Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council 1

Thursday, May 5, 2005

9:00 a.m. session


DISCLAIMER:

The following represents an unedited version of realtime

captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete

accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.

The original of this transcript may have been produced in all

capital letters, and any variation thereto may be a result of

third-party edits and software compatibility issues.

Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings

may need to hire a court reporter.


>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.

The chair will yield to Shawn Harrison.

>> It's my pleasure to introduce pastor Jim Harnish of Hyde Park

Methodist church.
He will give our invocation. 2

So if we could all stand for the invocation and remain standing

for the pledge.

>> Good morning.

I'll be leading us in words by Don Homershall, the first

Secretary of the United Nations an one of my personal and

spiritual heroes.

Let's join together in prayer.

Thou art are over us, one of us, thou who art within us, we all

see in Thee also.

May I prepare the way for Thee.

May I thank Thee for all that will fall to my lot.

May I not forget the needs of others.

Keep me in Thy love as thou wouldst be kept in mind.

May everything in my being be directed to Thy glory.

May I never despair, for I am under Thy hand and all power and

goodness.

Give us a pure heart that we may see Thee, a humble heart that

we may hear thee, a heart of love that we may serve Thee, a

heart of faith that we may live Thee.

Amen.



>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here. 3

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.

>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)

>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

>>GWEN MILLER: Here.

At this time we will have a presentation by Fran Devin.

>> Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Members of council and distinguished guests.

It is my distinct privilege this morning to appear before you as

the mayor's liaison for the Sister Cities Committee, and to seek

your approval of a resolution, which invites the people of

Israel to join in an official sister cities partnership with the

people of the City of Tampa.

About a year and a half ago, Mr. Jack Ross, who is a leader in

the Jewish community, approached the Sister Cities Committee,

and asked how he could go about creating a formal relationship

between Ashdod and the City of Tampa.

And sister cities international has a whole process by which a

U.S. city and a foreign city enter into such a relationship.

So Jack got very busy and for the last year and a half has been

going through all the steps that are required to qualify to be

recognized as an official sister city.

There have been delegations of children, go from Tampa to

Israel, and there have been delegations of children making trips

back here in return.
There have been official trips back and forth. 4

And now we have reached the point that we are ready through the

sister cities process to formalize that relationship.

As you know, we have a very, very active sister cities group

here in Tampa.

We are very fortunate to have people who put in so much private

time and private effort into establishing these global

relationships.

And I would like to ask Mr. John Spoto, who is our president for

sister cities of Tampa, to come forward, make a couple of

remarks, and then he will introduce Mr. Ross to you, and

Mr. Ross will introduce all of the dignitaries we have here with

us from Ashdod.

I hope you all got invitations to the Tampa Theatre this evening

and tomorrow afternoon there will be another formal ceremonies

where the mayors will form the -- will sign the formal

agreement.

>>> Thank you, Fran.

Madam Chairman, council members.

It's a pleasure for me to be here this morning representing

Tampa sister cities.

To give you just a brief, brief history of who we are, the

sister cities international was formed in 1956 under the

presidency of Dwight Eisenhower and sole purpose and mission was

to try to create a better understanding among different cities
in the whole country to promote mutual understanding their 5

culture, their educational system and their economic process.

And by doing this, his idea was it would create a better peace

among our countries.

We are very fortunate here in Tampa to have six such

relationships with different countries.

Columbia.

We have Mexico.

Oviedo, Spain.

Ishmir, Turkey.

And tomorrow we will have our sixth sister signing which we are

very proud of.

Mr. Jack Ross has worked very hard over the years to make this

happen.

He had a vision.

He formulated a plan.

And tomorrow he will see the reality of this to happen.

So it gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. Jack Ross who

sits on our Board of Directors representing Ashdod, Israel.

>> Thank you very much for having myself and the delegation, the

distinguished delegation from Israel.

This is a very exciting moment for me.

I described it as euphoric.

Tomorrow is the end with the signing ceremony, a beginning for

the city.
This will be robust and substantive and we hope it reaches into 6

areas of education, homeland defense, and culture, and is only

limited by our own creativity and imaginations.

I plan to help facilitate contacts anywhere and everywhere that

I can with this municipality and reach deep into the

municipality of Ashdod, 40 kilometers south of Tel Aviv, a

jewel, pristine beaches, and wonderful infrastructure and

municipality, just very much like Tampa.

And so there are many similarities and makes this a perfect

match.

Two great democracies.

Two great municipalities coming together in one partnership it,

a partnership with many subsets, with the commission community

and the Jewish community and numerous nonprofits.

I really hope it becomes a model for our sister city

relationships.

To introduce our delegation, I would ask them to stand as I call

them their name.

First, the honorable mayor.

Mr. Danny Abdud.

Mr. Ishmael Uroke.

Mr. Monte Shapiro, director general of the Federation of

Independent Organizations and small businesses.

And Mr. Teddy Barsalin, the city representative for the city.

This is our delegation.
Tonight, we have an inaugural reception, a ceremonial 7

congratulations to everyone involved.

Tomorrow, our formal signing ceremony.

I and many others are very excited.

I hope that you are.

You are all special invited guests.

To finish, I would like to call the mayor to give you a gift for

each of the council members.

Mayor.

>> If I may begin with the honor, dear friends, we are very glad

to be here.

It's the second time this year that I am visiting Tampa.

Jack Ross is a very good friend.

His family lives in Israel.

When we learned to know knew friends -- and I believe-that you

will like.

I hope you visit and you will like, we are building for new

commerce.

I think it's like the United States 150 years ago, when

newcomers from over the world came to the new land.

And we are also a group that I would like to say 15 groups from

Russia, from Ethiopia, from Morocco, from Poland, from many

countries, from Europe and other places.

And I believe that we are going to be one nation.

It's not exactly one nation, it's one religion, but not one
nation. 8

And we are doing in the 20, 25 years.

Only the last 25 years we have doubled the citizens and many

newcomers living in this place.

It's a new place, very good design.

And we hope that because we are very similar to Tampa, we have a

lot to learn from Tampa.

Tampa is now under construction and very big investments.

And we came not only to be friends but to study, with the

university, with the police department, about how to move big

mass of people, and I believe to fight the drugs, and violation

programs, and I believe we will be good students and good

friends, and when you come to us, maybe good teachers.

So thank you very much.

And I hope to see you this evening.

And I hope to see you in Israel, and delegates of Israel.

Thank you very much for this decision to be sister city.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

>> The presents are here.

They will hand them to you.

Thank you once again.

>>GWEN MILLER: We really appreciate you all this morning and we

know we are going to be a good sister city to you.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to move resolution number 36.
>> Second. 9

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to move the resolution.

(Motion carried)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Colleagues, this is a very exciting time for

the City of Tampa.

We have now getting to the point where we are going to have our

seven sister cities.

I have been involved with the sister cities for many, many

years, even prior to me being on City Council.

So I can tell you that it's a wonderful, rewarding experience to

go and meet so many different people from all over the world.

And I can't tell you how proud I am that we are actually passing

a resolution now to form a relationship with ASHDOD.

So I would like to read what the resolution says, not in its

entirety but what it says.

A resolution of the city of Tampa, Florida extending an

invitation to the city of Ashdod, Israel to become a sister city

in the people to people program and inviting the people of

Ashdod to participate in said program, providing an effective

date.

Mayor Zucker, it is my pleasure to present with you a resolution

of the City Council.

(Applause)

>>GWEN MILLER: Colleagues, it is my pleasure this morning to

let you know that this year through the week of May 7-15, 2005,
the citizenry of our city will be invited to participate in 10

national tourism week.

This event gives us a chance to celebrate and renew our

appreciation for the natural culture and his tradition that our

city hold.

National tourism week helps our economy, and strengthen our

tourism industry.

As a matter of fact, according to the Department of Commerce, in

the year 2001, the celebration of national tourism generated

approximately 545 billion dollars in total travel expenditures

and providing 94 billion dollars in tax revenues to local,

state, federal and governments across America.

Additionally, according to the travel industry association of

America, by cities promoting national tourism week, it works for

everyone in that it is instrumental in the industry, been

recognized as one of America's largest service exports, one of

America's largest employers, and one of America's largest retail

sails industry.

Therefore, I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that the

Tampa City Council is more than delighted to present to

Ms. Susan Highly this commendation which reads in celebration

and recognition of the 22nd annual national tourism week

scheduled for May 7-15, 2005, in Tampa, and whereas tourism is

the single largest industry throughout Florida, and whereas the

tourism hospitality industry significantly effects the economic
stability and health of our community, and whereas our visitors 11

contribute in many ways to making the Tampa Bay area a great

place to live, work and play, so now, therefore, be it resolved

that the Tampa City Council is honored to present this

commendation to the Tampa Bay convention and visitors bureau,

and we wish you much success in celebrating the national event,

because we are all in Florida tourism business.

(Applause)

>>> Thank you so much, councilwoman Miller, and all of the Tampa

City Council.

On behalf of Paul Catoe and the Tampa Bay convention and

visitors bureau, I invite you all to join us to celebrate

national tourism week next week.

We are having several events throughout the city.

And fun events, educational events, and to help you -- hope you

will be joining us to celebrate in what is Hillsborough County

and Tampa's largest industry, tourism and hospitality.

Thank you so much.

(Applause)

>>GWEN MILLER: Would Ms. Ferlita join me at the podium, please.

Ms. Ferlita --.

>>ROSE FERLITA: I know, ways five minutes late.

>> You came and joined us this morning.

We appreciate that.

But on behalf of the Florida institute of governments, I would
like on behalf of John Scott daily, the Florida institute 12

Florida League of Cities, I am pleased to award this certificate

to you for completion of the advanced institute of elected

municipal offices, April 15-16, in Tampa, Florida.

We hope you find the program challenging and worthwhile.

We encourage to you take advantage of our training opportunities

through the league and the institute of government.

We strongly believe that your attendance at the advance

institute is indicated of your continued commitment to improving

the quality of municipal government in Florida.

If we may assist you, and if I can, too, don't hesitate to

contact me.

On behalf of the council I would like to present this to you.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Would you like to say something?

>>ROSE FERLITA: Well, yeah, I will.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Don't miss your chance.

>>> Obviously they teach you many things as these institutes

that I think is very rewarding and educational to continue what

all of us have to do.

Obviously one of them was not to impress upon me the fact that

we are supposed to be on time for meetings.

But it was very, very educational, and interactive with a lot of

our colleagues throughout the state, was particularly rewarding.

They had some exchange of ideas that we tried to use in exercise
and learn from, and that's really what the League of Cities 13

does.

So this institute for municipal officials was headed by the

institute at USF and also hosted by the League of Cities.

As a matter of fact, because of that, some of the League of

Cities officials want to come sometime this month and look at

some of our state-of-the-art type issues with Mike Bennett with

the water department.

I have talked to Mr. Bennett.

They want to come say hi to us.

So this is certainly unexpected and I'm almost at a loss for

words.

But, anyway, thank you for this.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for your hard work and continued

support of the Florida League of Cities.

(Applause)

Mr. Indicate oh, I didn't see you.

Would you like to say something?

I didn't see you when I presented Sue the commendation.

>>> Madam Chair and council members, thank you so much.

No, we just appreciate the honor.

We appreciate our partnership, the strong partnership we have

had with the city.

And most of all our partnership that we have with John Morris of

the Tampa Convention Center because if it were not for that
facility we would not be in the condition that we are in today. 14

And tourism is thriving because of that.

And we appreciate it and we thank you very much for this

recognition.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for the work that you're doing.

At this time, is there anyone in the audience that would like to

ask for reconsideration?

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come and

speak on any agenda on the agenda that is not set for public

hearing?

You may come now.

>> Did you do department heads?

>> We didn't get a sheet.

>> I apologize.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, we had three.

>> Mine is very brief.

Just a motion.

>> Miss Cathy Coyle.

>>> ZO 5-28 is a case that is scheduled currently for the night

of June 9 at 6 p.m.

The petitioner Mr. Michelini is the agent.

The legal description has been amended.

He did pay the fee.

I received a motion from council allowing the amendment to legal

description and have it reposted and readvertised.
And he will be sending a letter as well. 15

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Bonnie Wise.

>>BONNIE WISE: Director of revenue and finance.

I'm here to speak to item 35 on your agenda today regarding the

water and sewer refunding bonds.

I wanted to provide you a report on our refunding.

In April we did have the opportunity to refund our 1995 water

and sewer bonds.

If you remember, that in March you did authorize that refunding,

provided that there were going to be adequate savings in order

to pursue that financing.

We did sell the bonds.

It was 56,855,000 dollars, and we were able to obtain net

present value, that's after all fees, costs and expenses, of

$2.75 million in savings.

That translates to about $285,000 a year.

The bonds will mature on October 1, 2017 which is the same

maturity date as the previous bonds.

We were very fortunate.

We received underlying bond ratings in the AA category.

In addition we were able to obtain a municipal bond insurance

policy from FSA, and very reasonable premium which gave us the
AAA rating on the bonds. 16

And I really wanted to thank Mike Bennett and Ralph Metcalf and

their staff for working with me on this refinancing because

there are a lot of technical questions that are asked during a

refinancing.

We are going to close the bond issue on July 7th.

And we'll be receiving those savings over time.

So I wanted to thank you and give you the bit of good news.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for the hard work you have put in.

We appreciate it.

Mr. David Smith.

>>DAVID SMITH: Good morning.

City attorney.

Actually, I have two items and I will be brief.

I signed up for two minutes and they were incredulous when I

said that but I will be done in two minutes. The first is the

youth protection ordinance.

We have the data in from the police department.

Unfortunately, we do not have the statistics that would support

the extension of the youth protection ordinance to Sundays,

either before Monday, which is a holiday, or a Monday, which is

not.

We just do not have the increase in crime that would justify the

extension as we have for the other four days.

So I just need to report that information to you.
And because it is a first amendment issue, it needs to be 17

tailored and strictly applied and we just don't have the data to

extend to the Sundays.

The other issue I wanted to mention to you briefly is item 11 on

your agenda, the balconies issue.

What we are recommending we do, as you recall from I believe

last week or two weeks ago, there's only one balcony that's

literally wet zoned. The other to the extent there is alcohol

consumed on them would be in violation of our open container

law.

That will be enforced as it must be.

So what we're recommending is we include the issue with respect

to balconies in your workshop on wet zoning, which I believe is

currently on your pending calendar, but I assume you will be

setting that shortly.

It makes sense to do that in a more comprehensive way in

conjunction with your wet zoning.

And those are the two items I had this morning.

If you have any questions.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Going back to the child protection ordinance, it's incredulous

to me that we have to wait until something really big happens

over there before we can really do something about this.

I just can't believe it, you know?

>>DAVID SMITH: I understand.
And I sympathize with you. 18

But unfortunately the supreme court of Florida issued an opinion

with respect to our previous ordinance and set down a series of

criteria that are pretty stringent.

And we are not able to meet them currently.

I know what you're saying.

After we have the data then we can meet them.

Hopefully that won't occur.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

That's what seems so unfair, because this is going to open up

Sundays for whoever wants to do something over there, and these

kids run wild on the Sunday.

That's what's going to happen.

>>DAVID SMITH: If that happens I believe the data will quickly

support the extension.

And I understand what you're saying.

It's unfortunate that would have to occur for such an extension

to be defensible.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yeah, well, I'm not happy.

>>> I understand.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a question on your second issue, the

balcony issue.

When you were referencing -- and I don't remember all of the

conversation -- said just one balcony was wet zoned

appropriately.
Which one was that? 19

>>> I'm not sure.

>> The Tampa Brewing Company?

>>> Yes, it was.

>> I never go there so I wouldn't know that.

Call an expert.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. O'Dowd, maybe you can address this as well.

I know there are some other areas that I assume are not

appropriately wet zoned.

One property owner, Barley Hopper, is it?

In the little bit of research that I have done, according to the

state people ar loud to extend their premises.

And so extending premises would seem that it would mean

inclusive of the balcony for places that sell liquor.

Now, you know, if it's a residence or something like that where

they are not selling it, I don't think we had that issue last

week because obviously you can go on your balcony, drink a glass

of wine if you want.

And I look to Mr. Michelini a little bit, because I appreciate

any input that makes this simple and clear and easy for

everybody to continue business downtown -- down in Ybor City.

But again it's my understanding that the state allows to you

extend the premises, that meaning the balcony, as opposed to

extending the actual footprint on the foundation of the

location.
So maybe you could address that. 20

And secondarily after that, I think Mr. Michelini has applied

for places like this for some of his clients.

And I'm interested in knowing what our position is versus the

state's posture.

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Certainly.

Legal department.

What I had asked staff to look at was the ability, or which of

the balconies that encroached into the public right-of-way had

been wet zoned.

I believe that Barley Hopper, that lease line goes to the extent

of that balcony.

So I think we might have two different issues.

What we were concerned about, and what we have looked into with

regard to balconies along 7th Avenue that are on the second

floor of the establishments, that do encroach over the public

right-of-way.

And Land Development Coordination had advised me that the only

wet zoning that they could provide for us was the one on 15th

street, I believe.

>>ROSE FERLITA: So is there mechanism for them to do that,

extended even if it encroaches?

>>> If the balcony is on private property that can be included

in the footprint of the wet zoning.

And we have done that before.
But it's my understanding if the balcony encroaches into the 21

right-of-way, the only one that was approved, and by mistake was

the one for the property on 15th street.

But we do not currently have a process in place for approving

essentially public right-of-way.

We do it with sidewalk cafes, after they have received a permit

from the city.

We then have a separate approval process and it's done by

resolution.

And it's done separately from the wet zoning that is approved

for the private portion of the property.

>>ROSE FERLITA: With your permission, Madam Chairman, may I ask

Mr. Michelini one thing?

Thank you, Cate.

Have you done anything in terms of extending the property

premises but into a right-of-way?

>>STEVE MICHELINI: The only thing as Cate O'Dowd mentioned the

cafe ordinance and that may be an avenue for you to consider for

balconies, if you allow it for sidewalk cafe, perhaps you can

apply the sidewalk cafe ordinance to balconies to allow them to

encroach in the right-of-way.

What I was concerned about and what my client was concerned

about was the statement that the balcony drinking was illegal,

and it seemed to be very broad brushed.

I don't think there was a qualification that this was only for
balconies encroaching in the right-of-way. 22

And I don't think it read that way, the way the newspaper

reports had been written.

So consequently barley hoppers had a concern because we had gone

to great lengths to include the balcony areas in the wet zoning

process, as well as some of the other establishment.

But now that they have qualified that --.

>>ROSE FERLITA: And I think Ms. O'Dowd did define that.

>>> That's a different story.

But like I said perhaps you'll look at the cafe ordinance as a

mechanism.

Thank you.

>> And thank you, Ms. O'Dowd, for that clarification.

I didn't want his client to be upset about what we may have

misstated last week.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Is there any way that we can notify the wet

zoned establishments that are in effect -- or that are affected

by this particular situation?

And if we are going to do anything about this at all, and from

the statement you made earlier we are going to start enforcing

this.

So can we give them some sort of notification, and maybe they

can come in in bulk and apply for their wet zone extensions to

include their balcony in some way that we can expedite this for

the wet zoned establishment that are already in business and
have the balconies, so that they can be in compliance? 23

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: What I would recommend is a representative

of Land Development Coordination contact TPD so they can confirm

those establishments that do not have the proper wet zoning for

the balconies, and that information can be shared with both the

property owner and stab p.m. in the event they are two separate

entities.

With regard to extending the wet zoning to include the

balconies, council two weeks ago had directed my office to work

with city staff to come up with a process by which that would be

done.

I believe that the code would have to be amended to allow that,

since we don't currently allow the permanent wet zoning of

public right-of-way.

>> One of the things that I guess really concerns me, I don't,

from the enforcement side, these establishments have been

operating like this since they have been open.

And I wouldn't want the establishments in Ybor hurting enough as

it is, I don't want to go in and heavy handedly come in with

enforcement and hurt the businesses that are already existing.

We don't have any major party times going on now in the city

other than today with Cinco de Mayo.

But I don't want to continue to burden the businesses that are

already down there that are struggling on a day-to-day basis,

and the balcony businesses where people go out at night and
drink wine on the balcony, just the weekend party goers. 24

They are struggling enough now I don't want to do anything to

hamper that or impede that.

We don't want to hurt them in the meantime.

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Certainly.

>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

We'll go to our audience portion.

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to any

item on the agenda not set for a public hearing?

Anyone in the audience like to speak at this time?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (off microphone)

>> My name is Sarah Romeo, 15157th Avenue.

I'm a business owner in Ybor City.

I'm actually a first-hand witness to a lady who toppled over the

balcony right next to my business in Ybor.

It's a frightening and horrible situation.

And I hope none of you ever have to witness it.

The young lady did die as a result of her tumble over the

balcony.

And I don't know the details of what happened before she went

over.

But I also don't think you can legislate responsibility.

I think responsibility, particularly what happens on our

property as responsible business owners, is a way of doing

business.
We do have a lot of really responsible business owners in Ybor 25

City, and we have a few who are not so responsible.

I'm not quite sure the direction council is taking for wet

zoning balconies, but it seems this morning from the little

conversation I heard that there are some legal issues that you

all need to study and address before you make sort of a reaction

to what's been happening.

There have been a number of occasions of people tumbling off

balconies in Ybor City over the course of the last five years.

I know of three deaths specifically.

So it is something I think we need to look at.

What the answer is, I don't know that we have a magic wand to

wave across now and come up with an answer.

And certainly we don't want to do anything that's knee jerk.

Because one of the biggest problems in Ybor City now, I can

speak as a business owner, is that a lot of things that we did

years ago are now coming back to haunt us.

We didn't have a lot of planning, and we were sort of trying to

kick-start Ybor 15, 20 years ago.

Mary Alvarez knows it very well.

And a lot of things that we did now -- or did then we are coming

back to revisit now.

And I just hope that the wisdom of this council, you will look

at our historic wet zonings there, look at what's happened and

the problems it's created and really take a little bit of time
to study and do what's right this time so that five years from 26

now we don't have to come back and revisit these issues.

What is happening in Ybor, as Councilman White said earlier, is

a lot of business owners are suffering down there.

But I don't know that wet zoning or not wet zoning is going to

help or hurt them in any way.

There are only a few large clubs who have balconies.

There are only a few that are in question.

There are a couple of balconies that are associated with

restaurants.

And maybe that would be one of the issues would you want to look

at, is wet zoning balconies that serve 51% food, some type of a

conditional wet zoning, because sitting on the balconies

enjoying a meal in Ybor City is a please ant experience, and

maybe you don't want to just broad-brush the entire Ybor City

district, but really take time to be studios about it and find

out what we can do so that we don't have these problems in the

future.

Our image is hurting terribly in Ybor because of these acts of

irresponsibility and acts of violence, and we need your help and

your consideration in what's going forward in Ybor right now,

because we do want to be successful business owners.

There are a lot of people who have invested not only millions of

dollars but their heart and soul in Ybor City and perhaps you

can just remember all those things and take that into
consideration when we are looking at broad brushing another I 27

shall knew Ybor.

(Bell sounds)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you for coming up and talking for this

issue.

And I listened to you.

And I think you've come up with some good suggestions.

And I believe that you said we shouldn't knee -- knee jerk.

I absolutely feel that way, too.

We have seen a lot of things going on in Ybor City.

And we want to help Ybor City.

We don't want to start putting in a lot of ordinances, and it's

like a painting over there.

It's not quite finished yet.

So we know that.

And I think that with your suggestions, and if you would talk to

Cate O'Dowd behind you, just give her some of your ideas.

She's probably listened to what you said.

But just sit down with her and tell her, being new as an owner,

you know what's going on over there.

And I'd appreciate that if you could do that.

>>> I'd be happy to do that.

>> You know, we listen to what you tell us, because you have

been around a long time.

>>> Thank you.
>> A long time. 28

(Laughter)

>>> That's actually a compliment.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: We go back quite a ways.

But I appreciate what you said today.

So if you will get with Kate.

>>> I certainly will.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to share with my colleagues

that I suggested that Ms. O'Dowd check out Miami's -- Miami

Beach's ordinance and New Orleans.

I figure they have balconies and they have parties and they

perhaps have some language that would be suitable for us.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just adding my two cents, Ms. Romeo has

certainly touched on the second component of this, and I think

clearly as a business owner, we want to give everybody the tools

they need to do better down there, and it's always the few that

are in violation that cause problems for the responsible

business owners.

That's the second component of this.

We can craft any kind of ordinance we want and put it together

and throw it out there and we support it.

But after all is said and done it all comes back to

responsibility.

Primary responsibility from the parents, and the people that go

there.
And secondarily, the business owners, because they have to be 29

responsible business owners.

And in the event that that fails, then obviously the obligation

comes back to us to enforce what is put on the books.

It's a long process, and I know you and I talked about this at

length and what you and I talked to is certainly very memorable

in your mind and now what can go wrong if things are not taken

care of in these particular businesses.

Hopefully we'll do part 1, 2 and 3, regardless of what we

ultimately craft.

Sarah, thanks.

>>> I appreciate your time.

>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to -- to our committee reports.

Rose Ferlita, public safety.

>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move resolutions 17 through 19.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Parks, recreation, Mary Alvarez.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to move items 20 through 23.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a few items here that relate to the

star program.

And I have talked to our utility folks.
And I'd like, before I make the motion on the rest of it, have 30

somebody come in and give us a report on Star three weeks from

now.

They didn't have any objection to that.

So I'll do that first.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With that I'll go ahead and move items 24

through 34.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I'd like to move item number 35.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move resolutions 37 through 49.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

(Motion carried)

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 50.

Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida establishing a

redevelopment trust fund for the old Tampa Police Department

site community redevelopment area, providing for the funding of

said fund for community redevelopment within the old Tampa

Police Department site community redevelopment area, providing
for the administration of said fund, determining the tax 31

increment to be deposited into said fund, establishing the base

year for determining assessed values of property in the old

Tampa Police Department site community redevelopment area for

tax increment purposes, providing for the annual apportion of

the tax increment by all taxing authorities levying ad valorem

taxes in the old police department site community redevelopment

area, appointing the governing body of the community

redevelopment agency as the trustee of said fund, repealing all

ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for severability,

providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 51.

Move an ordinance authorizing construction and erection of a

proposed encroachment entry stoop of BFS townhomes LLC over a

portion of the public right-of-way known as 1505 west Horatio

street east of the intersection of Dakota Avenue, as more

particularly described herein subject to certain terms

covenants, conditions and agreements as more particularly

described herein providing an effective date.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 52.

Move an ordinance authorizing the installation and maintenance
of an encroachment 2nd and 3rd story fire escape by Coruna 32

Corporation over a portion of the public right-of-way known as

North Tampa Street near the intersection of North Tampa Street

and Madison street as more particularly described herein subject

to certain terms covenants conditions and agreements as more

particularly described herein providing an effective date.

(Motion carried)

>> That's the Spain restaurant.

They have been trying over a year to have living space above and

it took the transportation this long to build fire escapes.

I hope in the future we make people's lives less difficult.

And number 53.

I'd like to move to set up an appeal hearing no earlier than May

26th at 10:00.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: We have Mr. Evans here.

I don't know, is it proper to have him say a few words?

>>GWEN MILLER: If he would like to.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Evans, did you want to talk about the

appeal?

>>> Yes, I'd like to.

My name is jack Evans, I live at 3806 San Luis street in South

Tampa and I'm here to address a request that was made to the

parks division to take down two very large oak trees that sit
just adjacent behind my property on Leona street. 33

I have some photographs and all.

If I could, I would like to just explain for a minute or two.

>>GWEN MILLER: Can you do that?

You can't do that. We are just setting public hearings.

You can't talk about it.

We are just setting the hearing.

You have to talk about it in the hearing.

Thank you for coming.

>>> Okay.

Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Transportation Committee.

Mr. Shawn Harrison.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move items 54 through 59.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>> I move to set new business item 60 through 66.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to our ordinance for second

reading.

Anyone in the audience who is going to speak on items 3 through

9, please stand and raise your right hand.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

>>GWEN MILLER: If anyone is going to speak on item number 2,
stand and raise your right hand. 34

(Oath administered by Clerk)

>>GWEN MILLER: Item 2 is a continued public hearing.

Please come up.

Mr. Mechanik.

>>DAVID MECHANIK: 101 East Kennedy Boulevard.

We're asking for an additional continuance on this.

We have been working with the staff on the public art component.

We are getting closer, but we still have some comments from the

staff we want to address before we present that to council.

We are asking for July 14 for continuance.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, you're not doing the art work, are

you?

>>> I can assure you I'm not.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

We are not meeting July 14th.

You have to go to the next week.

What date is that?

21st.

10 a.m.

We have a motion and second.

All in favor of the motion say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

(Motion carried)

We need to open items 3 through 9.
>> So moved. 35

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to

speak on item number 3?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>KEVIN WHITE: Number 3.

Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, move

an ordinance approving a special use S-2 approving a drive-in

window for convenience store slash restaurant in a PD-A mixed

use zoning district in the general vicinity of 10960 Cross Creek

Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly

described in section 1 hereof providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.

Vote and record.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Can we do that today?

>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

Are you going to vote, Ms. Saul-Sena?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, thank you.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to

speak on item 4?

>> Move to close.
>> Second. 36

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita, would you read 4, please.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt this ordinance after second

reading, an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages

containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than

14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and

wine 2(APS) in sealed containers for consumption off premises

only at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located

at 10960 Cross Creek Boulevard, Tampa, Florida as more

particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving certain

restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings,

providing for repeal of all ordinances of conflict, providing an

effective date.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.

Vote and record.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 5 through 9 at 10 a.m.

We still have a few minutes.

We go to unfinished business item 10.

>> Move the resolution.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Item 12.
We need to --. 37

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to pending calendar.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

I had a quick chat with Mr. Smith on this yesterday, in response

to his memo.

And I asked him, instead of putting it on pending if we can set

it for 90 days.

He assured he was going to be back prior to 90 days but I would

like to put it on 90 days.

Pending calendar seems to drift away.

He didn't have any objection to that.

I'll move that instead of this.

Three months.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can also -- well, never mind.

We'll do the memo later.

>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 13.

Closed public hearing.

We need to open it.

Mr. Massey can explain why.

It's number 13.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: (off microphone)

That's not the one.
Okay. 38

We need to vote on that one.

Let's wait for the clerk.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is anybody else cold?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: On number 13, I believe Mr. Dingfelder and

Harrison were absent.

>>GWEN MILLER: And ready to vote.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I assume there wasn't any significant

discussion at second reading.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: There wasn't.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

>>GWEN MILLER: Are you ready to vote on number 13?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: We already voted.

>>GWEN MILLER: Item 13.

All in favor, vote and record.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Ferlita and

Saul-Sena voting no.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion carried.

Item 14.

Do we have an ordinance for item 14?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.

Is this first reading?

>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

>>> November move an ordinance approving a special use permit

approving a church/daycare at 2907, 2909 and 2915 north Carioca
Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly 39

described in section 1 hereof allowing the sign height to

increase from 10 feet to 16 feet, reducing the side yard setback

from 24 feet to 24.8 on the north side, allowing for parking on

the grass, except for ADA parking, a waiver is granted to reduce

the required 10-foot landscape buffer along the northeast and

south property lanes to 4 feet with a 6-foot high wood fence,

allowing the reduction of the drive-aisle from 26 feet to 24

feet, waiving the required access to an arterial or collector

street, allowing access to a local street, providing an

effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

Question on the motion.

Mrs. Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On some of these other petitions the clerk

listed the council votes, you know, on the line but for this one

and the next one you didn't.

And I just was curious why you didn't do that.

>>THE CLERK: On the agenda we list the votes on your first

readings so that way you know what your vote was when you come

to second reading.

This was a first reading.

>>GWEN MILLER: This is the first reading.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So the votes we took at the public --.

>>GWEN MILLER: We didn't because it was sent back to legal.
Any other questions? 40

Motion and second.

All in favor say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

(Motion carried)

Items item 15.

Do we have an ordinance for that one?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On number 15 in regard to --.

>>GWEN MILLER: The night meeting last week.

We had to make some changes.

We didn't vote at all.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It wasn't unanimous.

We did, we did, I remember.

>>> JULIE COLE: What had occurred, there were minor changes

required in the site plan, so those cases were 14, 15 open for

public hearing, closed to allow the ordinance to be brought back

for first reading, which included the new site plans.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for clarification, Ms. Cole, I notice

that in the original report, which I read, staff had objection.

Were staff's objections cured with the revisions?

>>> Ms. Moreda is here.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There were quite a few, I think, some

related to the dumpster.

>>GLORIA MOREDA: They amended the site plan to address as many

problems as they could.
Transportation is still not supportive of the petition. 41

They are concerned about the maneuvering into the right-of-way.

They channelize all their driveways towards Cypress.

They have modified their site plan, I think, to be as close to

an acceptable site plan as the petitioner, I think, can.

In terms of staff's position on it, the buffering has been

improved.

They are showing PVC fencing now as buffering to adjacent

residential.

It seems like they have worked with the neighborhood, the

neighbors that are most affected by this property to where they

are happy with the PVC fencing that's being proposed.

They are maneuvering, the new site plan shows the shifting of

the dumpster to the back storage area, in compliance with solid

waste design standards.

That will be checked at time of permitting.

So they have done what they can in terms of making the site

work.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the lot across the street?

If I remember we had great discussion on that months ago.

>>GLORIA MOREDA: The grass parking lot?

>> Yes, the trucks and all that.

>>> They are going to keep it grass parking.

Trucks?

They are just showing customer parking on the property there
now. 42

>>MORRIS MASSEY: If you are going to go into discussion you

should probably --

>> so moved.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open the public hearing.

(Motion carried)

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I apologize for this.

But I do remember we had great discussion busy the

neighborhood's concern about idling semis in that grass parking

area.

>>GLORIA MOREDA: This is strictly going to be customer parking.

No truck parking is indicated.

>> And that can be enforced?

>>GLORIA MOREDA: As well as any of our codes.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would the clerk remind me what the vote was

to get this to today?

>>THE CLERK: According to the motion, it was motion carried.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, but that was --.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does anybody remember?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I remember.

Well, I remember that Ms. Ferlita voted against it but raised

some interesting questions.

And I have been thinking about it subsequently, and this

petition is before us to correct some long-standing problems in
the neighborhood. 43

And I've been thinking about it.

And we would not allow grassy parking for any commercial use.

It's simply not in our code.

It's not what we do.

And I've been thinking about it since the public hearing.

And I don't think I could support the grassy parking.

I don't think that that's something that we want to say we

support.

If it's a commercial use, you have to have a paved parking lot.

So I'm going to vote today not to support this because I don't

think -- I don't really think that if it were coming to us fresh

it's something that we would approve of.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Dingfelder, mainly for your benefit, I think you are on

point by questioning this because we did have a lot of issues

the last time this particular site was up before us for

discussion, for whatever reasons.

And I had a lot of concerns.

And I think Mr. Alessi, a long-time friend of mine, was very

receptive to my criticism.

We had problems with neighbors, as you said.

We had problems with the parking as Mrs. Saul-Sena referenced.

We had a lot of code enforcement issues.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Lane was in the audience, not
particularly for this, but we talked briefly, and there are a 44

lot of code enforcement issues.

I am not even sure if those have been resolved.

However, when Ms. Moreda says they have addressed most, well,

that lends to support my position on this in terms of not

supporting it because I think we need to clarify all those

things, and I think we need to get them all cleaned up.

And I was very surprised that a lot of neighbors that were not

here, the last time, as Ms. Saul-Sena referenced, were not here

that night.

But still at the same time I didn't feel a real good level of

comfort that the neighbors were okay with the fence, did they

know that it didn't have to be a masonry wall in terms of

buffering, and they were okay with wooden, and now I understand

it's escalated to PVC.

So there are a lot of questions that I still have.

If this were continued and some of the things were resolved, at

least clarified, or better addressed, perhaps then I would be

okay with supporting it.

But just today, Ms. Saul-Sena, added another concern.

I just don't think it's a clean petition yet.

Evidently, from what Ms. Moreda said -- and I'm happy to hear --

that Mr. Alessi has tried to address some of the concerns that

we had.

I would like to see this go forward.
It is a well frequented establishment. 45

I shop there oftentimes.

But I think that there's some things that we have to do in

advance of feeling good about supporting this.

And I think Mr. Alessi's comment last week, per quote was, Mrs.

Ferlita, your points are well taken.

So I think we need a little more time.

Now if Mr. Michelini is up here, and I'm sure he's going to say

something in support of his client, but it's still not a clean

petition.

And Mr. Dingfelder, you said I apologize.

No, you're absolutely right because we had some of those

questions and some of those were raised last week in your

absence.

I think it's good to revisit this.

Thank you.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I just wanted to respond to Ms. Saul-Sena's

comment.

I agree with you and I don't agree with you.

And I don't think that grass sites are great for commercial.

But in this particular area, there's so much -- so much open

space, I would not want to see that as a blacktop asphalt or

concrete.

I mean, this is a huge corner right on a main thoroughfare,

which all surrounding areas, other than the bakery, and going
further west on Cypress, is all residential, open, green areas, 46

and I just don't think a huge asphalt parking lot on that corner

would be an appropriate thing for that particular neighborhood,

at that particular intersection.

Mr. Dingfelder, to your concern with the trucks and things of

that nature, I don't know.

I know that trucks and buses have been parked in that grassy lot

previously.

My mother-in-law lives right around the corner from that so I'm

in that area quite frequently as well.

But there hasn't been lately -- and just for the record,

Mr. Alessi said that he told everyone that was parked in there,

and that would no longer exist nor be tolerated in that area.

But the other concerns are still there.

Just wanted to make my point about those two things.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just wanted to chime in, that I think that,

like Ms. Saul-Sena and Ms. Ferlita said, that it's not a clean

petition yet, and I think the thing to do is to continue it and

get Mr. Alessi, which he's been very, very cooperative in all of

this, and I don't think he would mind another few weeks.

But I think we pushed all of this on him really quick.

So I don't believe he's had a chance to do everything that he's

supposed to.

So I really am looking to continuing this.

And I'll listen to Mr. Michelini.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before we get to Mr. Michelini, one of the 47

things I noticed on the site plan for the overflow parking area,

it says -- and this is a concern to me about safety and security

-- it says six-foot PVC fence along Habana with the driveway

come off of Habana, which is okay, and it doesn't identify what

sort of fence, I guess, along Cypress.

But I have a little bit of concern about security.

Unless that's going to be a gated thing that they are going to

open and close in the evenings, or something like that, which I

don't think they are planning on doing, if you create a six-foot

Cypress fence, isn't that encouraging perhaps some sort of

negative activity within that?

Because police won't be able to see in there as they drive down.

I just wonder if anybody has some concern about that.

I have some concern about that.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Since this is a quasi-judicial proceeding,

would the clerk please swear in Mr. Michelini?

>>STEVE MICHELINI: I have already been sworn.

Where are we talking about, Mr. Dingfelder?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In the overflow parking area.

It seems to be surrounded by 6 foot PVC fence, which is an

improvement because I don't think there was any fence at all.

I don't think there were any restraints.

Some sort of fence is there but I think it needs to be something
that the police can see through, you know, from a CPTED 48

perspective.

Obviously, I'm Johnny come lately on this issue, and I apologize

again.

>>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me address a couple of issues and I'll

get to that.

We had a number of issues that were raised for citations by code

enforcement.

They related to other properties.

And some of them were also related to this property.

We took care of all those.

We had Harold Scott go out from the code enforcement section to

verify that those have been resolved in advance of the hearing.

And the PVC fence as long the main portion of the properties

have already been installed.

And I showed photographs of those last week.

It was a measure of good will.

He had already spent the money to do that.

Did it not include the overflow parking lot but it did include

the on the parking lot, the one to the east, the main property

extending back off of Exedar, which is not part of the petition

which had been cited for -- there were some trucks, some storage

trucks, and some lemon storage.

There were some vending machines that were on trailers.

Those have all been removed.
It's all completely grassed and fenced now. 49

That portion to the west is gated.

But again that's not part of this petition.

In terms of making a commitment, I think we worked with the

staff up until the last minute to resolve the issues that they

had asked us to, and but for the fact that we have made graphic

changes here, it could have been heard, and at a first reading

last week.

But in A an abundance of caution we went back to staff and

agreed let's go ahead and bring it back and ask for first

reading this week.

The grass parking lot is an overflow.

It's not part of the required parking, predominantly.

Park across the street and walk to the bakery for their

employment.

As you know, because of the volume, people come in, they don't

spend a lot of time, they park in the front, they get their

baked goods and they leave.

That also occurs in the parking lot to the east.

So I don't know how much more we can do to perfect the site

plan.

These are existing conditions.

We've done as much as we can do.

If you're looking for code enforcement to weigh in and say,

yeah, they have satisfied us and come here personally, I'm sure
they would be willing to do that. 50

But we've already met with them in the field.

I talked to Curtis Lane yesterday and asked him did they have

any serious concerns or issues regarding this site?

And he said, he reiterated David Scott was one of his best

inspectors and he was going to check with him and get back with

me if there was a problem.

I didn't hear anything from him as of this morning.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have two specific questions to maybe

clarify this.

One is the issue of where the overflow parking is adjacent to

residential.

If you could clarify that the neighbors, who were pretty

vociferous originally, were okay with the PVC as opposed to

masonry, and secondly if they are going to have people parking

on grass, it morphs from grass to mud.

And maybe could you do some type of Astro turf.

There should be at least some thing that this won't become a mud

hole.

>> Well, mulch will do that.

But then you have the issue of stormwater, with the mulch

washing off and getting into the storm drains.

We can certainly look at alternative coverings.

But this is a very lightly used parking area.

This is not heavy traffic area at all.
>> I believe that Cypress does have flooding issues. 51

So I don't want to make them worse by having additional pavement

that doesn't then also have some sort of drainage.

But we just believe that people should -- if you have a genuine

parking lot, you need to make it car friendly, and have it not

turn into a mud hole.

>>STEVE MICHELINI: I agree.

Because of the light use, it has remained green.

It isn't dirt.

The only thing we were going to pave was the driveway entrance,

which was the effect of hardening that surface so you don't have

the wheels turning that would tear it up and dish that out.

We've spent a great deal of effort trying to make this a good

project.

And certainly would appreciate going forward if that's possible.

And in the meantime between now and second reading, certainly

code enforcement can come in and tell you, there are some

remaining issues or they resolved them.

But I believe we resolved the issues that were out there.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just to summarize my concerns, Mr. Michelini, I

would like to hear from code to make sure that not just the

serious issues but any code infraction has been addressed and

secondly the issue that you Mrs. Saul-Sena brings up.

I'm sorry I don't know the actual terms but the pavers that

allow the -- what is that?
>> Turf block. 52

>> Something like that maybe.

But I would like to see how your client would address that and

for code to address that.

I won't support it now but if that's addressed by the second

hearing then I will support it so it's up to my colleagues if

they want to go forward today or continue it and here it later.

>>STEVE MICHELINI: One other thing at the other hearing was the

planning board removed their objections and they did that on the

record.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Gloria, can I ask you a question?

In a typical -- I have seen this as a typical residential

scenario on the overflow parking area.

We don't allow residences to be surrounded by six-foot any kind

of fence on all four sides.

I mean, just from anesthetic perspective.

>>GLORIA MOREDA: The way I see it is there will be a

six-foot-high fence along basically the west and the east along

Habana and the southern boundary, but not on Cypress.

Our code requires that, you know, buffering when there's

residential across the street occur, and that's why they put the

PVC on Habana.

>> My concern again is the CPTED concern.

And it's very unclear and maybe we need to tighten it up as to

what will be happening along Cypress.
Cypress Street. 53

And I don't think we should leave that up in the air.

I think we should tighten that up on the site plan.

And we can do it today if we need to.

If you want to take a half hour and look at those issues, Steve,

we could, and I don't have a problem with that.

But I do have a problem of creating this enclosure.

Employees might be going into an enclosed area.

There could be people waiting in there to jump them or

something, because it's --.

>>GLORIA MOREDA: We can make the notation that the fencing

along Habana will be, if provided, will be picket or wrought

iron style, solid along the southern and western property line

adjacent to residential, no fencing along Cypress.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That would satisfy my concerns.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: (off microphone).

>>GLORIA MOREDA: I'm sorry, I didn't hear.

>> Black wrought iron fence would fade away.

>>GLORIA MOREDA: I want to make the point too there was no

neighborhood opposition at the last public hearing.

And I know that initially there was considerable.

>> Support of half a dozen neighbors.

>>GWEN MILLER: The neighbors sent in letters.

>>STEVE MICHELINI: A half dozen or so letters were submitted

into the record of support from the neighbors.
What would you like to me to do? 54

>>KEVIN WHITE: I think I would like to move that we put this on

first reading --.

>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the

general vicinity of 2909 West Cypress street in the city of

Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from

zoning district classifications CG and RS-50 to PD bakery

restaurant catering office parking lot providing an effective

date.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

Question on the motion?

Mrs. Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need some clarification.

What is being done to buffer the parking along Cypress Street?

That's a staff question.

>>STEVE MICHELINI: Are you talking about the south side?

>>GLORIA MOREDA: They will have to comply with chapter 13 for

that parking layout which will be the hedges and trees that

normally are required for a parking lot.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And that's on the site plan?

>>GLORIA MOREDA: They have not asked for waiver of chapter 13
on that part of the property. 55

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

All in favor of the motion say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman -- Ferlita, no.

I just want to reference as to why again.

I would like code to have the opportunity to tell us that all of

those enforcement issues are cleared up, that the fence issue

has been addressed that Mr. Dingfelder referenced, and that the

referred parking lot has been addressed as well and then I'll

support it the second time.

Right now, no.

>>GWEN MILLER: Number 16 I turn to our attorney Mr. Massey.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: This was a rezoning that came before council

last week.

There was an amended site plan that was presented to council

that evening.

One of the things, the public hearing was closed, and normally

we would go straight to a vote.

However, the revised site plan was not made part of the record.

That was specifically what was voted on by council.

So I would recommend a couple of things, first of all that

council reopen the public hearing so the revised site plan can

be received and filed.

That an ordinance is prepared for the site plan that is ready to
be voted up or down. 56

Also, there were apparently a number of e-mails and

correspondence that came on this issue.

It was received and filed in the record.

But if council members have written communications or had oral

communication was anyone outside of the public hearing, and

based a portion of their decision on that, you all need to make

that part of the record as well when we open the public hearing

so that petitioner and his counsel has opportunity.

Finally, I need councilman Dingfelder to verify on the record he

did view the tape of the hearing last week before we take the

vote.

>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>MORRIS MASSEY: I ask that you move to accept the revised site

plan into the record, the one that was presented to you all last

week.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Then if you all had any letters or

communication, I would like you to put that on the record now.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clarification on that.
It been our practice, I believe, that we view a lot of letters 57

that come in about rezonings, but we make sure that we put them

in the record.

And we never disclose that necessarily, it's just sort of a pro

forma thing that we do.

So I don't know, are we changing the process?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: In discussion with your attorney -- and I

would concur with this -- you are sitting basically in a

judicial type of setting.

So it's part of the record before.

You need to make a disclosure of any communication you heard

outside of the record, have that made part of the record

initially, and responded to by any of the parties.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But it's not outside of the record if it's a

written document that we have already submitted into the record.

Right?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: I agree.

But what council has been typically doing, they have been

receiving and filing that information at the end of all the

evening meetings.

And that creates a bit of a problem.

And so we ask in the quasi-judicial setting when you are sitting

as a quasi-judicial body on voting issues that you receive and

file any written correspondence received prior to the time the

public hearing is open so it can be made part of the record, can
be considered and can be rebutted by the various parties as part 58

of the proceedings.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Got it.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Would like council to verify if -- and verify

before the record that your vote is received from testimony at

the hearing last week and not any ex parte communication.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: What happens if we received an e-mail after

the first public hearing that says there is a misrepresentation

made at the first public hearing?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: If you viewed that, you need to make that part

of the record and we need to allow -- you need to make that part

of the record, and read into the record what that e-mail said,

and then allow the party affected by that to respond.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

Let me start off then, I have received several e-mails since

this first public hearing.

And one of them did raise the issue that there was a

misrepresentation made on the left turn ability coming out of

the Walgreen's now onto Swann.

You couldn't do that already.

And, therefore, the addition of the channelization coming out of

the facility under the new site plan was not a change, and that

was the basis on the record for my decision last time.

So I would like to have that addressed.
And if I can find the e-mail I'll read it exactly. 59

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have numerous e-mails pro and con on the

issue, and I have 16 of them here that I believe my assistant

has probably already given them to the clerk but out of

abundance of caution I'll give them again.

You know, I've read them.

I viewed the tape.

They all have had an influence on my decision one way or the

other.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have received a lot.

Do we have to --.

>>GWEN MILLER: Most of us got the same e-mails.

Do we have to give them all to him, Mr. Massey?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: The City Council -- made part of the record as

long as they were received, and these e-mails were received

before the public hearing last Thursday.

If you have gotten subsequent e-mails, they need to be made part

of the record right now.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After the meeting last week, people said,

what's the process?

Some of the neighbors said to me, what's the process?

I said the public hearing is closed.

And when we come back next Thursday it just to vote, nobody is

allowed to give testimony, and I explained the process, but I

didn't talk about anything substantive.
>> That's fine. 60

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I had some.

>>GWEN MILLER: All the same, yeah.

They have already been filed.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: I think it would be appropriate if there was

one e-mail.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We all got it, though.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Do you want to open it for the limited purpose

to allow the petitioner to rebut that?

>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to the petitioner and let him answer

that question.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: About the e-mail about the representation --

misrepresentation of the e-mail.

It already been open.

>> 101 North Tampa Street representing Walgreen's.

That particular left turn movement, let me have Angelo, our

transportation engineer, respond to that one question.

>> Angelo: I have not been sworn in.

>>GWEN MILLER: Raise your right hand.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Go ahead and swear him in.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

>>SHAWN HARRISON: This is from a David Orbin.

Your support for the Walgreen's expansion was based on incorrect

information.

After public testimony the Walgreen's representative said that
left turns would be precluded on Swann Avenue suggesting this is 61

an improvement.

This is not an improvement.

It currently exists.

Signage has always prohibited left turns out of Walgreen's onto

Swann.

Then it goes on.

But that was the basis.

>>> Angelo Beluccia, 1006 North Dale Mabry.

We performed a traffic study.

We have done site visits at this location.

I personally have observed this location during day conditions,

during peak hour conditions, and currently that driveway onto

Swann Avenue is a right-turn-out only with a striping forcing

the vehicles to turn right.

This is a striped-out situation.

There is a sign no left turn.

In our observations we noticed that vehicles are turning left,

today.

It is happening today.

So those are happening, people not following the signage nor the

striping.

So what our plan is demonstrating here or presented here is an

island to force to -- to channelize and force the vehicles to

turn right.
Our field observations have also been documented with the 62

management of the Walgreen's.

They have noticed that as well, that those left turns are

occurring out there.

So our proposal forces and channelizes with a raised concrete

island vehicles to turn right onto Swann.

>> And that's acceptable to our traffic department, the raised

island?

>>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.

I have been sworn.

A raised -- channelized raised island is one form or method we

use to channel traffic to the right.

There are more extreme but still find people are violating that

particular movement.

But, yes, that is the first one we typically use to channel ides

people to the right.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: So if that's what they say they are going to

do, you all are going to allow them to do it and that's what we

are going to see on Swann?

>>> Correct.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: If there are other members of the public that

would like to speak to that issue raised in the e-mail solely

they should be allowed to speak as well.

But this should be the sole subject.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that wants to speak on this
subject of turning right onto Swann, only that? 63

Nothing else.

You may come and speak.

Just only turning.

>>> Good morning.

My name is Missy Stagmire, I live at 3401 Mullen Avenue, Tampa.

>> Have you been sworn in?

>>> Yes, I have.

In regard to that left-hand turn onto Swann, as you all know,

that Swann from MacDill to Henderson is so heavily traversed.

And, yes, while the right-hand turn would prevent that left-hand

turn, right now that section is categorized F.

We presently have 15,671 vehicles traversing that one area.

And it should be 10,300.

I got this information from the City of Tampa transportation

division.

And it was updated today.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?

We need to close the public hearing.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

Do we have an ordinance?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Just to remind council where you are at.
You have a motion on the floor to deny the petition. 64

The vote was 3-3.

So a vote Aye on the motion that's currently on the floor is to

deny the petition.

>>GWEN MILLER: You have a motion for denial.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.

>>GWEN MILLER: Yes?

Mr. Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is definitely a difficult one.

There's an existing Walgreen's.

And I don't want to expand it.

And I know you all had a lot of discussion about it.

I'm going to support the motion to deny.

I believe that based upon the testimony of staff, based upon the

testimony of other folks, and I believe it's competent

testimony, that this project is inconsistent and incompatible

with the surrounding neighborhood as related to traffic, as

related to noise, as related to light.

There is way too much cut-through traffic already in the

neighborhoods of Gulf view and other neighborhoods in this area.

It's already been testified, and I believe it's uncontroverted

that Swann is level service F.

And if we are doing -- encouraging drive-through traffic in this

corner, we are just encouraging more traffic in this area.

And I can't -- I will support the motion.
I can't support the project. 65

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.

>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to make one comment on the record

before we do that.

As a matter of fact I think I am the one that motioned to deny.

I don't remember but I believe so.

I was, right?

I got, in the meantime, an e-mail from someone, not one of the

warmest e-mails I've gotten, but made reference to the fact that

my vote reflected the fact that the Walgreen's was in

competition with my own business, which is totally absurd.

They are miles and miles and miles away.

Neither one of us are in direct competition.

And there's obviously no need for me to recuse myself as that

constituent suggested.

So I just want to put that on the record.

Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion for denial.

All in favor say. I'm opposed, Nay.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we do a machine vote?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or hand vote.

>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of denial raise your hand.

For denial.

>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, Saul-Sena, Ferlita, white voting no.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Voting yes on the motion.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes to the motion to deny. 66

>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go back to our public hearings for second

reading.

10:00.

Item number 5.

>> Move to open.

>>DAVID MECHANIK: Here on behalf of the university center

research.

We are asking for an additional two weeks to work with the

transportation staff and FDOT on the transportation condition.

>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.

>>GWEN MILLER: What's two weeks?

>>THE CLERK: May 19th.

>>GWEN MILLER: May 19th at 10 a.m.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 6, continued public hearing.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

This is a continued public hearing.

However, you have not heard the presentation on it.

The plan that you originally saw for this has changed.

The legal description was amended to remove the northeast corner

of the property.

This rezoning is for the property at 910 to 918 Channelside

Drive, and 105 to 117 North 12th Street to add 15 additional

residential units.
That is an increase from 230 to 245 units. 67

The 230 were originally approved in 2003.

Petition ZO-3-24.

This is to approve a mixed use artist studio and multifamily

complex. The previous rezoning approved 102 structural height

and 390,000 -- 390,7 is the feet of building area.

Their proposed planned notes of the overall building height will

exist but the square footage is increased from the 309,000 to

401,500 square feet.

That accounts for the 15 additional units.

The petitioner was approved for 4.172 FAR in 2003.

The increase is to 4.287.

You will see that as noted in the waiver section.

They do have to provide that they are giving some sort of bonus

provision or bonus amenity per the comprehensive plan.

And I listed the items that were used as bonus provisions in the

original rezoning.

There was enhanced effort of exterior lighting in all public

areas, a covered walkway, vehicular pass-through to the center

of the structure which connects 12th and Channelside. The site

contains colorful plantings and features such as benches, flower

beds at ground level, a lush courtyard, pet park on the roof and

meditation gardens at upper levels.

On page 2 there are three additional items approved in the

original rezoning as bonus amenities. The first one is a view
corridor shall be provided by reducing the height of the 68

building.

I noted 51 feet.

It was changed to 56 feet at two corners.

Rooftop amenities will be viewable by adjacent properties.

And there will be a two-story high mural commissioned along

Washington Street frontage along the building.

There will be a matching water feature, also, installed on the

same side.

I would like to note the increase for FAR as stated before is a

request to meet the bonus provisions of the comprehensive plan.

The new site plan before you doesn't add anything additional.

No new alterations are done for the bonus amenities.

It's essentially a change of one tenth of a point in FAR.

There are also elevations to date.

There are a couple of notes added to the plan.

The first objection that you saw was that the original notes

from the 2003 plan were not carried over to the new plan.

They did add those, as of yesterday.

The second note from Wilson Stair was about the pedestrian paths

being made of the textured colored pavement.

They did add that note as well.

And they added some additional notes for transportation.

Note 14 on the site plan states specifically that the developer

shall be responsible for the design, permits and insulation of a
traffic signal at Washington street and 12th street as such time 69

as the intersection meets signal warrant.

Responsibility of the developer shall be limited to design

permanent installation of the signal.

The obligation shall be limited to two years after the issuance

of a final certificate of occupancy for the building.

What that means is they are willing to put in the light, design

it, permit it and install it.

But the obligation is for two years.

If the studies don't warrant a light after that two-year period

it will not be installed.

Also, they are potentially relocating a loading berth but

subject to transportation approval which they had no issues

with.

What you have before you today is whether or not you want to

allow the increase in the FAR.

There are no outstanding objections from staff.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?

Tell me the proposed height again.

>>> I'm sorry?

>> Tell me the proposed height.

>>> Just to be clear, phase 2 is removed off of this.

This is just phase one. The height is the same as originally

approved in 2003.

86 feet for the overall building.
102 feet for parapets and other elevators. 70

>> And what is the allowed height in this portion of the Channel

District?

>>> 60 feet.

>> So the allowed height is 60 feet and they're asking for 86?

>>> 86 was approved in 2003.

Through a previous rezoning.

>> I'm trying to remember the conversation at the time.

>>> It is the second one that ever came through, really.

Victory Lofts were first.

They were second.

>> And what is the Victory Lofts?

>>> Oh, 84, 85 feet.

>> So comparable.

>>> Yes, they are about the same height.

>> Thank you.

>>> Uh-huh.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Planning Commission as well.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

I have an amended report to bring based on what you initially

brought up, Mrs. Saul-Sena, about the original proposals.

Let me give you the amended report.

Since the additional phase which was proposed for this plan
amendment has been withdrawn and has been resubmitted in the 71

form of just some additional units to increase the FAR from 4.17

to 4.28, it's consistent with the comprehensive plan because the

CBD, if the applicant does come in with additional amenities

that are over and above what's required under the normal

development requirements.

It is within the RMU 100 categories as is most of the

Channelside district with the exception of several properties

north of 12th street.

It is consistent with respect also of the -- both the massing of

the structure as it is only approximately 86 feet in height,

consistent with the surrounding structures in the area.

Planning Commission finds this request consistent with the

comprehensive plan.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Before the petitioner gives her testimony,

again if council is receiving written communication it received

and filed in the record now.

Any verbal communication other than city staff to be disclosed

on the record as well.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before petitioner starts, I have a quick

question for staff.

Just clarification on this height issue.

Mrs. Saul-Sena asked you what is the allowable height.

Is that allowable under the zoning code?
Or are we talking about the guidelines and the looser stuff? 72

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Just like the Euclidean, there are height

and setback requirements, the CD-1 and CD-2 are 60 feet.

63 is NA, not a applicable because that is a site planned

control district to come before to you make that determination

on height.

We always look back to the other guidelines, as a guideline for

the 60 feet.

But they can certainly ask for additional height, which they did

in 2003.

>> So strictly speaking there is no height limitation on the CD

3, in the graphical chart or whatever it is?

>>> Yes, as determined by the site plan approval.

>> Okay.

>>> Through this process.

>>ANDREA ZELMAN: Fowler White, 501 East Kennedy.

I was just sworn.

And I apologize, I think we passed out the sales brochures for

this development.

I think we may be short.

I would be glad to give you more.

Again, as you will recall, as Cathy told you, this project was

initially approved in September 2003, and we have for several

months had pending before you a zoning application that would

have brought in an additional parcel and would have asked you to
approve a high-rise on that additional parcel, and after 73

considerable discussions with your staff, we agreed to withdraw

and table that part of the application for now, and hopefully

come back with something after your staff has completed their

ongoing study of the future vision of the Channel District.

So as Cathy said, all we are here before you for today is for a

very modest increase, in 2003 you approved 230 units.

We're asking to add 15 more, a small increase in square footage

to accommodate those units, a little over 10,000 square feet.

Basically we're asking for an increase of 6% in the number of

units.

As Cathy said, a fraction of tenth of a point in FAR.

Just to refresh your recollection about this project, and I

think you can see the sales brochures, it's a very unique

project.

I hope some of you have the opportunity to go to the center.

If you haven't it's just about to close so I do encourage you.

Or has it closed? It's still open.

And I apologize.

I have with me today the president of Key Developers, and the

vice-president Jamar Mansour, no relation to Mahdi.

We did encourage you to go to the sales center.

It is a spectacular project.

And I think when you look at these projects, particular when you

go to the sales center, you will see that it really is being
developed with the finest of materials, design, craftsmanship, 74

and I do want to remind that you back in 2003 when this project

came before you, Cathy Coyle described it -- and I'm quoting

from the closed captioning transcripts of that hearing on

September 25th, 2003 -- Cathy Coyle said she was exuberant about

this, councilwoman Saul-Sena, you said this is like a dream come

true, you said this is the vision that we all shared a dozen

years ago about this industrial area, what it could become, and

it's very, very exciting.

So I do want to remind you of that.

And that's quoting from the transcript.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Zelman, the only thing that comes to

mind just adding 15 units today, why are we doing it?

Why are we bothering?

Because it appears from to me and from discussions I have had

with staff, that there's a bigger amendment probably down the

road after we get done with our study, and you guys revise, et

cetera, et cetera.

So why are we bothering with this now?

>>> Well, to be totally candid, this project is coming out of

the ground this month, and, frankly, the developer needs the

additional 15 units in order to be able to provide the kind of

quality, the kind of amenities, the kind of craftsmanship that

she committed to you and the community.

As you all know, since 2003, a couple of things have happened.
The cost of concrete, the cost of steel has skyrocketed. 75

With all the amenities being provided, this project is frankly a

lot more expensive than originally contemplated.

Sales have been very well, but again the developer really needs

the additional units to make this work.

We had hoped to encompass these units within the other request

that was pending before you.

But when we pulled that high-rise tower out, we still needed

these additional units.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you are not going any taller, just trying

to squeeze more units into the space you have?

>>> Correct.

And I have a long presentation.

But if you would like me to make it short I will.

I just want to clarify one thing.

Cathy said we haven't added any amenities from what we promised

before.

Without boring you by listing, there were many, many, many

amenities provided last time.

I believe probably maybe even more than we should have offered

at that time.

And the new traffic signal is a new addition that was added by

your staff.

That's at a cost to the developer, if it does happen, of

approximately $200,000 from what the traffic experts tell me
now. 76

Also, we have agreed to put the camera for your traffic people

and electrical conduit on top of the building and agreed to the

change requested by Wilson Miller for some decorative pavers,

pavement, at the pedestrian, possibly curb cuts.

So again I think we have added a few things that weren't with

the original project.

And again, I believe that the original project included

sufficient amenities to warrant this fraction of an FAR increase

which we are asking for today which again is a little over a

tenth of a point.

>>GWEN MILLER: Councilmen, any questions?

>>ROSE FERLITA: One quick comment.

And certainly my friend Ms. Zelman didn't intend to hold anybody

hostage about their exuberant comments.

So Cathy, one quick question on the record.

Because it's taken different configurations and there were some

different height issues and stuff.

Land development is okay with this particular request?

>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to

speak on item 6?

>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance? 77

Ms. Ferlita?

>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the

general vicinity of 910, 918, 934 and 940 Channelside Drive in

the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in

section 1 from zoning district classifications CD-1 and CD-3 to

CD-3, providing an effective date.

>> Move to open item 7.

>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.

Petitioner has requested to vacate that portion of Campbell

street which is actually an east-west alleyway from Central

Avenue to grove Avenue, a line between Frances and park avenues.

This is 275.

This is east-west alleyway, runs all the way from central.

It dead-ends into the interstate.

Portion between central and Grove.

This is a shot of the alley looking east from Central Avenue.

This is property located right here.

This is the alleyway looking west from grove Avenue.

The alleyway located right here.

This is a shot of grove Avenue as it runs north of the alleyway

towards the north.

This is the alleyway looking east from grove towards the

interstate.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Cook, before you turn, it appears
there's some vehicle activity. 78

>> People drive through here.

It's all unimproved.

D.O.T. owns all this abutting property, the proposed Tampa

Heights greenway park.

They acquired all this property.

So people are just driving and parking in there.

I know even a solid waste truck comes around because the road

dead-ends so they use this to turn around on.

That will come up in the vacatings that we have proposed that

you all approved for hearings today for June 16th, the greenway

park.

We were going to build a turn-around.

That's part of a different vacating.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: They are not using this alleyway?

>>> They are using the abutting property illegally to turn

around on because the road dead-end when the interstate was put

in the '60s.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did Mary Helen Duke from Greenways take a

look at this from a staff perspective on how this proposed

vacation would affect her greenways and trails?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Yes.

This isn't part of the greenways and trails. The greenway and

trails east of this vacating.

This vacating only goes from central to grove.
Actually, what the alley looks like past grove. 79

I'll go back to the aerial.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is what we're talking about, and

with the vacation of this alleyway, it appears that the alley

gets to you grove.

And if we vacate it then you don't have that point.

>>> There is an objection to this vacating.

>> But I think that should be part of our thinking when we

consider alley vacation, is how it affects our greenway and

trail system.

>>ROSE FERLITA: There's a question.

Just from your comment, though, you're saying that they are

using that illegal will -- illegally to turn around but it's not

going to effect the green way because it's a different parcel.

>>> That's correct.

That's all being looked at from a different vacating.

Once again, they are only vacating -- asking for this portion

from here to here.

To go back to the aerial.

From central, grove is an unimproved right-of-way here.

Tampa greenways park is all this vacant property east of that

alleyway.

There is an objection to this vacating, if you will let me

finish.

This is in the Tampa Heights historic district.
So it went before A.R.C. on April 4th. 80

And they recommend to disapprove this vacating based on the

following three comments: Does not meet the secretary interior

standard; the applicant has a parking alternative; and allowing

this vacating will result in substantial injustice to be done to

other property owners by not allowing the future use of the

alley.

So based on the A.R.C.'s recommendation staff objects to this

vacating request.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago.

>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.

Based on the objection, our office has not prepared an ordinance

for you on this one.

This particular matter.

If you elect to deny down the vine, if you elect to approve it I

would ask as part of your motion that legal prepare an

ordinance.

That is all.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.

>> Good morning.

My maim name is Mike Arodak.

I have not been sworn yet.

(Oath administered by Clerk)

This alley, the definition of alley based on my observation and

the property, Tampa Heights, and it has beginning and end.
This alley has no beginning and no end. 81

The beginning of this alley start with the tree, probably 60, 70

years old, a beautiful tree.

I show this to you.

Can you see it?

This tree.

This is the front center.

This is supposed to be the alley.

This is the beginning of the alley.

And as you can see or observe, this alley is closed from --

there's about 60 or 70 trees, older trees.

The end of this alley, this is the end of the alley.

It's closed by fence, and D.O.T. properties.

>> An illegal fence.

>>> Illegal fence, correct.

Now 90% of the neighbors in favor of closing the alley.

That is causing dangers, because trucks cannot back out of that

alley.

There's no way.

Also, there's crime.

There's beer bottles all the time that's causing headache to all

neighbors.

90% of the neighbor, they have access to their property and

parking from the side whether from Frances.

So there's no injustice to anybody.
90% of them in favor of this. 82

And Ms. Church is going to pass it to all of you, the petition.

The alley, as I mentioned, it's about 8, 9 feet at the most.

The trees or the fences.

The tree in the front, the neighbor loved the trees.

It's about 60, 70 years old tree.

And also from central, from where is my property at the

beginning, I spoke with the department of parks.

They told me I cannot really go to the back because I harm the

tree if I drive close to the root system for the tree.

I think it's very simple.

That's it.

And I can show you the petition.

And Ms. Church is a partner on this project and she will address

some of your concerns.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Arodak, will you put the picture back up?

>>> Which one, the tree?

>> Where the tree is.

There seems to be a driveway on the right side.

Is that part of an alley?

>>> No.

This is for this neighbor.

>> So where does the --

>>> from what I understand, I think the alley is somewhere

close, near this post.
It's on the side. 83

>> When they said that there is they're was garbage trucks going

through that alley, where do they go?

>>> They can't go inside this alley.

Because there is a tree here.

>> So where do they turn around?

>>> The alley is a closed alley.

Nobody use it.

Just drug addict.

>> Mr. Cook says they were going in there.

>>> No, the other end.

>> The other end?

>>> Because there's fence at the end and there's tree at the

beginning.

And also on the east side there's fence and there's also trees.

I mean, nobody use it now besides the criminal, you know.

And troublemaker.

>> Criminals and troublemakers.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

>>> See how the tree looks.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Cook, will you perhaps enlighten us on

that?

>>JAMES COOK: It approximately right here where my pencil is

at.
Also to clarify, solid waste is turning around in the empty lot 84

at the end of what he's asking to vacate and this property down

here.

They are not using this alley.

There's a fence, and actually it's trees obstructing the use of

the alley so actually turn around in this vacant area back here.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I misunderstood that.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It looks like most of these lots along here

are vacant-a long the rest of the alley, not the subject purple

property there.

Where is the alley?

>>> The alley basically runs right down the middle.

You have a new house which I think was just relocated here as

far as the D.O.T. moves.

Then you have four structures on the north side.

Two lots here.

Then two structures right here.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I had a question for the petitioner, if

I could.

Sir, you mentioned, you use the term "my project."

You said you had a partner with the project.

It looks like there's an existing building there.

Are you renovating that building?

>>> It's historic house, 120 years old, about.

About 110, 120 years old.
Almost completed. 85

Actually, I'm planning to get my CO sometime this month.

It's beautiful historic house.

I would like to show you a picture.

>> And what's your plan, once you take over half that alley in

the rear, you're going to give up the other half of the alley,

right?

>>> Correct.

>> To your rear neighbor.

So what is your plan for that 15 feet or 10 feet that you're

going to get?

>>> It's about, to my estimate, about four more feet.

I use it to fence it and to avoid having headache from, you

know, crime and broken bottles, and protect the tree more, trim

around the tree, just beautify the area.

And avoid the dangers from the alley.

Nobody drive on.

That's good.

My office also is in Tampa Heights.

The alley has beginning to end based on definition and you can

go both ways. In Tampa Heights, all of them are two ways.

And they usually run from west to east or east to west.

You can go both ways.

This alley does not have beginning, does not have end.

You cannot drive on it except the criminal on their bicycle or
beer bottle crack in the night. 86

So to protect our community in Tampa height we need your

cooperation to shut it down.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were you here to speak on that?

Okay.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Would you reiterate what the city's objection

is, Mr. Cook?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we have a copy of that?

>> Yes, we all do.

It's in the file.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Just tell me what it was.

>>JAMES COOK: Basically they had three objections.

Does not meet the secretary of interior standards.

The applicant has a parking alternative.

So I don't know if he presented some plans to the A.R.C. at that

hearing that showed whatever he's going to do on this property.

The last one was allowing his an injustice to abutting property

owners, which you can see by the photos is not being used.

>> Are there any abutting property owners that live on the alley

that are objecting to it?

>>JAMES COOK: I don't know if there's any here.

I do have one phone call, one of the abutting property owners

did object to it.

I don't know if he showed up today.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Did you pass around or did the petitioner pass
around the petitions in support? 87

>>> My name is Shelly harper.

I'm actually buying the property at 2203 central that Mr. Arodak

is renovating and we are going to close toward the end of this

month.

I have the petition which I'm submitting on behalf of the other

property owner.

>>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to receive and file.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>> I don't live on the property yet.

But I have talked to the neighbors.

And I have actually got a little -- okay.

The lot in green is actually my property that I'm purchasing.

There are, as you saw, several other vacant lots.

This is a vacant lot.

This is a Florida DOT house that no one is living in.

This is a vacant lot.

This is a boarded-up house no one is living in.

Another vacant lot. This resident and this resident, and this

person across the street here and one other person, and

Mr. Arodak, have all signed the petition saying that they have

seen transients in the alley drinking alcohol.

And the person at 505 east Frances says he's asked people to
move out of the alley that were loitering, and drinking alcohol 88

in the alley.

But right across the street from me is Lee's grocery store,

where alcohol is obviously able to be purchased.

And everybody that I spoke to on the block was very positive

about vacating the alley so that wouldn't be a congregating

place for transient people.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Looking at this map on the overhead and

comparing it to the signatures that you have, because it's a

little hard for us, can you point and tell us maybe which ones

you have or which ones you don't have?

>>> Yes.

505; 507: This is a rental duplex.

The owners aren't available to sign my petition.

Just walking around.

>> How about 511.

>>> This person wasn't home.

I wasn't able to contact him.

Right across the street is on the petition, this house.

And then obviously this.

>> How about the other side of the alley?

Park Avenue?

>>> There's nobody living -- there's two properties.

Both are abandoned.

Nobody is living in them.
This is also part of the problem. 89

These two boarded-up houses, the boarding-up isn't very

substantial.

And we have transient people sort of taking up residence in

them.

>> Jimmy Cook mentioned that somebody called in objecting.

Do you know which one of these properties might have objected?

>>> I don't think it's one of the houses.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to

speak on item number 7?

>>> Russell Versage.

I have been sworn in already.

I own property on Park Avenue, or Park Street, 504 East Park,

which abuts the alley.

The area, if you have not been by to see the area, it's

challenged.

It's in a poor neighborhood.

The boarded-up homes that also abut the alley that have been

referred to in the testimony are owned by the central city CDC.

They are slow in moving, but they are moving toward getting

those houses rehabilitated and occupied, hopefully by people who

qualify for affordable housing, which these will become.

I'm one of the vacant property owners.

We hope to either move a house to our vacant lot, and have
access through the alley for parking. 90

There is a tree that challenges this alley.

I don't know that it a grand tree or protected or anything at

this point.

But I believe that there are remedies to making that alley open

again.

What I've seen on the screen today does not show that that alley

actually connects to grove street.

And so there is ingress and egress throughout the alley if it's

put back in place by the city.

The thing that bothers me the most is a lot of the alleys in

Tampa Heights have illegal fences in them.

I know that across central, on the west side, we have also had

some issues, but we have slowly gotten the people through code

enforcement to move those fences, and open the alleys back up

where solid waste can get through and pick up the trash rather

than on the curb, which is not as attractive, just like in the

historic district of Hyde Park.

These alleys were put there for that purpose.

And also for automobiles to go in and out of parking for

structures in the rear, which is really what we hope will happen

to the vacant lots.

A.R.C. has recommended you deny the petition for a number of

reasons, one being the injustice to the owners because it dense

me the opportunity to create a parking accessory structure in
the rear of my vacant lot, as it does any of the vacant lots 91

that are there, and it appeared from what I just saw on these

petitions that have been signed that there are two abutting

property owners, and that hardly constitutes 90%.

I would just like to be on the record of opposing the petition

for the reasons stated, and that the council follow the

recommendation of the A.R.C..

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.

And I apologize.

I didn't realize Mr. Versages is a part of this.

He's a client of our firm.

We have an ethics rule that's a little overly broad on this

issue and I think we need to address it down the road but today

that's the advice I have gotten from council.

And I apologize to council for figuring it out at this late

moment.

>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else in the audience like to speak?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question of Mr. Versage?

The homes in this area, traditionally, was the alley used for

people parking?

Or were there accessory structures in back?

>> I don't have the Sanborn maps to answer that definitively.

But I believe that the alleys throughout that entire

neighborhood were placed there for the purpose of having access

for automobiles.
And many of them had accessory structures back in the '20s when 92

they were built, when that neighborhood was platted.

The buildings that are there, the two boarded-up buildings that

are owned by the central city CDC, I don't believe, have

accessory structures at this moment.

But I know that they have been struggling, but planning to have

a workable, single-family structure there that can be

rehabilitated and sold.

I know that there's some city money that's tied up with them.

We were involved in trying to purchase some of those property

from the CDC, and it's been slow-moving.

But I believe that there were accessory structures on a number

of the homes when they were originally built as they were

throughout.

But not everyone -- I can't tell you because I don't have the

Sanborn maps.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I was going to move to close the public hearing.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez has a question.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Would you come back?

I was just wondering how long have you owned those two vacant

lots?

>>> I just own one vacant lot.

And it was actually going to be a parking lot for the sanctuary,

the Temple church building that we renovated as the loft

apartments.
We were able to acquire some separate property adjacent to the 93

church property, and were able to relocate and get the PD

modified so our parking could be adjacent.

And we were actually able to build a gated and secured parking

for the resident of the sanctuary, in that we acquired that

vacant lot as a surplus lot, so to speak.

And it's our hope that we'll eventually be able to move a house

to that vacant lot that's right now also owned by the CDC that's

behind Lee's grocery.

We'd like to -- we received a certificate of appropriateness, or

we have received the tentative approval for a parking lot behind

Lee's grocery.

Right now there's no parking for that grocery.

We hope to move that house that's currently at 409 east Frances

to our vacant lot.

>> So how long did you have the property?

>>> I've owned it in our family for probably less than two

years.

>> Less than two years.

Okay.

Thank you.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.

>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.

I believe the petitioner has shopped you some photographs.

You need to put that in the record, if you will allow before you
close. 94

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>> If you don't mind, I would like to have a few comments.

>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.

>>> This is again a CDC owns this lot, this house.

And they own this one.

And I spoke with Mr. David foster, and he's in favor of closing

that.

He has no objection.

They own two houses.

They have already spoken to the A.R.C. to demolish them because

they are typical, in Tampa Heights, they abandoned this house

for five or six years, and they were damaged.

And they are talking to the A.R.C. to build a new structure

here.

And they have access from the front.

They have access from here.

And also the houses on Park, you can see this is their property.

And this is the house also on the north side, typical, all the

parking on the side in front of their houses.

And that's why they have no problem with the parking.

As far as the lot, an -- anterior lot, and this one, to my

understanding, this empty lot is going to be parking for
Sanctuary, and this is the case we don't want to see any cars in 95

that area.

And this is major concern.

And I have for your record all those pages.

>>KEVIN WHITE: You said that other parking lot.

Could you point that out again where you said there's going to

be parking for the sanctuary?

>>> This lot.

Well, one -- I don't see how for future, they need the parking.

>> I don't think it's going to be zoned for parking.

>>> I'm not sure.

>>.

>>GWEN MILLER: And there's not a church there anymore.

The church has moved.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's a sanctuary now.

>>> To be converted to parking down the line.

>>KEVIN WHITE: You don't need additional parking for the --

>>> no.

It zoned single-family.

>>GWEN MILLER: Move to close then, Mr. White.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.

(Motion carried)

What's the pleasure of the council?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move to deny based on the
concerns of the A.R.C.. 96

And I have to say that I have been involved with the

redevelopment of Tampa Heights for quite a number of years.

And one thing that they have been trying to do is get rid of the

old duplexes, that were built in the 50s, and redevelop them

with new houses, but that look like the old ones with front

porches, and rayed off the ground.

And parking from the alley just supports the historic pattern in

the area.

So based on that I move for denial.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: There's no second.

I'd like to move for approval.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second for approval.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.

(Motion carried)

>> Move to send to legal.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 8.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.

Petitioner is requesting to vacate an unimproved portion of 56th
street running from Adamo Drive to the Crosstown Expressway, a 97

line between 56th street and -- the petitioner owns all the

property here from Adamo to the north.

This is the Crosstown expressway to the south.

56th street looking south from Adamo Drive towards the

Crosstown.

This is 56th street looking along the line from Adamo Drive.

This is a shot of 56th street looking south towards the

Crosstown.

This is at the dead-end of 56th street right at the Crosstown.

This is looking north from the dead-end towards Adamo Drive.

This is just a shot of showing all the other rights-of-way in

this area.

Staff has no objections as long as drainage and utility

easements are reserved.

>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.

As well with this petition, an ordinance has not been prepared

in anticipation.

I would ask if you act favorably on the petition that you also

please include as part of your motion to direct legal to prepare

the ordinance with the recommended easements and conditions.

That is all.

Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.

>>> I'm Jeff Anderson.
I was not sworn in. 98

(Oath administered by Clerk)

Jeff Anderson.

I live at 1002 South Harbor Island.

And I'm one of two principals in 56 Adamo LLC that proposed this

vacating.

Mr. Cook had excellent pictures.

It was intended as a road years ago, 56th street.

There's an apron that comes off of Adamo.

But there's no road.

It was abandoned, as a right-of-way, when the Crosstown was

built.

And on the other side, the only other abutting property owner is

Tampa Tag who has the other side.

All the other roads in this area have been vacated, and the main

problem with this, I think you can see in the pictures, is that

people do come off that apron and come down that road and dump

tires, trees, sofas, things like that.

We would like to have a little better control of what goes on in

that area.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to

speak on item 8?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council? 99

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to send to legal.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to send it to legal.

(Motion carried)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 9.

>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I'm here on item 9.

>>GWEN MILLER: Item 9 we need to open.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I did.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I have prepared the ordinance for the

expansion.

What's before you this morning is a public hearing on a petition

by the Grand Hampton CDB to include two parcels comprising

approximately 204 acres.

That petition was received by Land Development Coordination who

then engaged in a review pursuant to the criteria in chapter

190.

If you indulge me I can read this criteria into the record.

The CDB review criteria includes 6 points.

Point 1.

Whether all statements contained within the petition have been

found to be true and correct.

Two.

Whether the establishment of the district is inconsistent with
any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive 100

plan, or the effect of local government in comprehensive plan.

3.

Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact and is sufficiently

continuous to the develop -- to be developable as one functional

interrelated community.

4, whether the district is the best alternative available for

delivering community development services and facilities to the

area that will be served by the district.

5, whether the community development services and facilities of

the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of

existing local and regional community development services and

facilities.

And lastly, 6, whether the area that will be served by the

district is amenable to separate special district government.

Land Development Coordination distributed the petition to the

respective city departments.

We are informed there are no objections.

Accordingly the ordinance has been prepared for your review and

consideration.

The petitioner Mr. Straley and his associate are here to address

any questions you have and the ordinance contains all the

appropriate acknowledgments of compatibility and compliance

within the statute which is in a statute chapter 190.
Having said that, I will relinquish the floor to Mr. Straley for 101

any questions you might have.

>>> Good morning.

Mark Straley here on behalf of the Grand Hampton CDD which is

the petitioner.

We are seeking to expand the boundaries of the district to

include as Mr. Santiago explained, 200 adjacent acres that are

part of this overall Grand Hampton development.

I'm not aware of any opposition to our petition and the staff

has recommended approval, so I won't make a lengthy

presentation.

But I would be happy to answer any questions council may have.

>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item

9?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa,

Florida of that certain chapter 109 special district known as

the Grand Hampton community development district, 2003-106 but

including two parcels of unimproved real property, expansion

parcels lying in sections 3 and 10, township 27 south, range 19

east, comprising 204 acres more or less generally located south

of County Line Road, west of and abutting existing district
boundary, to hereof be and become part of the district, said 102

expansion parcels lying entirely within the boundaries of the

City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more

particularly described as section 2 hereof, providing for

severability, providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.

(Motion carried)

We now go to information from council members.

Mr. White, do you have anything?

>>KEVIN WHITE: Nothing, Madam Chair.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just in time to say, no, I have nothing today.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I believe everyone has gotten the letter from David Smith, our

attorney, on the question of the extension of term limits.

And he says that all we need to do is if we so desire is to

instruct the city attorney to draft two proposed ordinances,

extending term limits for the mayor and City Council from eight

to twelve years, and have two public hearings, at least two

weeks apart, and then the signature of the mayor, the proposed

amendments would be placed on the November 2006 general

election.

I have to say it for the record, okay?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is simple majority four or five?

>>GWEN MILLER: It didn't say.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: All we need to do is make a motion to instruct
the city attorney to draft the two proposed ordinances, and I 103

would like to make that motion.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there a second?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Guess it dies.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think anybody wants any more time.

>>GWEN MILLER: You don't have to run because you have the time.

You don't have to serve 12 years.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There isn't much discussion.

Mary, what's your thinking?

You mentioned it twice now.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: My thinking was that the state legislature did

it.

So they are asking for 12 years.

So I said, well, might as well try for the council.

Not me.

>>KEVIN WHITE: State commission also gives Hillsborough County

$90,000 a year.

>> That's right.

And they can't give us anything.

But I think it's a good idea, that eight years on the council.

And I know that you can -- you guys can go from one district to

the other and wide and all of this.

Whatever you want to do.

But it just for the future of the council.

If you don't want it, I mean, I've done my duty.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You were about to say you're not interested 104

in doing it?

>>> I'm not interested in running again.

>> If this is being voted up oh are down, and warrants further

discussion, maybe we should table it.

>>GWEN MILLER: How can you table it? There are two public

hearings.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Every two years.

>>GWEN MILLER: November 6th.

It's got to be on the November 6th ballot.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I agree with Councilman White. This came out

of the blue a couple of weeks ago.

And now this memo is out of the blue, too.

I have not seen that.

I didn't know what the process was.

And --.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: You should have been here.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: In any event I'm not really prepared to vote

it up or down today either.

If we are forced into a vote I am going to vote it down just

because I don't know enough about it yet.

Maybe the best thing to do is put it on the table.

>>GWEN MILLER: Table it.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clearly the press is here and that's a good

thing because I would like to get a little from my constituents
on this. 105

The legislature does some wise things and some less than wise

things.

So I'm not going to lie on what they are going to do just to

guide us.

But I'm not saying I'm totally against it either.

I would just like a little more time, maybe a couple of weeks.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: And my thinking, too, was given the mayor, not

necessarily our mayor right now, but a mayor that might come in

the future, a 12-year term.

It's something for us to think about.

If we want to table it, that's fine, too.

>>ROSE FERLITA: I think it warrants more discussion.

But what Mary is saying is accurate.

I mean, that certainly involves the term limits -- the current

mayor, too, for that matter.

So I think we ought to look at it.

I don't know that we have enough information.

But not to get into a situation where we don't have enough time,

Morris, when would we have to take a position on this so that we

can go through the public hearings, et cetera, and not be late

in doing this?

>>MORRIS MASSEY: I think you all would have to pass the

ordinance if you are going to do this in time so it could be

placed on the ballot.
Because they change -- any change to the charter would have to 106

be placed on the ballot.

So I'm not sure there's a definite time frame for you all to

react to it.

But that would be the time frame that you need to have any

change so it appears on the ballot.

And I think we would want it on the ballot usually that's

already scheduled so we don't have to come out of pocket.

>> But what I'm saying is do this and give us enough time to

think about it.

We can do it in the next --.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: 30 days?

I think council has some time if they want to take up the issue.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Do we want to look at it?

>>GWEN MILLER: We'll table it and bring it back.

I don't think you're ready for it.

>>KEVIN WHITE: If I may make a suggestion.

I don't know when our calendar is lighter.

I defer to the clerk for that.

But I'm just saying that I think we ought to at least say a time

certain whether we are going to look at it in two weeks, whether

we are going to look at it in a month.

Because if this is the way council is deciding it wants to go we

have to set the two public hearings and go from there.

So at least I think we ought to -- we want to talk about it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that we should go ahead and set it 107

for a time to discuss.

But here's the logistical concern.

If we put it on the ballot, and let's say it passes and it goes

on the ballot in November 2006, that throws into question

whether we are all going to be term limited.

And I would submit that we probably ought to address that issue

far above November 2006 because that will have an effect on

everyone here, and the mayor potentially and everyone.

So I hate the idea of having a special election.

But that may really be the only way to go, if you're going to

have it go into effect for the '07 elections.

>>ROSE FERLITA: That's a good point.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: My understanding of this is if it passes in

November of 2006 election that you are able to run again -- in

January, you can file your fee January 15th.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Given time to campaign.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Some of us are two years out.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: This gives you a chance, instead of having the

8-year, you would have the 12 years.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me be very candid about what this causes.

And I think Mr. Harrison is right on point.

And this is just a friendly scenario, Mr. Dingfelder, okay?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm always listening.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Very friendly for the benefit of you and the
two ladies that are in the audience. 108

For instance, I think Mr. White is ready to declare he's made

his decision.

You made your decision.

But the press is always curious what we are doing.

Some of us are term limited out.

So we either go home, run for another seat, or run for another

board or do something.

So this could cause -- and I agree with you, Mr. Harrison, we

don't want to cause any extra financial burden to constituents.

But this is going to -- this opens up a whole circle of

configurations.

Say, for instance, I can use myself as an example because I

don't know what anybody else is going to do.

Say I decided to run for county commission that. Takes care of

that.

But say for instance I decide not to run for the seat that I'm

term limited on and I compete with my colleague Mr. Dingfelder.

But then on November of 06 we decide we are going to extend the

term limits so I turn around, and I stay in my seat.

Say Mr. Harrison decides to run for my seat.

Mine is free.

He's term limited out.

Say for instance in 11-06 he can stay where he is and if he's

comfortable, then he can turn around and stay there again.
So now you have all this traffic intersection going back and 109

forth and back and forth, and nobody knows, yes, we are able to

do what we want to do and change our minds and move from this

seat to that seat, and change our focuses during the campaign

trail, because you are probably going to be campaigning anyway,

but that causes a lot of eleventh-hour confusion.

So that's one of the things we need to weigh in on when

Mr. Harrison is saying maybe 11-06 is not the time to find out

what our options are, what they are not.

And the same thing for the mayor, in 11-06 she may have decided

she's already done what she needs to do and focus on four

instead of 8.

It would also change her goals if she's looking at 8 instead of

four additional ones so she can continue doing the fine job

she's doing.

So I don't know if you need to wait till 11-06, or if you want

to talk about it for awhile because it's very confusing.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The other two components to put in there is

to hear from our constituents, because my memory is that the

public has repeatedly supported term limits.

And if this were to be a special election, what would the

financial implications of that be?

And I think all of that information is important information.

And we need to have that information to have a really healthy

conversation.
So I like the idea of setting up for a date certain, enabling 110

our constituents to provide us information.

Also allowing the supervisor of elections to tell us what the

price tag would be.

>>GWEN MILLER: And after this discussion I think our

constituents hear us talking about this you will be getting some

e-mails giving us opinions.

You don't have to worry, you will get feedback from the

constituents after our discussion today.

Mr. Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Start with Ms. Ferlita.

It never dawned on me that you mate consider running against me.

(Laughter)

But regardless, I think we all take our jobs very, very

seriously.

We recognize that anything when do is going to have long-range

impacts, far beyond this council and what we are jockeying and

maneuvering and those sorts of things.

With that said I agree wholeheartedly with Mrs. Saul-Sena and

some other that is we need to take it slow, not super slow, but

maybe take it a little slow, get feedback, schedule it for a

time certain, so -- well, it's going to be on public hearing.

But we should let the public know we're talking about this and

come back in a couple of weeks and wrap this up.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we ought to do it after we get back
from our July break so we have time. 111

21st?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Although that may be a pretty heavy day.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

>>THE CLERK: First meeting after the two-week vacation.

You also have a night meeting that night, also.

>>GWEN MILLER: The next meeting.

>>THE CLERK: The following week you also have a night meeting

that night.

Right now you have one continued land rezoning.

But the other zonings have not been set yet.

They will be.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Why don't we set it for a time certain like

at 10:00 -- 10:00.

Let's do it at the end of the agenda.

>> Unfinished business.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: One more thing.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Less controversial.

>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion then.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I guess it was last year or the year before, we

passed an ordinance on taking care of the shopping carts from

the various supermarkets.
And I noticed in the paper this week that Publix supermarket is 112

using a way to corral its shopping carts.

And I'm wondering if we are doing anything in the code

enforcement issue of keeping these carts within the boundaries

of their supermarkets.

I don't know, I think I saw some signs in some of the

supermarket that say it's unlawful to take the shopping carts

off the lot.

But I think it's working some.

It's not -- I don't see a proliferation of a lot of shopping

carts, but it's still going on.

So I would like for code enforcement to come out to us next week

or the week after to talk to us about what they are doing about

the intention of the shopping carts.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

(Motion carried)

>>ROSE FERLITA: You might want to take a note to yourself, in

Seminole Heights it's not working.

I hate to tell you, Madam Chairman, you opened up -- yes, my

security guard does take care of moving them, out of the

alleyways, and tries to find -- yes, we do.

But it still not working.

>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: No.

Just to follow up a little bit.
Maybe we need to have our legal department send a nice notice to 113

some of these supermarkets, to tell them that there is a code in

force and make sure that they comply, because it's up to the

supermarkets to take care of their own shopping carts.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's decreed by state law, also.

There's very little we have the ability to do.

But it would be good to have an update.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Right.

And we do have an ordinance.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Nothing, Madam Chair.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

I'm going to pass out to council members a booklet.

Two weeks ago, I had a meeting about the Dan Kiley garden,

NationsBank plaza park.

And it was an information gathering meeting.

And what I learned, which I had never realized before, is that

Dan Kylie, who designed the park, was awarded the national medal

of arts, the highest honor that can be bestowed upon an artist

in the United States.

He's the only landscape architect to have landmark of national

historic places and this park was placed on the trust for

national historic preservation's ten most endangered sites 2010

list. The reason this park was endangered is because of part of

the museum, it was going to be bulldozed, but now they are that
we are not doing that design it's time to look at this park so 114

we called upon a number of experts free and open to the public

on May 13th at the Tampa Museum of Art and May 14th at 10:00

meeting in the Q building.

I would like to invite all of you to come and learn about the

park.

What I learned is that it was a very thoughtful design, it's

well expected all over the nation and the world, and it's little

known in its hometown.

I think this is a great opportunity for us to learn more about

this park and what a jewel we have in our downtown.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Tampa's best kept secret.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple things.

The annual waterwise awards in front of council, he's asked for

May 26th in the evening.

It will only take five minutes.

Just he has to give out two awards, I think.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

And secondly, on our agenda today, we set a public hearing for

June 9th at 5:01 p.m. in regard to the Palma Ceia neighborhood

area plan amendment.

And just as an update, and I'm sure you all read in the paper or
heard otherwise, the Planning Commission recommended approval to 115

us of the large-scale plan amendment, and that's coming to us.

But I just wanted to put it on television so everybody heard.

If they want to come down for the public hearing, that's June

9th at 5:01 p.m.

And then finally, we have this repetitive discussions about

alleys.

And I don't feel like we really have resolved and set a policy

about how we really feel about alleys, and what are the pros and

cons of these alleys? What I hear from the residents and

council is great concern about safety issues and the cleanliness

issues of the alleys.

Those are very important concerns.

Then I think conflicting with that is a long-term concern about,

you know, why the alleys were platted there to start with and

what are the long-term benefits of these alleys?

And of course as we all know, sometimes these alleys are

tremendous success stories, in Hyde Park, and Tampa Heights and

Seminole Heights, places where they have now revitalized the

alleys.

With all that said, would love us to have a workshop, perhaps

sometime in the summer, after we get back and after we are all

settled back in, maybe in August.

With Del Acosta, and code enforcement and other relevant

departments to come in, and -- Thom Snelling and other people to
have an interest in that. 116

And we can all sort of chat and really try to create a more

consistent policy on alleys.

Because if we want to dissolve all of our alleys, because they

have potential to be dangerous, then let's do it.

If we want to save them all, let's do it.

I think we are sort of helter skelter on this.

And I don't know.

So what's a reasonable time?

What's our workshop in August, our workshop afternoon in August?

Let's just call it the first Thursday in August.

That would be a motion of workshop, relevant staff would

participate including the ones that we just mentioned.

And police, perhaps, if they want, on the 4th in the afternoon.

1:30.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's it for me today.

Thank you.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There was another issue that came up earlier

today.

And I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

And that is the question of our ethics code, which I think needs

work, because it's sort of vaguely worded.

And I would like to request some time in the future for legal
and Marty to work on it and come back to us with some 117

clarifications on our ethics code.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

Maybe revisions.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Like four weeks. If they can't get it

together in four weeks I'll move for a continuance.

But move that legal come back to us in four weeks for some

improvements to the City of Tampa ethics code.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When you said legal, you included

Mr. Shelby.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, yes.

>>THE CLERK: We have received a request from Steve Daignault.

He would like to appear before council on May 12 for

approximately five minutes to provide an update on the Tampa Bay

water.

>> Second.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Moved.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>THE CLERK: I also have another request from Steve Daignault

to appear on May 19th to talk about the 49th street project.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do some of those motions --.

>>THE CLERK: The last time we had it was received and filed and
was just discussed and he was going to come back. 118

The other issue I have is a resolution authorizing the black

history committee to use the city seal for events that are

occurring within the month of May.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

(Motion carried)

>>THE CLERK: Then I have Mr. Dingfelder's conflict of voting

form to be received and filed.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>THE CLERK: We have provided council with a memorandum for

supports of committees for your review and consideration.

We had given that to council yesterday.

>>GWEN MILLER: When do we need to appoint them?

>>THE CLERK: As of right now it looks like you have a vacancy

on the architectural review commission which was an expired

alternate position that expired back on February 4th.

You have a position alternate for the Barrio Latino commission

which expired on April 30th.

You have two upcoming positions for civil service board which

expired June 9th.

Enterprise zone board needs eleven members but there's been no

applicants.

Public Nuisance Abatement Board you have a vacancy, one due to a
vacancy of Don Lukes. 119

And you have four appointments that expired on March 31st.

Tampa historic, you have two.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Shirley, do you want to pick up her notes?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a lot of business.

>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: One expired position.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The thing we have to be careful on that one,

the two names you received on your list, they are not

architects.

So I would draft a letter to the AIA to see if they could get us

some architects.

I'll give to the you.

>>GWEN MILLER: We heard the appointments we need so we'll think

of someone and bring it back.

Okay?

Shirley, does she have anything else?

Oh.

>> Move to receive and file.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our audience portion.

(Public audience portion off camera.)
(Meeting adjourned.)