it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So we will invite Ms. Coyle to come in and respond to that letter.
We have a motion.
We have a second.
(Motion carried)
Anything else?
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Nothing today, sir.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh, yes.
We are canceling CRA due to the fact that we are here too late.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Reschedule?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Reschedule to April 21st.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: At 11:00 o'clock?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
Do we have to vote on it?
All in favor say Aye.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make a motion that the commendation for David Denson be removed from the pending calendar and placed on the April 14th agenda for 9 a.m. time certain.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you.
And just two quick things.
I would like to look out to the audience and say happy birthday to my mother today.
Happy birthday to my daughter tomorrow.
I'm done.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We won't ask how old either one of them.
>>> Daughter is 15 and my mother -- I won't tell you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Smart move.
Then if there is nothing further to come before council --.
>> Move to receive and file all document.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: I have a request from a Mrs. Jackson from the Rainbow Heights neighborhood association.
She would like to get on the agenda to discuss some neighborhood issues.
And to give council signed petition from the residents.
And they want to know when they can be scheduled.
Location in the neighborhood is between 40th street and 34th street, Martin Luther King and south side of Osborne.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What's the pleasure of council?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Same scenario.
The appropriate time to address council on these issues would be through general public comment.
And if you feel as a result of that, if you need to have it scheduled, at least you have the background to be able to do that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So the Clerk's office will get back with Mrs. Jackson.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Anything else, clerk?
We go to the agenda audience -- or just regular audience comments.
(Off camera for Public Comment)
(Meeting Adjourned.)