Help & information    View the list of Transcripts



Tampa City Council
9:00 a.m
Thursday, December 1, 2005

>>GWEN MILLER: City Council is called to order. 09:24:31

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would everyone please stand and do a 09:24:38
pledge of allegiance after the invocation?
>>> Desiree Valdez: Let us pray.
Dear God, as we gather here this morning we call those
to mind on this world aids day. 09:24:54
We ask you to give this council clarity, wisdom, and
sensitivity needed to make the decisions that we have
elected them to.
Father, we ask that all who enter this chamber be
blessed with integrity, honesty, and patience. 09:25:09
Let us also remember those who protect us and our
freedom near and far.
We also would like to remember those who have passed,
since it is world aids day and we would like to make
sure that each of you be blessed open and your heart 09:25:29
free to hear and truly listen to all the concerns in
which come before you this day.
For peace and harmony, for this we pray.
Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance). 09:25:46
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here. 09:26:04

>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.) 09:26:04
>>KEVIN WHITE: (No response.)
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
I would like to put on the record that Mr. Kevin White
will not be in attendance at the meeting. 09:26:12
He's away and out of town.
Ms. Rose Ferlita will be late.
She's representing the mayor to do a world aids
commendation to St. Joseph's hospital so she will be
coming in late. 09:26:28
We now go to our commendation by Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's such an honor to be up here
today with my good friend Ed Deese and his wife, and to
honor yesterday for his many, many years of service to
or community in many capacities. 09:26:54
It's funny, we all know Ed as a union guy.
And the union guys, they all call each other brother,
or sister, I guess as the case may be, and I was always
sort of jealous. But then I had the opportunity to be
in the teachers union for a couple years and they 09:27:14
called me brother, and it was an honor that I was
included in the brotherhood.
But we are hear to honor Ed.
Many of you know him through union work and that sort
of thing. 09:27:26

But we also know him through his work on the Planning 09:27:26
Commission.
Mary, did you serve with Ed?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I served with Ed.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ed served on the Planning Commission 09:27:36
I guess as a representative of the Hillsborough County
as a life long resident of eastern Hillsborough County,
served on the Planning Commission from '91 to '99 and
we all know what great work they do over there and
especially volunteers over there. Ed began -- I'll 09:27:49
read this commendation -- began his career in 1970 as
an a paren disiron worker and joined local 397 in
Tampa.
He achieved journeyman status in 1973.
Ed was elected assistant business agent in '81, a 09:28:04
position he had for six years, in '87 he was elected
the office of business manager where he served for 18
years until his recent retirement this year.
During his tenure as business manager he was elected
president of the Florida west coast building and 09:28:18
construction trades.
In 1996, a position he still maintains.
Because of your impeccable worth ethics and service to
the community, City of Tampa, county Planning
Commission 91-99 we the members of Tampa City Council 09:28:34

recognize brother Ed DEES and congratulate you on the 09:28:37
occasion of your retirement, June 30, 2005, after 35
years with local 397, dated the 1st day of December
2005.
(Applause). 09:28:56
>>> Ed DEES: First I would like to introduce my wife.
A lot of these things we, do without our spouse we
couldn't do.
Without the support of our spouse.
And I introduce Karen, my wife of 30 years and I want 09:29:09
to thank you each of you for the support you have given
the community.
And there's something I would like to say that goes
this morning to to you.
I would like to thank you for representing the 09:29:25
community as you have.
You know, you're all inclusive council.
I was in Seattle the other day and we had such bad
press, people want to know what's going on in
Hillsborough County. 09:29:40
And I try to remind them of the City Council in Tampa,
the positive.
I would like to thank you because I believe you are pro
family, I believe you are pro community, and I believe
you are pro people. 09:29:52

And I would like to thank you for the hard work that 09:29:54
you have done to include everyone in our community, in
your governor answer of our community.
I would like to thank you for. This and I would like
to thank you for all the help that you all have done 09:30:06
for the working men and women in Hillsborough County
and the City of Tampa over the years.
Thank you so much.
And God bless you.
(Applause). 09:30:18
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. DEES, come back to the podium.
We would like to thank you for the hard work you have
done.
I know you will still be doing it.
You're not retiring. 09:30:32
You're going to still be working.
>>> I'll be involved, yes, ma'am.
>> And we would like to thank you for the support you
have given us because you all really helped us and we
really appreciate it. 09:30:41
And you just continue to discovering you can to make
this community just as well as you have done in the
past.
Thank you for that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm so delighted to see you again, and 09:30:49

in the retirement form but that's not going to last too 09:30:54
long I know because of how involved you are with the
community.
I just want to tell you, I probably was never able to
tell you so much how much I enjoyed being on the 09:31:02
Planning Commission with you.
You showed me a lot.
And as you know, I was just a rookie when I first went
in.
And I felt really good to come back and then run for 09:31:14
City Council, and it was because of your help that I
was able to do this job.
So I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for
everything that you've done for your community, not
only for the city but for the county, too. And you're 09:31:26
a swell guy.
Thank you so much.
>>> Thank you so much.
God bless.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time we need to approve the 09:31:34
agenda.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 22, 45, 50, and that's it.
To pull from consent for discussion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you like to have any staff
members for those discussions or is that necessary? 09:32:48

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 22 it's not necessary for staff. 09:32:53
45, I think staff is going to speak at the front end of
the meeting.
And 50 it not necessary for staff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Approval of the agenda then? 09:33:11
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our staff reports and
unfinished business. 09:33:20
We have Mr. David Smith.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
I just want to give you a very brief update of the
issue related to the disturbance that occurred at the
last council meeting, I believe it was. 09:33:35
There was a warning issued to Mr. Daniel, notice and
trespass.
He has been served by the Tampa Police Department with
that warning.
It's my understanding when he was served, he said he 09:33:47
would see us here after all, but hopefully that will
not be the case.
If so, he has he will be banned from the premises for
the foreseeable future.
Also, I want to take this opportunity if I could to 09:34:00

just provide you an update on something that will come 09:34:02
up at the end of the agenda, which is the ethics
ordinance.
I have one minor correction.
And it pertains to the provision section 2-512. 09:34:11
It's just sort of a parenthetical at the beginning of
the sentence that needs to be deleted because there are
no collective bargaining on points.
I can file those with you for later.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question on the ethics one. 09:34:27
I read the memo. I want to get to you clarify that.
I missed the original discussion.
I was probably lucky.
And I think most of that discussion had to do with the
gift policy and that sort of thing. 09:34:44
The changes we are address dag have nothing to do with
the gift policy?
>>> That's correct.
It's more of a glitch bill.
And the gift provision remains as it is which of course 09:34:54
you're free -- what we were going to do is come back in
January, if you wish, with several different proposals,
one of which is being recommended by the ethics
commission.
If you say no we'll stand pat but it's not addressed in 09:35:07

this particular set of changes. 09:35:09
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for the clarification.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Roy LaMotte.
>>ROY LAMOTTE: I'm here to speak on the item regarding
the parking ordinance in preparation for a new 09:35:29
ordinance for you.
Basically, this particular new ordinance eliminates
some duplication we had in chapter 15 and chapter 25,
and basically what it does is it allows us to have
parking within ten feet of an intersection, under 09:35:44
certain circumstances, where we have the results of
having either a marked space or a parking meetner
place. This basically saves 206 spaces of the 231
spaces that we had identified within the community that
had this problem. 09:36:03
We seek your approval on it.
I'll take any questions related to it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
We'll move it under committee reports.
Ms. Donna Wysong. 09:36:18
>>> Good morning.
Donna Wysong, legal department.
I'm here to speak on agenda item number 12, which is
the proposed tree ordinance, which is scheduled for its
first reading at 1:30 today. 09:36:31

W when the ordinance was submitted to the city clerk's 09:36:33
office and distributed, we inadvertently left off the
attachments to that ordinance which is a map of the
landscaped area and district map that sets forth seven
identified areas. 09:36:47
And also, the technical manual, tree and landscape code
technical manual was also left out.
I discovered that mistake and I submitted it to the
clerk's office and I also distributed it to all of you
yesterday. 09:37:01
But I just wanted to make that clarification on the
record that we did get that inadvertent oversight taken
care of.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to unfinished business, item 09:37:10
number 2.
>> Cindy Miller, director of housing and business
development.
Item number 2 was a request for me to appear and to
present funding mechanisms regarding the feasibility of 09:37:27
a one-time emergency designation of $5,000 to put a
blue tarp over Gary school.
For this item, we have talked with school board
representatives, also talked with Tampa Preservation,
Inc., and other stakeholders. 09:37:45

And at this point, the school board intends to market 09:37:47
the property and is marketing the property, so that new
ownership can rehabilitate the building.
So we believe at this point, our best approach is to
not take any further action on this particular item. 09:38:03
But what I would like to mention to you, and will come
back to you at a later date, is some alternatives that
we sort of started to broach with the various
stakeholders, especially Tampa Preservation, Inc., and
with other folks very interested in preservation, as 09:38:18
well as FDOT.
And I just want to take one or two minutes to be able
to outline what we'll be back to you with.
As you know over the last few years, the City of Tampa,
in a memorandum of agreement with FDOT, along with the 09:38:30
federal government, has been involved in relocating
historic homes from the area around 275 and I-4.
And that has been very successful.
FDOT has moved the houses.
They have rehabilitated the houses and have made them 09:38:43
available to homeowners.
A fund has been established for that which is called
the interstate preservation trust fund.
And we have now gone through our first application
process, and will be back to you with our 09:38:55

recommendation on that. 09:38:58
But with the success of that phase one, phase two has
sort of a different situation.
Where FDOT will still be moving houses -- and as a
matter of fact I believe a couple of businesses -- but 09:39:07
rather than rehabilitate them, they will just be moving
them and stabilizing them, mothballing them so they can
be made available.
We intend to work with FDOT so that this next phase can
provide funding that can be used for historic 09:39:22
preservation purposes.
And I intend to be back with you in the next few weeks,
probably after the first of the year, to be able to
talk to you about the policies and procedures on that.
But I do want to mention we have already taken 09:39:36
proposals for three houses in Tampa Heights that were
moved under this scenario.
And we intend to be back to you after the first of the
year with the successful proposers, and we had hoped to
be able to start having, say, a five-year plan to be 09:39:49
able to have some resources come back into the city
coffers for this purpose.
But a couple of the transactions, folks have indicated
that they will be paying cash.
So even better. 09:40:02

We may have some cash. 09:40:03
So as soon as I can identify how much and have some
policies and procedures that I will be recommending for
the finance director to approve, I will be back to you
on those items. 09:40:15
So the good thing about this particular item is, it got
us into some creative looking at how we can address
some other concerns.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to commend you for
moving ahead on this. 09:40:27
And I think it's so appropriate that we spend the funds
generated from historic preservation projects on
additional historic preservation needs.
And I have to really also the Department of
Transportation who has proven novel and wonderfully 09:40:40
generous partner in all these efforts.
It's been a terrific collaboration.
And I think we have to recognize Elena LESH who
recommended the understanding with the city so.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: This is really good news, Ms. Miller. 09:41:06
My question was, when you do the trust fund, it would
be Tampa Preservation, Inc., that would be
administering the trust fund?
Or how would you work that?
>> And that's where I would like to come back to you 09:41:21

with policies and procedures. 09:41:23
It would not be Tampa Preservation, Inc. monitoring or
administering the trust fund.
I think we can do that with city staff and city
resources. 09:41:31
But I think there's some partnerships and some
assistance that can help us with, and I do intend to be
back to you with some recommendations when we have this
cash flow firmly identified.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What about maybe matching grants with 09:41:43
this money?
Would that be something we could go to the state and
ask for matching grants to this?
>>> Certainly that is when you have a local source of
funding the state likes to see that in any grant 09:41:56
application.
So that is certainly something that we want to look at,
to be able to leverage the funds.
So we are going to try to take all of these different
suggestions and hopefully have sort of a prioritized 09:42:06
listing that we can have some good news.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Can't wait for you to come back.
>>> I'll try to hurry.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I asked Vince if he would stay to 09:42:21

discuss item 45. 09:42:26
It's kind of under the genre of staff reports, if you
wish.
>>VINCE PARDO: Ybor City Development Corporation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This item is an agreement with an 09:42:38
American company for $200,000 for the YCDC.
And I guess I'm curious, number one, why it's on our
agenda as opposed to the CRA agenda.
But I guess, I don't know, I'm a little confused on
that. 09:42:56
More importantly, I have some other questions.
If you want to explain the contract, how we got to
where we are today on this issue.
>>VINCE PARDO: It's on your agenda, because in the
agreement between the CRA and the City Council, those 09:43:05
administrative duties, budget, staffing it and going
forward, are over to City Council.
>> What fiscal year budget is the this item?
>>> This is fiscal year '05.
The RFP I think was let in June. 09:43:25
But it was in the process.
We made a determination, we were trying to push it for
September 30th.
So it is fiscal year 05 money that we are contracting
now for the 200,000. 09:43:36

And the budget year approved last CRA meeting, there is 09:43:37
$150,000 in the '06 budget.
Our plan of action is, as long as you look at an
overlap, our plan of action is, in the first part of
the 60 to 90 days of this contract the consultant, they 09:43:49
will be meeting critical time lines, but we propose 60
to 90 days for creative work, meeting with the
community, coming up with tag lines, and the vision
plan, those kinds of things, come back to us with a
campaign, within 60 or 90 days. 09:44:05
At that point I think we can be more knowledgeable and
strategically where in fact to budget the 150 that's in
the current year budget.
So those two fiscal years kind of work concurrently.
Eights two year contract with three year renewal. 09:44:21
So we don't have an early drop dead -- drop dead date
here.
>> I haven't had an opportunity to review the contract
per se but I'll trust you and the staff.
But does the 200,000 plus whatever additional funds we 09:44:36
might allocate additionally, does that include money to
the marketing company plus the money that they would
use to do the placement of the ads?
>>> That's right.
>> So is that the total budget? 09:44:54

So we just route it through them? 09:44:56
>>> That's right.
Yes.
>> When we did the RFP or when they responded to the
RFP, typically in that business, there's a 15% 09:45:05
commission that companies get for placement.
Placement of ads.
In other words, if I placed a $100 ad in the Super Bowl
and I'm an agency, I get 15% of that.
I get to keep 15% of that. 09:45:21
That's the way that these agencies typically work.
And I'm just wondering, did that come into discussion
when we negotiated this contract?
>>VINCE PARDO: I don't remember the percentage being
referenced. 09:45:35
Quite frankly, for marketing campaign, just to let you
know this went out to approximately 600 potential
vendors.
We only had six respond.
I had people that even I know in the business, said I 09:45:48
looked at it.
I said why didn't you respond?
They said there's no money in it.
So people who looked at it, everyone knew what the
budget was $200,000 was really a matter of their 09:45:59

expertise and their ability and creativity that they 09:46:02
were able to show through the RFP process.
>> Let me clarify my question.
Out of the $200,000 how much of that will go for
placement purposes, to the TV stations, to the radios, 09:46:13
to the newspapers, whatever media we are going to use?
>>> In the proposal by Roberts communication, and each
one of the proposers came up with a budget.
We asked, how much do you think you need up front for
budget planning, creative design and marketing 09:46:28
services, which pretty much is going to go into staff
costs, how much will be going into public relations,
again with some staff and also some other operating
costs there.
But more importantly, their proposal, their budget 09:46:41
breakdown was 50,000 for the first phase as far as
project planning, creative design and marketing, 50,000
relations which would be ongoing public relations
throughout the year, and $100,000 in media buys and
placement. 09:47:01
That's for the programming of the '05 dollars.
That's why I have actually held off even trying to
think about where we are going to place the 150 until
we look at how when we sit down with them after this
contract is approved, our first meeting is tomorrow 09:47:13

morning, and go through that, and I think after they 09:47:16
come back with their creative work, whatever, we can
have a better idea of where effectively to place that
150.
Obviously into the media buys. 09:47:24
>> And then the last question I had -- and I apologize,
council -- is, you know, we have been wrestling and you
have been wrestling with the issue of what is it
exactly that we are marketing?
What is it that we want Ybor to be? 09:47:41
And I'm just wondering, have we come to the conclusion
of what it is we are going to be marketing and what it
is Ybor is going to be before we actually hire somebody
to do that marketing?
>>> Yes. 09:47:54
I think in the RFP, we -- at least the staff, the
community, and hopefully in your acceptance of the
vision plan, I think we know what we want the direction
of Ybor City to be.
The intended marketing -- and this has been going on 09:48:07
for the last probably decade but with more intensity
over the last five years because things started to
change in Ybor.
We want to have a proactive campaign to put out a very
positive word, about the very positive things Ybor does 09:48:21

have seven days a week, from cultural activities, most 09:48:25
of you know we have school kids in there probably
Monday through Friday, special field trips coming N.we
have a lot to offer.
We don't have an ability to really market that. 09:48:34
We have a district, a historic district here that
competes with malls, it competes with tourist
attractions, competes with other historic districts,
they are vast, they are retail.
So the focus here will be the cultural, the social, and 09:48:55
the daytime and family oriented activities.
The softer, gentler Ybor as I refer to the.
What happens after 11:00 gets enough press so we don't
need to talk more about that.
We have some images that get stained sometimes. 09:49:13
It has some world class night clubs.
People have invested millions of dollars literally into
doing that.
So we don't want to belittle the night life we have.
I think all of us want to see the society, the cultural 09:49:28
things and to promote those kinds of things.
We will not be promoting any private business through
this campaign.
We are promoting the district.
But we also want to promote to the collectiveness of 09:49:38

the district that it does have shops, it does have fine 09:49:41
dining, does have all these kinds of cultural
activities, educational institutions, museums and such.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Pardo, you answered my major
question, which was this would go out to RFPs and 09:49:53
this was the best bid we got.
In 200,000 is coming from the TIF money.
Will there be some type of oversight, not from the
council's perspective but from the administration, as
the ads are developed and the theme of the marketing 09:50:13
becomes a little more clear, that the city will have
some say in that?
Because when you just give carte blanche to creative
types like Mr. Roberts, you know, we better be ready
for what we might get, and we need to make sure that's 09:50:33
going to be appropriate for the City of Tampa.
>>VINCE PARDO: Mr. Harrison, we aren't going to have
time at Wednesday's meeting but the marketing committee
met.
They came up with a more formalized. 09:50:51
We realize now we have some folks, can't let them
approve -- it's a huge committee.
Not a huge committee.
We have a 7 member committee A.good cross section of
people from different disciplines including -- and I 09:51:06

haven't had a chance to talk to the chairman yet -- 09:51:09
including a standing chairman of CRA.
So that group will be working with me on reviewing the
creative, we have media professionals on the committee
as well as lay people who do business in Ybor City. 09:51:22
I think you will be pleased.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's good.
I feel better.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a couple of things I wanted to
say. 09:51:33
I wanted to say that the media, take heed, that this is
a positive thing that we are doing for Ybor City, not
anything that's negative, but a positive spin that we
are going to put on Ybor City.
The other thing is, I have no heartburn over this, 09:51:44
because Roberts communication has moved into the Ybor
City area, and it okay to give them a contract.
They are part of Ybor City.
And they will know what to do with their marketing and
their advertising. 09:52:01
This is exactly what we wanted when we talked about it
a couple of weeks ago.
So I think it's a good move.
And I'm happy to see that Roberts communication is
getting it. 09:52:11

Thank you. 09:52:12
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to echo this positive feeling
about marketing Ybor City.
Rather than doing the billboard, I think that this kind
of broad marketing, saying that Ybor is for everyone in 09:52:20
the community, it's safe, it's fun, and it's authentic.
And I think that's one of the things that I would share
with the choices.
That we have many Disneyesk things in Florida, but Ybor
City is the real deal. 09:52:38
It is a national landmark district.
And it has a different feeling because of that.
And I really look forward to this being a wonderful
campaign.
And council as you know has done a variety of things in 09:52:48
this council in terms of creating the noise ordinance
and making sure we reopen the streets.
And I see this marketing campaign, now that we have
done those things which are sort of requisite, now the
marketing can tell the story, and I'm very much looking 09:53:05
forward to this.
>>VINCE PARDO: Thank you for all of your support.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, obviously because I'm
the late comer we are not going to go through this
whole thing again. 09:53:16

I think we discussd this for a long time. 09:53:17
I apologize first of all.
I was at the health department giving a proclamation
for the mayor.
This is something that we have talked about, reiterated 09:53:24
time and time and time again.
And I think we made comparisons, Vince, to other
communities, like Orlando, and different areas that
have used those TIF moneys.
I think Mrs. Saul-Sena was right, playing that out to 09:53:38
us in terms of the diversity of ways that we could use
TIF dollars.
I think we wouldn't be even in the situation we're in
now if we had gone to this sooner, if we had let the
marketing do our talking. 09:53:53
And I think the chamber has been supportive of this.
Certainly Mrs. Alvarez as our CRA chairman has been
supportive of it.
And I heard briefly that she's going to be given a seat
at the table to decide what's going on. 09:54:03
And that's God.
Because then she is our direct contact.
And Mary will choose maybe periodic times perhaps to
give us some updates and give us the opportunity to
input. 09:54:14

But, you know, that is our tourist destination as we 09:54:15
all know.
And the better we advertise it, the more we advertise
it, it's a product that's going to be sold, and sold in
the right ways. 09:54:24
We have got lots of things going on.
And I know that Roberts team will look at the different
things will work in concert with them.
We have looked at opening the street, closing the
street, and reopening it. 09:54:35
We have looked at -- we are going to do better with the
noise ordinance.
We don't need to reiterate all of that.
All I'm saying is the time has come.
It's wonderful that we are going to do this. 09:54:45
And marketing is what sells your product.
And so I think it's time for everybody to get on board
for what Ybor City historically has to offer.
And I'm certainly a partner in this campaign.
I think it's a wonderful idea. 09:55:00
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Thank you, Mr. Pardo. Continue at your job.
Council members really support you.
We are going to go to item number 3.
We have a resolution. 09:55:14

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution. 09:55:15
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 4.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution. 09:55:21
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution for number 5.
>> Second.
(Motion carried). 09:55:30
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 6.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the resolution.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did you want to speak on number 6?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When don't need to discuss it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have the resolution. 09:55:44
He signed up.
That's why I asked.
I thought maybe he wanted to say something.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: For Ms. Greene?
I guess he didn't want to speak. 09:55:57
So we can move the resolution then.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 7. 09:56:04

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This has been going on for 20 years. 09:56:06
>>> Captain Joe honeywell, Tampa Police Department,
newly assigned, second commander for the area,
surrounding gene's bar.
Over if last six months we have conducted 101 09:56:33
self-initiated calls in that area.
20 arrests have been made.
Not on the property but near the property, or
surrounding that property.
The bar was closed temporarily due to having 09:56:50
overcapacity crowd.
And I have been in contact recently with Ms. Andrews in
reference to some of the concerns and trying to stay in
close contact with her.
H for any problems. 09:57:11
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like to thank you for come,
captain honeywell, because this has been a problem.
Our council said 21 years and more.
And it's just a nuisance to us and to the neighbors.
Whatever you can do to help us, we really appreciate 09:57:24
it.
Because that bar is in really what bad shape for that
community.
And I know how the neighbors feel.
And we are asking for your help. 09:57:34

Ms. Saul-Sena? 09:57:37
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We had a code enforcement report
from Curtis Lane.
Did you all happen to notice if they cleaned up the
debris and damaged wood fence that had been cited on 09:57:51
this?
>>> That area needs a few more parking signs.
Especially on the Mallory and 22nd street.
As far as debris, I went by there the other day.
It looked pretty clean to me. 09:58:07
69 I guess let code enforcement go back out and check
it and see.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question to the police, is there
anything we can do at this point?
Do you have enough evidence of problems for us to move 09:58:21
forward with any action?
>>> Of closing the bar?
No, not at this time.
May 1st again closed the bar temporarily.
Since that time there hasn't been as much activity in 09:58:36
that area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can you put no loitering signs on that
property?
Because there's a lot of loitering around outside the
building. 09:58:48

I heard you say everything doesn't happen at the 09:58:48
building.
>>> As long as the owner will participant.
He has to sign an affidavit.
>> Can you check with him and see if he will sign the 09:58:59
affidavit and put the no loitering sign on the
building?
>>> Sure.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was going to ask a question.
Does he have a pay phone out there? 09:59:07
>>> No, I don't think so.
I don't remember seeing a pay phone out there.
>> Would you make sure that they don't have a pay
phone?
>>> Okay. 09:59:17
>> And what types of violations do they have to have
before we can close them down?
Did you ask that question?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, but he didn't really address
it. 09:59:26
>>> Usually you have to have stuff like narcotics sales
from inside, minors being sold liquor from inside the
establishment.
We did try a little operation in there, but it's such a
neighborhood bar that they apparently cut off the music 09:59:40

and the bartender stopped serving because they knew 09:59:44
that the people we sent in didn't belong in there.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So there could be some activity in
there then?
>>> There could. 09:59:55
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you expand upon what you just
said?
>>> We sent undercover --
>>: They knew there were undercover so they turned off
the music, flashed the lights? 10:00:05
>>> Not flashed the lights but everybody stopped and
kind of laughed like what are you all doing in here?
It's that much of a neighborhood, close knit.
>>GWEN MILLER: The last time he had come before us the
owner stated he was going to have a security guard 10:00:22
placed there.
Do you know whether they still have that?
>>> I'm not sure if he still has.
But they had one for awhile.
>> Continue to be there, not just for a period of time? 10:00:31
That's when they told us they would be there all the
time, not periodically.
So can you check and see if he still has that security
guard there?
>>> Yes. 10:00:42

>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Miller, the fact that the captain 10:00:42
has told us that when undercover people come in, they
stop their activity.
I think if everything is appropriate, doesn't matter
who is in there, business goes on as usual. 10:00:57
It's kind of a joke and that's kind of flinging it at
TPD's face.
In terms of whether or not the bar owner is responsible
for what goes on, I think there's a secondary
responsibility when your customers or your clients 10:01:12
leave your business, and if they light area round the
business or are a nuisance to the neighbors or the
Andrews family has been complaining about this as we
said longer than we want to think they have been
complaining and longer than they have hoped, they would 10:01:26
have to complain to have something done.
Not in language canting but I will tell you these are
all the same nuisance problems that southeast Seminole
Heights had at the corner of Osborne and Nebraska that.
Bar was the first one. 10:01:45
I was on the other side of that podium.
I was not an elected official.
I had nothing to do with this council except I was
involved in a civic association.
They had all those same problems and I think some of 10:01:53

you remember. 10:01:56
It finally was revoked and that's probably the first
revocation that I know of in the history of this city.
I don't know. But it seems to me that enough has gone
on for long enough that we really need to become 10:02:06
intense, and continue to badger them.
And if they can't act appropriately, then we ought to
not be shy to try for number 2 after number 1 as
Osborne and Nebraska.
I mean, it's just unconscionable that he would talk 10:02:20
about it, we express ourselves, you come up, you
explain what you have done, and I mean your frustration
is probably as bad as ours, and then the Andrews family
say somebody is talking about gene's bar and everybody
goes home and it's okay until two Saturdays from now 10:02:36
when they become more nuisance.
If they are recognizing those undercover people then I
bet we can find people to that are knew to them and
they will never know when somebody is there so maybe by
intimidation they will stop speculatively. 10:02:50
I am not accusing anybody of course.
But maybe if there is the possibility of drug activity,
then we can continue to be as persistent with them as
they are persistent in being nuisances to the
neighborhood. 10:03:04

This has gone along too, too long and I just think we 10:03:04
need to be doing something more.
Anything we can do in conversations with you and TPD, I
think Chief Hogue knows that, let us know what we can
do. 10:03:16
>>> All right.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have requested that
representatives of not only Tampa Police Department but
also code enforcement come.
Code enforcement wrote us a memo saying that there's 10:03:27
some problems, reinspections occur the week of December
19th.
Failure to comply will result in a referral.
I guess what I'd like is written response to council
the first meeting in January from code enforcement 10:03:42
letting us know the status of the code enforcement
issues there.
I think you're right, Ms. Ferlita, keeping it on the
front burner will make them have to do what they should
do as community members. 10:03:56
So my motion would be to hear back from code
enforcement at the first council meeting in January and
a written report is fine, giving us us of the code
enforcement issues at gene's bar.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second. 10:04:09

(Motion carried). 10:04:10
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was just going to say, maybe we ought
to make a motion to direct the code enforcement and
Tampa Police Department to continue to survey this
place, and put surveillance in there, and put the 10:04:20
screws onto them, to say the least, you know, and see
if we can't make them either toe the loin or close the
bar, one or the other.
So I would like to make that motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second. 10:04:39
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The motion is to have the police
department and the code enforcement department to
continually increase -- increase their surveillance of
this place, and make sure that they either toe the line
or we are going to close the bar for them. 10:04:57
>>MARTIN SHELBY: This is for clarification purposes.
I guess what you're asking the administration to do is
to recommend that they do that.
You can't actually direct administration.
But you're doing it in the form of a recommendation in 10:05:09
support of continued vigilance on that particular
property.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But more vigilance.
We want more vigilance.
We want them to be -- 10:05:22

>>MARTIN SHELBY: A strong recommendation? 10:05:23
>>MARY ALVAREZ: A strong recommendation.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe with the captain present the
message is getting to the administration.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second. 10:05:32
Other questions on the motion?
[Motion Carried]
Thank you, captain honeywell.
We appreciate it.
Item number 8. 10:05:42
Need to continue for 30 days.
>> So moved.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's make it for the week after.
The 12th.
>>GWEN MILLER: Week after the 12th. 10:05:54
(Motion carried) item number 9.
>>> Jim Hosler, Planning Commission staff.
Your agenda says 3 minutes to talk about West Tampa
economic development plan.
As now, the plan was adopted by the Planning 10:06:24
Commission.
We have been working on it with the community for a
number of months.
The local groups, there are 70 volunteers signed up for
three different committees. 10:06:37

There was a core group of 30 to 40 people who are 10:06:38
working in various committees.
There's three committees.
One for land use and transportation.
One for arts and cultural history. 10:06:45
And the other for workforce and economic development
which is where all the various projects from the
economic development plan fit into those three
categories.
The idea being that over a period of a year, Planning 10:07:00
Commission staff will provide these people with
technical assistance and the activities will blend into
the existing originals, the CDC, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the cultural society.
So it's kind of capacity building. 10:07:13
Now the question as I understand it was about
transportation, related land use issues.
What I have pulled up on the Elmo are the top projects
for the land use and Transportation Committee.
I'll just read through them real quickly. 10:07:36
1.
Investigate the establishment of a user-funded parking
utility in West Tampa, as a first step in the larger
issue of parking.
There's two dimensions of that. 10:07:47

One, instead of waiving parking, just to give a quick 10:07:48
example, in West Tampa, there would be a fund that the
developer paid into, that would have met critical mass.
Then you could either purchase a surface lot in West
Tampa, origin building a parking facility. 10:08:04
And so the question would be how is that funding
mechanism set up?
The Transportation Committee of the West Tampa
volunteers will be working with your staff, or the
mayor's staff, next year. 10:08:16
Then as a first step in the larger issue of parking,
parking is symptomatic of other issues.
It's the whole redevelopment question, is that you have
room for the people, just don't have room for two cars
per house. 10:08:30
And that's kind of the bottom line. The next one is
update the comprehensive plan, the Land Development
Code and the West Tampa overlay district.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Before you go on.
Stop his time. 10:08:44
And has your committee identified a surface parking lot
or parking lot that they can do this --
>>> We have talked about -- there are vacant lots.
We are in the process of beginning to low at maps and
identify potential properties. 10:09:01

That's where they were going to start. 10:09:03
They're they have leadership to be elected on December
10th.
I'm going to step back and provide technical assistance
so it's not coming from me or the city, it's coming 10:09:13
from that group.
So the answer to your question, we know generally where
they are.
But specific locations will probably be identified
within a couple, three months. 10:09:22
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
I may want to sit in on that committee.
Because there is a lot of surface parking that you
could do.
But they are in areas that we could put some housing 10:09:38
into.
So maybe we could look at something maybe doing a
parking garage of some kind somewhere.
But not on the corridors themselves.
Within. 10:09:57
>>> With the areas that we are looking at that are off
the corridors, one oh 2004 two blocks back. If you
look at an area one 2004 blocks back in the corridor,
there are vacant lots that are positioned close enough
to the core that I think you could make something like 10:10:09

that work. 10:10:12
But then the funding question comes in.
And that's why they suggested that it be user friendly
as opposed to just asking the city for money.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you. 10:10:19
>>> There's the larger issue of parking.
Number 2, we are entering the updated comprehensive
plans for the three cities.
And again getting back to the parking issue, the whole
idea of urban redevelopment and more density is 10:10:32
something that we are going to have to approach in the
comprehensive plan process.
It's anate Tampa issue, it's an Ybor City city issue,
it's an across-the-board issue. The future land use
approved for the corridor and the main corridor in West 10:10:48
Tampa is 35 units per acre, currently about nine or ten
units per acre.
We are asking people to accept a 300% increase in
density.
Those are some issues that we are going to have to work 10:10:59
through the process.
The third one, fund the traffic calming study for the
corridor. This was originally a part of looking at
perhaps one laying or two laning Howard and Armenia.
The forces seemed to be against that option right now. 10:11:16

This is more like a general traffic calming option, for 10:11:19
example, at Armenia, parking, other ways to calm
traffic down.
Those words have got to support West Tampa and not just
be a way to get through West Tampa to someplace else 10:11:32
for that community redevelopment. The last one -- and
this is something that the committees have worked with
on their own.
(Bell sounds).
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead. 10:11:42
>>> Which is fund and implement trance it plan which
allows West Tampa to develop -- and this is a large,
lofty goal, as the mid-density residential and
commercial preferred alternative for greater Tampa,
Florida. 10:11:57
The groups feel the transit and having reliable transit
that shows up on time and with headways that you can
get to work, will work in West Tampa.
That the types of development are going into West
Tampa. 10:12:07
I don't think they are coming in hoping for transit.
I think they are coming in expecting transit.
Especially the people moving in.
And this is something that they work with Hartline, so
they will be back to the city with something within the 10:12:23

next year. 10:12:25
And that's it.
Thank you for your time.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I've asked Wayne Miller to come and
talk to us next week about finding routes, new routes, 10:12:32
and bus shelters for the West Tampa area.
So he's coming next week with a report.
So this should help.
>>> And what we can do, when we are looking at doing
the plan update and the code update, for providing 10:12:48
parking credits for pullouts, for developers that allow
pullouts.
One thing you might think about is perhaps also
allowing parking credits for funding at bus stops as a
part of encouraging transit. 10:13:06
So in that way, it's both sides.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It wouldn't just be for developers or
people coming N.it's for people in the area now that
don't have the transportation that they need -- that
they need the transit. 10:13:22
And so that's where my focus is, too.
And that alone will help alleviate the other problems.
So we'll hear from ray Miller next week.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: To piggyback on that, I think that's 10:13:39

such a good idea, that it shouldn't just be for West 10:13:43
Tampa.
It should be city-wide.
We recently had that issue on Swann and Howard.
And Hyde Park. 10:13:50
All over the developed areas of Tampa, we have parking
crunch.
And I think supporting transit, making it easier for
transit by building bus shelters and things is the way
we need to go all over town. 10:14:04
And I'm thrilled that Mr. Miller is coming to discuss
that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Jim, along the same lines, I guess you
didn't have a lot of time to elaborate.
Any other ideas about traffic calming? 10:14:20
>>> Folks have come up with all sorts of ideas.
My favorite personal one, if I had the money I'd do it,
would either be rebrick Howard and Armenia from ar mean
yeah.
Armenia. The idea of brick pavers, in intersections, 10:14:39
entryways, striping.
For example, Armenia just putting in diagonal parking
would serve as a great natural traffic calmer because
people are backing out, trying to pull out.
See, the speed limit is 30. 10:14:55

It isn't 40. 10:14:59
It isn't 45.
It 40.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Not Howard but Armenia it's 40 from
Columbus going south. 10:15:07
>>> So maybe we need to look at that whole matching
thing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Those are county roads.
Especially Armenia.
We need to get back back with them, since they are not 10:15:18
into the two-way streets.
Maybe we can start talking to them about maybe doing
some kind of brick pavers along for crosswalks and
things like that.
>> And Mike McCarthy with the county -- and this is 10:15:35
just from a staff person -- they are very excited about
looking at Armenia and using traffic calming.
They found it to be very successful in the county.
And they would like to perhaps try some of those
techniques on Armenia. 10:15:49
>>ROSE FERLITA: Along that same line, and I think we
are all trying to improve the same issue -- awhile
back, and some of you all remember, particularly you,
Linda, at Kate Jackson, Snow and Morrison, Elton Smith
worked very hard to cause that to to make everybody 10:16:05

automatically want to slow down. 10:16:09
Now the crosswalk.
We did one thing and it wasn't good enough.
We did something else.
That is an incredible traffic calming device. 10:16:16
Do you know where I am talking about?
It's great.
And more along that same line.
Something together with that would be great.
Jim, just one comment to you. 10:16:28
Three minutes for you to summarize, 30 minutes for to
you summarize is probably not enough.
And I have known you quite a long time and I have known
you to be a pretty humble person.
But I do want to tell you that talking to people that 10:16:41
have been involved with this project, in one regard or
another, are very, very grateful for the enthusiasm you
started up.
And I think Ms. Alvarez has been complimentary to you
in the past and of course she's been more hands on than 10:16:54
any of the rest of us.
Buff you have done an incredible, incredible job.
And the revitalization of that whole area.
And I know what you are going to say, that everybody
took a part in it and of course you they did. 10:17:07

But sometimes you need somebody somebody at the 10:17:10
driver's seat.
You just did an incredible job.
And Bob Hunter ought to be happy for what you do in the
community. 10:17:18
>>> West Tampa is a special product with a special area
and if you spend over a month in West Tampa you see it
and it really grabs ahold of you.
And did it me.
Thank you. 10:17:27
>> Just let me add my thanks.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 10.
We have the substitute resolution.
Need to move the substitute resolution.
Mrs. Miller wants to speak on it. 10:17:40
>> Miller: You do have a substitute resolution.
And memorandum of understanding before you.
My name again is Cindy Miller, director of business and
housing development.
And I thought it would be helpful if I very briefly 10:18:03
outlined for you where we have been on this project and
where we are going.
The project and memorandum of understanding that's
before you is for the disposition of westerly armory in
West Tampa. 10:18:22

Basically most of us know it from either one side of 10:18:23
Howard or Armenia, with lemon street as its northern
boundary.
And I have outlined before you but basically what we
will show on the Elmo what we are identifying as parcel 10:18:37
A, B and C because I think it helps to know why it's
taken awhile to come before you. What we are showing
as parcel A, which is the lettering on top of the
armory -- Mr. Snelling is helping me so that I can keep
coordinated here -- that is parcel A. 10:18:54
Parcel B is the area immediately to the north.
Parcel C boundaries are lemon street.
Parcel B is 7.9 acres and parcel C is 1.54 acres.
Parcel A is what ooh is traditionally concerned the
armory and the immediately surrounding area. 10:19:15
We have been talking about that parcel, I believe as a
city, for a couple of years with the national guard for
it to be sold, offered under a proposal process, so
that it be redeveloped.
What we have been discussing with the national guard 10:19:27
that we have now come to a tentative resolution on is
to see if the northern parcels B and C could also be
made available for redevelopment.
And this is something that's taken awes few months.
And one reason it's taken us a few months, it has not 10:19:43

been widely advertised, I think we all know the 10:19:47
national guard and its positions changed RADially over
the last few years and our colleagues at the national
guard who was our counterpart in putting together the
development of understanding and the request for 10:19:59
proposal, a couple of them had been deployed to
Afghanistan, or Iraq, and so therefore we had a gap of
a couple of months over the past year a couple of times
that we have not moved as quickly as we would like to
have seen. 10:20:17
What we are now looking at is commencing in January,
hopefully the first couple of business days after the
first of the year, we will be circulating request for
proposals to interested parties, and that we expect to
receive proposals back in March. 10:20:30
What the proposals identify is that proposers can
submit for parcel A, parcel C and -- B and C.
For parcel A there are some financial considerations
that the guard would like to be reimbursed for.
In the event an entity, individual or corporation is 10:20:47
interested in parcel B and C, they will have to develop
cost mechanism to relocate the national guard from
parcel B and parcel C.
That will be spelled out in the request for proposal.
One of the reasons it's going to take a couple more 10:21:06

weeks to do that is because we need information back 10:21:08
from the national guard as to how much space they would
need in a relocated location, whether it's acreage of
land, types of buildings, things of that nature.
So we are very happy that we have been able to have a 10:21:20
very productive meeting with the national guard, and
also with a representative from the federal government
in the last couple of weeks, and we are looking forward
to being able to go forward.
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. 10:21:33
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The relocation that they are talking
about, are we supposed to pay for that?
>>> No.
Any developer would be negotiating directly with the
national guard. 10:21:46
The city would not be involved in any way, shape or
form with any financial consideration on that.
>> Okay.
And you also said that they want to be reimbursed for
the facility of $830,000. 10:21:55
I thought it was a freebie.
>>> They have -- the national guard has ex-punta Gordad
funds over the last several years in order to keep the
building from deteriorating. What they are looking at
is reimbursement for those funds, because it was 10:22:10

unexpected costs that they needed to expend. 10:22:14
And so, therefore, they are requesting that.
>> They are not talking about -- and they are not also
talking about the security barriers or anything like
that? 10:22:26
>>> No.
This is actually -- it's my understanding from
discussion is that it was actually to make sure that
they came into the building because but they needed to
make some improvements to the building so it would stay 10:22:37
safe and secure and not deteriorate.
>> And the historic designation is including the red
brick building and they are in favor of the
designations.
>>> We are definitely working with them. 10:22:52
As a matter of fact at our meeting a couple of weeks
ago, their representative for historic preservation was
also in a tennen dance.
>> So the problem with the time frame wasn't anything
that the city administration was involved in. 10:23:06
It was because the national guard went to Iraq, people
that --
>>> That was the primary reason.
They were deployed overseas.
It takes a lot ofest when they get back. 10:23:18

And we certainly understand the reasons why they needed 10:23:20
to have these other interests as opposed to naturally
progressing.
And I don't want it to sound hits the fault of the
national guard. 10:23:34
It's just the way things progressed.
>> And I am glad we are finally at the point where we
are going to send off some RFPs.
Thank you very much.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I noticed in the memorandum of 10:23:42
understanding that it specifically spoke to the RFP
contemplating sale of the property or properties.
And I was in Seattle not too long ago.
They have an armory out there that the city ultimately
took possession of through the similar type of process. 10:24:02
And the city recreation department is now managing it.
They have some private tenants and that sort of thing.
And I'm just wondering why we don't leave ourselves at
least that as a possible option.
Already, the city has a reverter interest in the 10:24:25
property, to right?
>>> That's correct.
>> So why wouldn't the city potentially, especially in
regard to par spell C -- parcel A, which is such a
fantastic building for the community, why wouldn't the 10:24:42

city look to that as perhaps a West Tampa recreation 10:24:45
center or something along those lines?
>>> And I won't necessarily speak for -- I'll start the
question.
And I've heard about basically this facility for a long 10:24:56
time.
I think we all know the history of the armory.
It has fond memories for a lot of people in West Tampa
and throughout Tampa, the whole region.
So I remember as different options were being 10:25:07
investigated.
This is a very large historic building.
And I believe Karen will agree with me, is that when it
comes to appropriate proper maintenance of a facility
this size using historic standards, it would be 10:25:23
probably a better utilization of park and recreation
funds to will at other alternatives with new
construction.
So that was an option that was explored over the years.
We do believe that the best option for this building 10:25:37
and for the rest of the site to is it can be
redeveloped to provide jobs, provide housing, provide
multiple uses.
As identified in my outline, we have I believe 17
letters of interest. We have had a number of inquiries 10:25:53

come in in the past several several months. 10:25:57
I think this will enhance the community and be able to
include within the RFP also that community services and
something that will benefit the community that will be
an important part as to how we make the decision as to 10:26:12
who is selected.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The RFP review committee, page 4,
item E, that's a committee that totally under the
sunshine?
>>> That's correct. 10:26:36
We have already investigated that.
>> Came up on the old courthouse committee.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just to answer Mr. Dingfelder, and I
think you did it appropriately but it's always been
West Tampa's plan that the Army would be a job center, 10:26:54
and doing economic development, be it residential or
offices or anything, that's going to create a synergy
between retail and putting in restaurants and people to
come in and utilize these beautiful buildings, too.
So this is why I wouldn't have been in favor of doing 10:27:24
anything with the parks and recreation.
It's a very build building, huge, 80,000 square feet.
It would be just too costly for the city to maintain.
I would like economic development to be a part of this.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll just respond briefly. 10:27:52

I'll go along with this today. Obviously we can throw 10:27:55
out all the RFPs and start over again kind of like we
did on the courthouse down the road, if that's our
choice.
But just for the record, I think it's a lost 10:28:04
opportunity for the city.
I think it's short sighted.
I think the city doesn't have -- we don't have big
five-acre chunks like this with a building in place, a
grand historic building in place, right in the middle 10:28:18
of the neighborhood in need.
And I think it's a lost opportunity in regard to the
city just selling it or disposing it or passing it on
to somebody else.
But with all due respect, I'll go along to see where 10:28:31
this goes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that it's too bad that we
can't try to be creative and think about something that
we might be able to use it for from the city's
perspective. 10:28:45
You know, just looking at it, looks like ten acres.
830,000 square foot building, plenty of parking.
There's a lot of museums in town that are looking for
homes.
I'm not making any suggestions. 10:29:02

I sort of echo the comments of Mr. Dingfelder about us 10:29:05
maybe missing an opportunity.
But we'll never know what the private sector can do and
what those opportunities might be for us until we go
out and see what they are willing to do with it. 10:29:17
Let's go forward with it today.
And we can always change course in the future if we get
any bright ideas.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm very excited that the
preservation aspects are part and parcel of the whole 10:29:30
thing.
I just have a process for question, maybe for legal or
for you, Ms. Miller.
When you get the RFPs, what are the process, if you
wouldn't mind? 10:29:44
Oh, okay, there's a committee, and council members can
sit in on this but not talk?
What is the role of council?
>>> They these will be sunshine meetings.
So certainly when it comes to the public involvement, 10:30:00
there will be opportunity for that.
But keep in mind that any proposal that would be
selected in order to be a contract executed would have
to come back before you, before anything could happen.
But certainly we would welcome your attendance and 10:30:15

participation in our meetings. 10:30:19
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I think I can
appreciate the concerns of some of the council members.
But I think this process allows us to do exactly that,
see what people submit, and see what we have to chose 10:30:30
from, and if that doesn't, then certainly we have been
known to change our mind and go back to the drawing
board, in the past.
I think this is a good way to go forward.
And thank you for your explanations and offering to 10:30:42
meet with us, both you and Karen.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a substitute motion for item
number 10.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second. 10:30:51
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
Page 4, item E, the RFP review committee.
The committee, it says it's composed of looks like two 10:31:03
members of the federal government or guard, two members
of the community, and the discussion has come up in
previous situations, first with the courthouse, I
suggested that a member of council be on the courthouse
committee, and that wasn't very well received. 10:31:26

Ms. Saul-Sena suggested that a member of council be on 10:31:31
that museum committee, and that wasn't very received.
But here, there's a contract in front of us, an
agreement in front of the us, and we have an
opportunity to amend. 10:31:43
I am going to propose an amendment that it says two
representatives of the City of Tampa.
Nd I am going to suggest that one of those
representatives be a member of City Council at the
chair's -- somebody the chair designates. 10:31:54
One of the seven of us.
I don't see any harm in it.
Meetings are in the sunshine anyway.
I think there's a lot of positives from at least one
council person being involved early on, reporting back 10:32:07
periodically, whatever.
Whatever direction it takes.
But I just think that council can and should be
involved in this very serious decision and discussion.
>> I agree. 10:32:22
Cindy Miller: Not speaking so much to the concept but
how it be addressed, is that I would suggest that the
memorandum of understanding itself not be amended
because this has to go back to the national guard
advisory board. 10:32:38

If there are significant amendments. 10:32:39
And I don't know if they would consider a significant
or not but perhaps if that could be a separate motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Have they already signed it?
>>> Yes. 10:32:51
>> How would you handle that lease then?
Mr. Massey?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: There's nothing in the contract that
would bind this.
Obviously council is expressing desire that one of the 10:33:03
members be a member of council.
And I think that Ms. Miller has heard that.
So hopefully that will be taken into account when we
appoint.
>> How would council enforce that recommending or 10:33:13
resolution?
>>ROSE FERLITA: We don't vote on the contract when it
comes if we don't like the terms.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll withdraw that motion from now. 10:33:28
I didn't realize they had already signed off on this.
So we don't want to slow it down.
But I'll save it for the next motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: we have a substitute motion, number 10:
[Motion Carried] 10:33:49

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Separate motion strongly suggesting 10:33:50
to the administration that one of the representatives
of the City of Tampa pursuant to item E, be a member of
City Council at the chair's direction.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second. 10:34:07
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a question on his verbiage.
Strongly suggested.
Does that mean, when do we get to know whether or not
we are going to be involved?
The night before the contract or when negotiations 10:34:20
start?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hopefully when they pick the
committee we would know quickly.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can you answer that question?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The committee will have to be selected 10:34:33
relatively soon anyway.
The agreement provides that the proposals will go out
no later than March 1st.
We put that date in there in abundance of caution
because of the time it has taken to get everything to 10:34:45
this point.
But we believe it will go out in January.
By the time the proposals get back, when we are getting
responses back sometime in early March, and that's when
the committee will have to start looking at the 10:34:56

proposals and evaluating. 10:34:58
So I would hope the committee would be appointed
sometime probably in February or March.
>>> I would say it would have to be appointed no later
than February because people have to be able to 10:35:13
schedule their time for when we receive the proposals.
So I think that the best course of action is say on or
before February 1st.
So people can schedule their time.
>>GWEN MILLER: When you selectedded the committee, let 10:35:25
council know --
>>> Would be happy to.
>>ROSE FERLITA: In charge of selecting the committee?
>>> I assume it will be the spokesperson who will be
leading the work on this. 10:35:39
>>GWEN MILLER: She'll let us know.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Both Ms. Millers will work together.
>>GWEN MILLER: So we are going to do a good job.
Any other questions on 10?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's a motion. 10:35:55
>>GWEN MILLER: We voted.
Number 11.
Karen Palus.
>>> Karen Palus, parks and recreation director, here on
item number 11 regarding the 6510 south Himes Avenue. 10:36:11

You had made a request that construction services and 10:36:16
parks and recreation be present to discuss that
particular item, what actions the city is taking in
regards to that.
As you're aware, there was a grand tree violation of 10:36:25
the original property owner.
And as he was going through on complying, he did
actually install the tree requirements with the grand
tree on violation.
However, that particular violation was complied out 10:36:41
accidentally through Construction Services Center.
As we have worked through with parks and rec and CSE
and our legal department, we have now recited the
property owner, and if he will be going forward to our
Code Enforcement Board on February 8th. 10:36:59
As many of you know, our ordinance requires on grand
tree violations that you have to provide an inch per
inch replacement, as well as go forward to the Code
Enforcement Board to be levied a fine.
That fine can be up to about $15,000 depending on what 10:37:15
the board determines from the circumstances.
And that's allowable by law.
So that is the actions that the city is taken and we
move forward on.
We should know the answer to that question after the 10:37:26

Code Enforcement Board on February 8th. 10:37:30
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for coming and explaining
this.
The bottom line is, administratively, the right hand
and left hand were not in concert. 10:37:40
And now through some administrative changes they will
be.
The petitioner said, replacement trees, and that's
supposed to make everything fine and dandy, about
except they were grand trees so it doesn't. 10:37:54
And now you have changed the rules so people can't do
that.
If it's a grand tree violation, it's a grand tree
violation.
My question would be not really so much for you but 10:38:03
permitting.
Does that stop everything until that's complied with?
Does that stop permitting until they have dealt with
the grand tree violation?
>>> That's a question that will be directed to legal 10:38:14
and he could probably speak closer.
But the first part of that is, one of the things that
Ms. Miller and ir committed to and our staff is
committed to is working very closely together, and
coming up with procedures and policies which make it 10:38:28

more streamlined for the individuals that are applying 10:38:31
for permits or working through the process and those
that aren't, as well as making our staff very educated
on what those procedures are, and who is responsible
for, and helping to bring that information back to you 10:38:42
all as well.
So you're familiar with who's handling what, and just
really reducing the crossing back and forth between
departmentsal as minimally as possible.
So we'll be working more and more on that. 10:38:55
And they have been a great team and really trying to
bring all of the policies and procedures together.
>>> Cynthia Miller: Because it did address funding.
One thing we can do and I think in the cooperative
nature that we have been working as a committee 10:39:16
together, is that there is not anything in the code
that stops everything.
But certainly as a policy and procedure that I can
direct my staff from the standpoint of permitting is
that if someone -- if something is pending in the Code 10:39:28
Enforcement Board, I think we have to at least consider
that the process that the permitting stands in.
So I don't want to necessarily say that we are going to
stop something, because I have to make sure that we
check the code. 10:39:42

But we can certainly identify in our policies and 10:39:43
procedures that if someone is before the Code
Enforcement Board for this type of violation, that we
have some -- give some authority to the permitting
construction service center to be able to stop any 10:39:55
action.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: My question is, construction services
and parks, there's issues about them both being
involved, when we have grand tree issues.
That's been a problem because they each have different 10:40:13
functions to serve.
How would we resolve that?
Or how is it not resolved and we are trying to figure
out how to do that?
>>> Palus: In the past parks has not had access to the 10:40:29
system through CSE.
So now we have parks -- they can probably give you a
little better detail.
There's a parks layer.
So originally there's a grand tree that was going 10:40:41
straight out, CSE would respond initially, determine
it's a grand tree item, then it would be e-mailed to
our staff.
Our staff would then go out and handle things and it
would come back and forth, back and forth. 10:40:54

Now it simply if it comes in, it's grand tree, it will 10:40:56
go out strictly to parks.
We handle that right away through parks, and the
information then gets sent wac back.
We are also managing all the items within the grand 10:41:07
tree.
So instead of that back and forth oh process that what
happening before it's now strictly in Parks and
Recreation Department as well as CSE for protective.
We have our folks here if there's any more need for 10:41:21
clarification.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's fine.
I believe it belongs in parks, not CSE.
Who tells us if there's a grand tree involved?
I guess that's -- do we rely on the property owner who 10:41:34
is going to pull a permit to say there's a grand tree
here?
>>> One of the things we are in the process of doing is
updating our application when you apply for a permit is
the ability for the property owner to state what 10:41:47
interest that tree is.
We are doing some PSAs to educate the public and let
them know what they need to do, so what they will do is
they will have the ability to put that on the permit
and if they state so much inches it will go strictly to 10:42:07

parks, some first, and then our folks will get 10:42:10
involved.
If it's not they'll send it back to CSE as a protected
tree.
If they didn't know to question it, it still got out to 10:42:17
CSE.
It really depends on the individual how well they
handle that information.
But we are still doing the double checking on that.
You will still have, if they don't know, CSE will go, 10:42:31
if it is a grand tree.
If they come in knowing they think it a grand tree
they'll come to us directly and we'll handle it.
>> So CSE still has primary responsibility to determine
whether it's a grand tree in the case where the owner 10:42:48
doesn't know, or doesn't if he is up to it.
>>> They are they are the permitting agency.
Of the has to startle with them.
>> It seems like what we ought to do is have a tree
specialist in the Parks Department that goes out -- we 10:43:03
ought too make it so on every building permit there's a
Parks Department person going out and looking on-site
and making that determination.
And I don't know how much money that will cost.
But it seems like if we can figure out a way to roll 10:43:22

that into zoning permit requirements, especially in 10:43:25
places like South Tampa, where all these things are
happening, in gnaw Tampa, you know, that's probably not
that much of an issue.
But that sounds to me like that's really the heart of 10:43:36
the issue, is the owner has got to be honest, or has to
really know how to go about measuring the trees, and
then we put the primary responsibility on CSE to go
out, and it just seems to me it not their job.
It's more Parks Department's job because they have the 10:43:55
tree experts.
>>> Cynthia Miller: Let me state some of the details.
As Karen mention board of director the application,
sometimes we look at changes in code when all we really
need to do is take a look at day to day practices. 10:44:14
Literally on an application for a tree removal, we
haven't had what is the circumference or diameter of
the tree.
Now John and Steve Graham working together, said, now,
we should really have the applicant include that. 10:44:32
Simple, straightforward.
So that's why in a lot of cases your constituents and
our customers have been back and forth in between the
departments, is because we never asked the question at
the very beginning. 10:44:44

So that's being taken care of. 10:44:45
And then when it comes to looking at the trees, we do
have certified arborists within construction service
center as well as parks and recreation, certainly have
the expertise as well. 10:44:58
Well, their primary expertise on grand trees.
So I think we can certainly say that we have the folks
that can look at a tree and identify it and know when
to ship it over to parks if the applicant has not been
accurate. 10:45:10
We could have somebody putting a 12-inch circumference
and on something.
So there's a variety of methods that we could do that.
When it comes to looking at staffing, I think the best
way to say it is that we had assured you, and we'll be 10:45:24
talking again this afternoon in our workshop on code
changes, is that we had assured you, Karen and I, that
we would be back before you with further modifications
on 2006.
Write would like to leave the discussion with staffing 10:45:38
is leave that for that discussion as we do intend to
take a look at permit fees, application fees, and this
would be one of them that we would look at.
I think we have to analyze what the staffing needs are.
Karen and we have already identified at least some gaps 10:45:51

in the staffing that she requires. 10:45:57
But we think we can find a way working together between
CSE permitting and parks and rec that we can look at
the additional staffing in 2006.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So CSE has an arborist or more. 10:46:07
Parks has arborists.
Why don't we create the Arbor department?
And they are the ones that figure out what tree issues
are involved.
And so CSE is off inspecting buildings to make sure 10:46:23
they are safe and habitable.
They shouldn't be out looking at sites to see if a tree
is a certain size.
>>> Councilman, if I may.
They do have to low at whether if you are looking at a 10:46:41
design for a new building whether residential or
commercial, they have to be able to determine, will
this design affect the tree that's in place?
So from that standpoint, CSE does need the dual
expertise of whether this particular building or this 10:46:54
particular addition to an existing residential
structure onto a commercial structure does have
something that will endanger or cause a problem for the
tree.
So I think we do need to have the folks in both places. 10:47:06

I think the key message that Karen Palus and I tried to 10:47:09
communicate is part of the dilemma was that our
respective staffs were not in good communication with
each other.
They intend to be, and have been over the last few 10:47:18
months and tend to be in the future.
We need the specialists in both places.
Because there is different expertise that's needed.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a comment, I guess.
And I'm glad to see that every department is working 10:47:37
together.
But when this great big handsome system from this pie
in the sky comes in to work, I was wondering if there
would be anyway that the CSE could access, especially
for the Code Enforcement Board to tell them there might 10:47:57
be a violation on these properties before they get
permitted.
So I don't know, but Ms. Hanson says it's supposed to
be the answer to everything.
And so I'm anxious to see this working come January, 10:48:12
hopefully but that might be something you could look
into.
>>> It is already in the program.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am so pleased we are making
progress between the two departments. 10:48:42

I think it's critical for the safety and health of the 10:48:43
trees.
You guys can take this under consideration over the
next couple of months that you're looking at the code
and the technical standards. 10:48:53
Along the idea of if the applicant puts -- I can't
remember what the threshold is.
30 inches diameter?
Steve?
34? 10:49:14
Okay.
So if 34 inches is what kicks in a grand tree.
Way was thinking about is maybe if the applicant puts
in their application 75% of that threshold, whatever
75% is of 34, or if they measure it circumferencewise 10:49:27
which is probably an easier measurement for most people
and if the circumference of a grand tree is 100, they
measure 75% of whatever, does that not kick off an
inspector to double check?
In other words, you have a big tree there and we are 10:49:49
going to come double check.
And I think that might be at least perhaps kind of a
middle ground between what you were suggesting, Shawn,
as opposed to every single, you know, site being
inspected and it could be totally vacant. 10:50:03

And then it's sort of a waste of time. 10:50:05
And there's always going to be liars and cheats and we
have to deal with that. Anyway, you don't have to
respond.
>>GWEN MILLER: Council members, we are going to have a 10:50:15
workshop at 1:30.
Let's hold our comments and then we can bring out all
those questions we are going to have at the workshop.
Would that be okay?
All right. 10:50:24
We are going to move on then.
Thank you for coming.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to compliment City
Council.
Because if we hadn't noticed this issue, we wouldn't 10:50:30
have had -- we wouldn't have asked staff to look into
it.
And now we are working towards a solution.
So now I think council's attention is --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Earning our keep. 10:50:44
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to ask for reconsideration?
>>> Good morning Madam Chairman.
Graham Carrothers, 101 East Kennedy, suite 2800 here in
Tampa, here this morning on behalf of Mr. Luca 10:50:57

MAZAKARATI on the file Z 05-153. 10:51:04
For the property located at 509 south Willow Avenue.
The current zoning on the property is RS 50,
single-family residence on the property.
The fought land use designation under the Tampa 10:51:25
comprehensive plan is res 35 which would allow up to
six units on the property.
There is currently a legal nonconforming duplex
situated on the property which was constructed back in
1945. 10:51:40
There was a suggestion made that perhaps the petitioner
consider amending the application to increase the
allowable density from one unit to two, which would
match the current nonconform legal nonconform, rather.
And accordingly the petitioner has agreed to do that 10:52:09
and would like to request a reconsideration of an
amended petition which would reflect from four units to
two at the next available public hearing.
Both the applicant and I are here to answer any
questions. 10:52:26
We have also conferred with land development, Ms.
Lamboy is also here to answer any questions.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: If you're amending something, it's
not reconsideration.
That's my take. 10:52:36

And I have no problem with your being able to amend and 10:52:38
come in with a different project.
But it's not reconsideration so that you would jump
ahead of everybody else that's already in the queue
now. 10:52:50
>>> No, no.
We understand that.
And it would have to be renoticed, et cetera.
The difference is, rather than file an entirely new
application fee we file an amendment fee and change the 10:52:57
site plan, land development site plan, and we
understand the next available hearing is perhaps not
until the 9th of March.
So we are not trying to jump in line in front of anyone
who signed up before us. 10:53:10
And then in conferring with land development staff, I
believe it is a reconsideration of an amended petition.
>> I think its consideration of an amended petition.
We made the decision that night.
That amendment was never put forth that night. 10:53:33
We didn't vote down the amended petition.
We voted down the original petition.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Staff?
Morris, if this discussion had perhaps proceeded a
little further that night, and the petitioner had said, 10:53:53

okay, I'll back off and do two units, I could get a 10:53:56
continuance and revise my site plan?
Would we have had the discussion to do that that night?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And in any other way he spoke for 10:54:09
you, staff, is there any other concerns that you all
have about the motion for reconsideration?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I have no concerns regarding the
motion for reconsideration.
And like Mr. Carrothers said, they won't be jumping in 10:54:24
line in front of anybody.
If somebody were to file a petition today they would be
scheduled March 9th, tentatively, and --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a little bit of financial
relief and paperwork relief. 10:54:39
>>> Exactly.
>>> Carruthers: We will file an amended site plan and
what we would be required to do.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will support this request for
reconsideration. 10:54:55
But I would suggest that you listen to the comments --
you get the tape and listen to the comments, the
concerns, about the scale and the number of units, and
as you develop a new site plan you really -- I would
suggest that you meet with the neighbors in this whole 10:55:10

process. 10:55:13
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We definitely also had the alley
concerns.
Maybe one goes in the alley and one in the front or
something like that. 10:55:25
I'll move it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, just explain this to me.
I think what Mr. Harrison is saying and valid.
So we understand what people says goes on and people
come back and ask for reconsideration. 10:55:35
Don't have a problem with what Mr. Dingfelder is about
to do but it's not really a consideration.
It's a consideration of a new petition.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Harrison's characterization is
absolutely correct, in my opinion. 10:55:49
Council member Dingfelder's characterization to Mr.
Massey is also correct.
So in effect the way to couch this is technically,
council member Harrison is correct, this would be a new
petition, albeit with his motion to reconsider, what 10:56:07
you would actually be doing is allowing him to file an
amendment fee, which would grant him some financial
relief and paperwork relief, to allow him to go forward
which is what he might have gotten as councilman
Dingfelder said. 10:56:24

>>ROSE FERLITA: What does he save if we go this route? 10:56:25
>>> Monetarily, timewise.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The amendment fee is $300 plus
whatever cost they may incur for the renotice.
The continuance would be, no, if there were a 10:56:37
continuance at the hearing, then there would be no
additional cost.
But for a new petition, it's $2100.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But this is my concern, back to our
attorney. 10:56:52
That if they are come back, like say somebody's
petition fails, so then they come back and say, okay,
it's failed, we are going to do something different.
Would you all consider this as a reconsideration?
We are starting some sort of a precedent, are we not? 10:57:04
I mean, it's like, okay, he failed.
He should have seen or could have seen or perhaps would
have seen that it was going to fail, and he could have
withdrawn it then.
Then that was when he had the mechanism or the 10:57:16
opportunity to save those fees.
I am delighted that he's downsizing this project.
I think my sentiment is the same as my colleague Mrs.
Saul-Sena.
But once you fail, downtown get a second chance. 10:57:27

You don't come back and say, okay, reconsider this. 10:57:30
Reconsider means look at the same thing, look at it
again, and give me another chance.
That's why I can't support it.
And I hope the petition's representative understands. 10:57:40
This is not a reconsideration.
And if it is simply a way to save the fees, we are
going to have everybody who fails at a petition up here
come back and say we are going to change it and we are
coming up here requesting reconsideration. 10:57:57
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Let me remind council that this was a
concern that council did raise when it amended its
rules of procedure.
And including its rules of procedure now, is this
language: When entertaining requests for 10:58:13
reconsideration of a quasi-judicial matter decided at
the previous meeting, council should consider the
following as grounds for reconsideration:
One, whether there was procedural error that the
private party or due process, or, two, that there 10:58:27
exists evidence relevant to council's determination
that was not reasonably available to be known and
presented at the time of the hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So, Mr. Shelby, that is exactly what my 10:58:39

point was. 10:58:42
You were able to define it better.
But the point is it's a new process, a new petition.
The fees are there.
And we start from square one. 10:58:50
>>MORRIS MASSEY: To address council briefly.
I understand the issue but the reconsideration.
And Mr. Carruthers whispered to me, they went this
route, I think, on advice of land development staff,
that council should be aware of that. 10:59:06
But I think they were trying to be helpful.
And I understand the concerns that are being raised and
I think they are valid concerns.
Council does have the ability.
There is a 12 month time frame in the code after a 10:59:16
rezoning petition is denied, where we don't allow
rezoning petition to go forward.
You have the authority under the code to waive that 12
month time frame if you so chose.
And that may be the course that you would like to take 10:59:28
today.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move in the holiday spirit to
reconsider.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What a guy.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since that dies for lack of a second 10:59:43

I'll move to waive the 12 month rule. 10:59:47
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to ask for
reconsideration? 10:59:53
(Laughter).

>>> Please stay in the holiday spirit.
My name is Kris Krista Fleming, my husband Michael.
We were here on the 17th also, trying to rezone our 11:00:13
property at best Pearl.
>> RS-50 rezoning.
And we want to reconsider to accept the staff's
recommendation to go 57 and a half and 57 and a half.
Our lot is -- 11:00:33
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With the PD?
>>> It would have to be a PD, I guess, because they
decided they couldn't --
>>: To stay consistent with the neighborhood.
The recommendation of the staff and the local 11:00:47
homeowners association to stay consistent with that 60
to go 57 and a half and 57 and a half.
So we are asking for a reconsideration.
>>> The one person that was upset with this, also the
neighbor, she was concerned with a 50-foot lot being 11:01:03

out of place with the rest of the homesites. 11:01:06
115 would be more out of place than the 50.
On a street full of 60s.
So 57 would actually be quite close.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Again we have the same issue. 11:01:17
I voted against this and I will continue to vote
against this because of the reasons I stated last time.
I went and saw the site.
It failed.
I believe it failed. 11:01:27
Obviously they wouldn't be here.
Now they are coming back for reconsideration.
That was something that could have been considered,
wasn't considered, in terms of discussion.
Their petition failed. 11:01:38
There is no reconsideration.
And I don't want to fault the petitioner solely for
coming up here, if the staff thought -- let me finish,
please, sir.
You had your turn. 11:01:48
I get mine.
And if the staff was trying to be helpful, then it's
fine.
There is obviously a misunderstanding.
But the reconsideration is not something that's 11:01:55

appropriate. 11:01:58
Again we are making an attempt to start a precedent, we
are trying to stop based on what Mr. Shelby responded
to my concerns awhile ago.
It failed. 11:02:06
I was on the prevailing side.
And I am not going to support this because it is not in
fact a real reconsideration.
>>> But again according to what you just said to the
previous folks, you said did he not bring that up in 11:02:18
the last hearing.
I did.
The last hearing, I said, can we address the 57 and a
half, splitting that in half?
And you said no. 11:02:28
>>ROSE FERLITA: And did you say, sir, that you would
like to have a continuance and come back with that?
>>> Dy not.
I said can we address this at this time?
You said no. 11:02:36
>>ROSE FERLITA: Sir, sir, you presented the petition as
you did.
>>> Right.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Some people were in support.
I believe a neighbor two were in opposition. The way 11:02:43

you presented it, it didn't pass. 11:02:45
This is not reconsidering something that failed.
I don't need to continue having dialogue with you.
I beg your pardon.
>>> No, absolutely. 11:02:53
>> But this particular council member is making the
same statement she made awhile ago.
It is not a reconsideration. This is another thought
about how could you address this in the hope that it
will be passed and supported. 11:03:01
But I think this is --
>>> I-he.
>> Excuse me.
Please!
I'm not talking to you. 11:03:08
I am trying to discuss what we are trying to do as a
procedural discussion what this council.
This is what -- we are going to listen to everybody
that comes up every time somebody fails.
Well, we could have considered this. 11:03:23
Could have, should have, would have.
We are back to the same thing.
If this is a request for a reconsideration, not going
to support it because it's not what he's asking at this
point. 11:03:31

It's different than the original petition submitted. 11:03:32
>>> I think we were unclear on the let theory we got to
reconsider.
I agree it's not a reconsideration of the same thing we
asked the last time. 11:03:43
When we did ask to go to a PD, though, I think you
mentioned to speak with the staff.
And that's where we left it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, how is your holiday
spirit now? 11:03:56
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's clearly not a reconsideration.
But I have no problems.
It's a different project.
We are doing the same thing we just did, allowing them
to reapply. 11:04:05
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You may have a much better chance but
you are going to have to pay the new fee.
That's sort of the risk you run.
You all weed your pros and cons and you went with 11:04:13
something and you lost.
And so we are saying, okay, you don't have to wait the
year, but as sort of consideration for your making the
decision that you lost on, you are going to have to pay
the full fee again. 11:04:26

That's fair. 11:04:27
And I'll make that motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
In the holiday spirit.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second on the motion. 11:04:35
>>ROSE FERLITA: Holiday spirit is a wonderful thing but
I think we are going to be going through waiving the
motions every time somebody fails.
I am not going to support it on principle and on policy
and can't do it. 11:04:46
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Nay, Saul-Sena and Ferlita.
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And we waive the 12 month rule. 11:04:56
You can talk to staff about what that means.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the audience like to
speak to any item on the agenda not to be heard for
public hearing?
>>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: 2902 East Ellicott Street three 11:05:10
nights week.
I thank God for your grace and mercy, especially this
morning.
I am terrible upset.
I want to speak on article 9, and then 6, and 7, and 11:05:35

talked about this morning. 11:05:44
I am going start off on number 9.
I'm terrible upset about you all.
You all turned these people down awhile ago.
You use turn people down on rezoning but you let people 11:05:52
go down West Tampa and take -- that man going to build
six to eight houses over there.
And say right here, and sold that for 2,000 a piece and
one black lady wanted to pie the piece.
Now what I'm talking about. 11:06:13
City wouldn't sell them the lot.
Now this man going to come back and try to come back
with a design, and tell you all -- oh, we build parking
lot.
Telling these people about the setback. 11:06:26
It was a 6-foot setback you all approved over there.
And no parking.
None at all.
You all sat there, with Santa Claus faces, celebrating
Christmas, oh, we got to have that, we got to have 11:06:41
that.
And it's racist.
And you all got two occasionths morning.
You know I'm going to prove my point.
If anything I said I back it up. 11:06:56

You know, on this here gene's bar here. 11:06:57
Racist.
Mr. Gene is a white man.
You all can't throw him out of town.
Oh, mayor, please tell her what I said. 11:07:12
I got to say it.
Said throw Mr. Daniel out of here.
Call the police.
Tell the man this morning, throw Mr. Gene out of there.
You can't throw Mr. Gene out of there. 11:07:25
They tried it.
The law say it a business.
Now Ms. Rose Ferlita, you brought up -- that was a
black man.
All the black people got throwed out of there. 11:07:43
Throwed me out of business.
I know what happened to me.
And I sued the city.
And just like Mr. Daniel.
Said Mr. Knott, back in 80-something, you sued the 11:07:53
city, can't come to this podium no more.
Told the policeman, you can't speak here no more.
And I sued the city and I win.
And when I turned around and I dropped the case because
I couldn't get nobody to represent me against the city. 11:08:06

But I want to say, though, about that bar thing, about 11:08:09
this bar thing here, that man, he went to court over
there and the judge told this man, what happened
outside his place is not your problem.
Talk to neighbors all over this town. 11:08:23
And the zoning week, every week you turn these people
down.
For nothing.
Talk about a six-foot setback and no parking.
You all don't pass it. 11:08:33
Said this morning,.
You tell me somebody going to build a $200,000 house
and get on a bus, get on a trolley.
They ain't going to do it, and they ain't to walk three
or four blocks and get on a trolley. 11:08:46
That's the way you all do business.
And the fight between you and Mr. Daniel.
You all started that.
(Bell sounds)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I choose not to belabor that I shall 11:08:58
but Mr. Daniel but I want to make a comment in a little
calmer tone than our friend here.
In terms of that bar, just so we have that clarified,
just for purposes of people that are listening, maybe
incorrect, but I believe as a matter of fact it may be 11:09:12

the same owner that had gene's bar. 11:09:14
I believe it was a bar that was owned by a white person
and it was managed by an African-American gentleman by
the name of detouri that. Had absolutely nothing to do
about racism. 11:09:31
I remember one comment that it's been so many years
still sticks in my mind.
And when we started talking about nuisances and people
talked about white nuisances or black nuisances, there
was a lady by the name of Gayl, and her last name I 11:09:44
forget because she no longer lives there. But she was
as African-American as every other African-American in
this city and she got up at that podium and told people
here, Joe Greco and whoever else was a council member,
said, you know, I have a quality of life that I expect 11:09:58
to have as a minority.
She said, and just for the record, that nuisance was
not a white nuisance or a black nuisance.
It was just a nuisance to me when this man's business
interfered with the quality of my life because I lived 11:10:11
very close to the bar.
So there was certainly a lot of reasons for that
happening.
And there was nothing racist or discriminatory about
how that was done. 11:10:20

Just for the record. 11:10:21
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
Anyone else in the public like to speak?
>>> Michael farmer, 2619 ESCURR street, Tampa, Florida.
Item 7. 11:10:41
And item 10.
Sorry.
Item 12.
On items --
>>: On item 12 you can't talk about 12 yet, not until 11:10:57
1:30.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that is not a public
hearing.
It would be appropriate if you want to make public
comment now. 11:11:13
Wouldn't be appropriate?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe it's specifically scheduled
for a public hearing, public comment so folks would
know when to come and address that ordinance.
If he wants to address a tree, landscaping ordinance in 11:11:24
general, we did have a conversation on that previously.
That may be a way for him to address.
>>GWEN MILLER: So you have to speak on 11, not 12.
>>> Okay.
On item 7, as far as gene's bar is concerned, the code 11:11:38

enforcement and the legal department, basically what 11:11:46
I've noticed is that once you put a stop sign there on
22nd street for all the traffic to stop, now you
have people stopping, and people getting in cars and
stuff. 11:12:03
So remove the stop sign on 22nd street and let the
cars keep going.
And you probably alleviate a lot of the problems.
Item 11 as far as the tree trimming is concerned, a lot
of problems that I'm having in my area especially at 11:12:15
the retention pond on Curtis street, the palm trees
basically is overgrown in that area.
And even with the code enforcement, there's palm trees
with the City of Tampa and the overgrowth, with the
CSX, was supposed to cut it by October, which didn't, 11:12:37
and we are still going with this round and round thing
of cutting stuff for 30 years here now.
Basically, the trees are so overgrown that it is
causing a problem for me and my daughter at nighttime.
Can't see anything down there. 11:12:56
Even though you have a big streetlight, it is so dark
down there, the palm trees are so low, and I have
requested that the city cut those trees, at least all
the way to the top so they can start new growth to go
upward. 11:13:11

But right now they are just branched out. 11:13:12
And between the palm trees and the overgrowth of CSX,
that it's just like a little jungle.
And so it is a danger for me when I come home, and I
have a gate I have to open, and it's just dangerous. 11:13:27
So if someone could address that problem.
And basically, code enforcement is saying that they do
not cite CSX, that they only give -- call them.
And we have been round and round with this for about 30
years. 11:13:48
And hopefully that we can put this -- and like I said
before, sooner or later, there's going to be a
catastrophe happen at Middleton high school because of
all that overgrowth, and no one wants to come forth.
And I suggested before, cut it and bill them. 11:14:06
But the process that the city code enforcement is
using, it takes so long, over half a year has passed
before anything gets done at all.
And it's just ridiculous.
And that's all the way through the neighborhood with 11:14:23
the overgrowth adjoining the CSX railroad track.
And I'm sure there's something, I think Mr. Shelby
addressed it, that the city does have powers, that they
can use to alleviate the overgrowth in this area, in
our community. 11:14:41

>>MARY ALVAREZ: She'll get with the Code Enforcement 11:14:47
Board and try to help with you this thing.
Desiree, would you meet with him?
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have that new clean streets, 11:14:58
clean team, whatever it is.
And maybe they might want to be involved.
In regard to the trees that are on the city property.
The CSX is a little more difficult.
But if we have overgrown palm trees on city property, 11:15:11
somebody can take care of that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
We go to our committee reports.
Public safety, vice chair Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to make sure I didn't pull 11:15:27
any of my own.
I'll move items 14 through 17.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Parks, recreation, Mary Alvarez. 11:15:37
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move items 18 through 21.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. Dingfelder.
You pulled number 22. 11:15:51

Is that okay now? 11:15:55
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
The only thing I was going to say on 22, this is an
amendment to the Star 1 contract.
And Mr. Daignault and I -- I think he has been sitting 11:16:04
here patiently.
We spoke yesterday.
I just wanted to get a brief update on Star 1.
And Steve, do you have a second?
Tell us where we are on Star 1, and perhaps more 11:16:20
importantly where we are on the consultant as related
to the rates in Star 1.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Okay.
Star 1, we have -- it's in four sections.
And three of the four sections are online, and the 11:16:39
fourth section is partially online or ready to be
online.
We have one remaining section to kick off.
We'll do that in January.
And Star 1 should be available for commerce. 11:16:54
And we have got a small consultant contractor
looking -- a small contract with a consultant looking
at ways that we can make the whole star process more
reliable, more user friendly, you know.
We inherited basically how this star process is being 11:17:18

brought to the customers, and the whole process by 11:17:23
which they pay for it.
And we want to reexamine that, and make sure that we
make it as good as we possibly can before we get into
star 2. 11:17:37
So we should have that in the next 30 days, we should
have a response.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Get done with this in the early part
of next year.
>>> Correct. 11:17:48
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anything else in that group?
I'll move 22 through 28.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee. 11:17:54
Ms. Linda Saul-Sena, vice chair.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move resolution 27.
>>GWEN MILLER: 29?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 29.
I'm log at it. 11:18:08
>>GWEN MILLER: Through 31?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, those are to receive and file.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 30. 11:18:16

Move to receive and file. 11:18:20
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 31.
Move to ask legal department to prepare a resolution 11:18:25
for presentation to council on December 8th.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda
Saul-Sena. 11:18:36
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 32 through 46.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Transportation.
Shawn Harrison. 11:18:51
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We pulled item 5 for discussion.
Move items 47 through 49, and 51 through 59.
51 through 57, and 59.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Do you want to go back to the one you pulled? 11:19:10
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question on something else.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question on one.
>>GWEN MILLER: When we approve the agenda you are
supposed to pull those.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not to comment. 11:19:21

I'm not trying to pull anything for a separate vote. 11:19:23
I just want to comment.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Comment.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And this is a wonderful comment. 11:19:29
Item 56 is almost a $10 million contract award
Manhattan widening down by Gandy Boulevard, down by the
library.
And we are going to be breaking ground I think early
January, February, on that project. 11:19:54
It's very exciting for all of Tampa, especially South
Tampa.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was just going to comment on
item -- and I totally agree with you about Manhattan.
On item 57, if you look at our agenda, most of the time 11:20:05
when we are a -- when we are approving budgets or
contract, the amount of money is indicated.
But on 57, the amount of money for engineering,
architect services wasn't including.
But we all know it's about $700,000. 11:20:21
But I was encouraged.
I chatted with the HDR people, and I was concerned that
the Ashley drive project would just be looking at
engineering.
But actually they have architects and urban designers 11:20:34

who are going to be making it aesthetic as well as 11:20:36
engineering improvements.
So I'm supportive of it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried). 11:20:47
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Then I will move item 58.
Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
amending the City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter
15, City of Tampa parking ordinance, article II,
regulations, permits, penalties, division 1, general 11:21:00
parking regulations, section 15-43, parking in front of
residences or public or private driveways, providing
for parking within 10 feet of driveways in metered or
otherwise marked spaces, adding section 15-43-D which
creates a prohibition on parking in front of driveways 11:21:17
on roads that are less than 25 feet in width providing
for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
severability, providing an effective date.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is someone in the audience, Mr.
LaMotte, or someone from transportation? 11:21:31
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but there are an
enormous number of residential streets all over town.
But I'm thinking of the few specifically in Tampa, in
South Tampa, and New Suburb Beautiful, that are about
17 feet wide, where the houses are older, there's no 11:21:45

place on the lot for people to park. 11:21:48
And if they aren't allowed to park in the street, which
it sounds like.
This says a prohibition on parking in front of
driveways on roads that are less than 25 feet in width. 11:21:57
It's going to create a huge hardship.
All over town.
And I don't think --
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
That particular provision that you're talking about is 11:22:11
intended to preserve the ability to still have a viable
turning radius.
So if you have got a home, your driveway is on a street
less than 25 feet in width, you don't want to have
somebody parking their car across the street from your 11:22:24
driveway that you may not be able to turn or get out.
It's to preserve the turning radius for people coming
in or out.
So across the street from that driveway, there might
not be parking permitted it. 11:22:36
To the left or right parking may be permitted, so long
as the turning radiuses aren't affected.
It's addressing just that space in front of the
driveways.
>> Which most people respect anyway. 11:22:49

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On the other side of the street. 11:22:50
>>> On the other side of the street.
Yes, ma'am.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried). 11:22:57
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Item 50.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I meant to pull 57.
Let me see.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: One gives money.
The other approves the contract. 11:23:11
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They are sort of tied together.
I meant to pull both.
Oh, well.
Just vote on it separate.
I'm not in favor of the motion. 11:23:24
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move item 50.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, no.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison? 11:23:34
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, did you approve of 57?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I meant to pull both.
And I apologize.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you vote for that one? 11:23:47

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I did without knowing it. 11:23:51
>>GWEN MILLER: That's with number 50.
So if he's not in favor of the agreement -- if he's not
in favor of the changes, he can't be in favor of the
agreement. 11:24:04
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I meant to vote against both.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So what do you want to do?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was on the prevailing side.
I'll ask to reconsider 57.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second. 11:24:17
(Motion carried).
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Now I move the motion again.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?
Opposed, Nay? 11:24:27
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: I move item 60, setting public hearings,
60 through 76.
(Motion carried). 11:24:42
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to our public hearings for second
reading.
Is there anyone in the public going to speak on 77
through 87?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand? 11:24:55

(Oath administered by Clerk). 11:24:58
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried). 11:25:15
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public to speak on item
77?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried). 11:25:19
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
upon second reading.
An ordinance authorizing the construction and erection
of a proposed encroachments balconies and awnings over
a pores of the public right-of-way known as south 11:25:34
12th street and Whiting Street near the
intersection thereof, as more particularly described
herein, subject to certain terms, covenants, conditions
and agreements as more particularly described herein,
providing an effective date. 11:25:49
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Eye.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Eye.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: High. 11:26:02

>>GWEN MILLER: Here. 11:26:03
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Eye.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
being absent.
>> Number to open number 78. 11:26:16
>> Is there anyone to speak on number 78?
>> Move to close.
[Motion Carried]
>> Move an ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance
authorizing the construction and erection of a proposed 11:26:27
encroachment canopy over a portion of the public
right-of-way known as 7th Avenue and 20th
street in Ybor City near the intersection thereof, as
more particularly described herein subject to certain
terms covenants conditioned and agreements as more 11:26:40
particularly described herein providing an effective
date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white 11:26:47
being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there knit anyone in the public to
speak on item 79?
>> Move to close.
>> Second. 11:26:59

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance 11:27:01
upon second reading an ordinance approving a special
use permit S-2 approving a public service facility
replacing wastewater pumping station in an RS-60
residential single family zoning district in the 11:27:13
general vicinity of 4812 north river Boulevard in the
city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly
described in section 1 hereof providing an effective
date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second. 11:27:22
Roll call vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to
speak on item 80? 11:27:40
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following ordinance
upon second reading. 11:27:48
An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of
alcoholic content beer and wine 2(COP-R) for
consumption on the premises only in connection with a 11:27:59

restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, 11:28:01
plot or tract of land located at 901 South Howard
Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described
in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to
distance based upon certain findings, imposing certain 11:28:12
conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Ding. 11:28:24
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no
and Ferlita and white being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 81?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close. 11:28:37
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following ordinance
upon second reading, an ordinance making lawful the
sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of 11:28:46
alcoholic content beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R) for
consumption on premises only in connection with a
restaurant business establishment on that certain lot,
plot or tract of land located at 250 Westshore
Boulevard in Tampa, Florida as more particularly 11:28:58

described in section 2 hereof waiving certain 11:29:00
restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings
providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second. 11:29:08
Roll call vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 82? 11:29:21
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following ordinance
upon second reading. 11:29:29
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
of 2410 West Gray Street in the city of Tampa, Florida
and more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications RM-16 to PD single
family attached and semi detached, providing an 11:29:40
effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, wait. 11:29:52

Excuse me. 11:29:53
No.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: She's no.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no,
Ferlita and white being absent. 11:30:02
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 83?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried). 11:30:09
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
of 3403 West Gandy Boulevard in the city of Tampa,
Florida and more particularly described in section 1 11:30:24
from zoning district classifications CI commercial
intensive to PD single family attached, providing an
effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote. 11:30:36
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 84?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close. 11:30:51

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second. 11:30:54
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity 11:31:00
of 3811 West Gray Street in the city of Tampa, Florida
and more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
single-family to PD single-family, providing an
effective date. 11:31:16
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Motion carried with Ferlita and white being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 85? 11:31:31
Always Alvarez move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading. 11:31:40
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
of 3107 west Cherokee Avenue in the city of Tampa,
Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential
single family to RS-50 residential single-family 11:31:53

providing an effective date. 11:31:56
Always Alvarez second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white 11:32:04
being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 86?
>> Move to close.
>> Second. 11:32:15
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
of 3206 west Tampa Bay Boulevard in the city of Tampa,
Florida and moral particularly described in section 1 11:32:27
from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
single family topped office providing an effective
date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote. 11:32:39
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 87?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close. 11:32:48

>> Second. 11:32:49
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning
property in the general vicinity of 1206 East Ellicott 11:32:55
street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning
district classifications RS-60 residential single
family to RS-50 residential single family providing an
effective date. 11:33:10
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a public hearing. 11:33:18
Anyone in the audience that's going to speak on items
88 through 96, would you please stand and raise your
right hand.
>>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 11:33:32
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 88 is a continued public hearing.
Staff.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: When you state your name please
reaffirm that you have been sworn.
There's a little sign as you come to the mike. 11:33:44

Thank you. 11:33:46
>>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
Item number 88, V 05-52 is a continued petition, a
special use petition that came before you October
27th, and there were some concerns and issues with 11:34:24
the site plan.
The property is located -- if you look on the Elmo, the
zoning map, the property is located on
17th street just south of Hillsborough Avenue.
It covers portions of two lots. 11:34:50
Lot 6 and 7.
It is zoned RS-60.
If you look at the zoning map, everything around it is
RS-60 to the north.
To the north there is CI. 11:35:07
Also on the Elmo is a picture of the subject site.
It is currently an existing church, and the rezoning is
to come before you because they need to come into
compliance.
There's been code enforcement issues. 11:35:25
And I believe they have been operating for about a year
and a half as a church.
And they just got cited and they are going through the
special use process to get approval.
This is a view looking east on shadow lawn. 11:35:40

The church is right here to the left. 11:35:45
This is the rest of it directly adjacent to the church.
And this is a view looking south on 17th street.
Like I said previously, the petitioner is requesting a
special use of the property. 11:36:10
The church is existing and established without permits.
The petitioner is beginning the process, and he is
working hard with staff and has worked hard with staff
to come into compliance.
There are no additions or expansions planned to the 11:36:25
building.
The petitioner will be accessing 17th street, which
is a local collector street, and he is asking for a
waiver to do so.
There are several waivers being asked to allow the 11:36:36
Variance Review Board to consider variances to the
decrease in parking spaces from eight to four spaces.
And a Variance Review Board consideration of chapter 13
to reduction of the landscape buffer in the parking
area. 11:36:54
He needs to ask for a waiver to allow decrease into the
parcel size from 20,000 square feet to 5650 square
feet.
The allowance of use of parking for three of four
spaces, to allow access to 17th street, a local 11:37:09

street, to reduce the required 40-foot side and 20-foot 11:37:12
setbacks.
Requesting alternative buffer from the required 10-foot
wide landscape buffer with trees and hedges to chain
link fence. 11:37:26
And to be allow the use of chain link fence in the East
Tampa overlay district.
Staff does have objections.
The previous staff report showed many objections.
And he has worked hard to try to resolve those. 11:37:38
Transportation objection is to the reduction in the
parking spaces from eight required to four.
And they make a statement that 50% reduction in parking
is excessive.
Land development objections are noted that the site is 11:37:54
very small, and staff is concerned about the impact,
even though the congregation is very small, I think
currently they have about 10 in their congregation.
We are concerned with the effect it will have on the
neighborhood, and asking that the petitioner should 11:38:12
comment on the site plan, the limited hours of
operation.
The site plan needs to be clarified as a type of
fencing proposed.
The survey submitted with the site plan shows an 11:38:24

existing chain link fence. 11:38:26
The required buffer for a church adjacent to
residential property is 10 feet wide, which includes
hedges and trees.
The site plan shows only the fence and ground cover. 11:38:35
No evidence has been submitted that shows adjacent
property owners are supportive of the proposed
alternative buffer.
The subject site is located within East Tampa mixed use
overlay district which requires compliance with chapter 11:38:49
13 buffer requirements, and increases are required tree
planting to four inch caliper.
The overlay district prohibits the use of chain link
for residential use.
Under the regulations governing chapters 27, special 11:39:06
use is consistent with some of those criteria.
All of the yards required to be 40 feet, except the
front yards may meet the requirement in the district
which is located.
The RS-50 requires a 20-foot setback. The existing 11:39:22
structure is 25.7.
The structure is set back 55 feet from the rear
property.
And the petitioner is requesting a waiver for 12-foot
side and corner setbacks. 11:39:35

The minimum lot size, 20,000 square feet, shall be 11:39:36
provided under the special use.
This site plan only contains 5650.
The access to interior collect or, is not an interior
collector road. 11:39:54
The church may be constructing access of the height
limitations.
This is only a one-story existing building.
The sign criteria, it does meet all the sign criteria.
Construction services has an objection. 11:40:10
Parking to the right-of-way is to have a minimum of
8-foot wide landscape buffer.
The proposed handicapped space does not meet this
requirement.
The drive aisle is to have a three foot landscape 11:40:21
buffer along the south property line.
The green space can be met can be reduced to one foot
in width.
This site will require several variances to the tree
and landscape code in its current configure ration. 11:40:38
These waivers cannot be granted under a special use.
That is why under the waiver they are asking to go
before the variance review board to get those.
Tony Garcia is not here, but he called me this morning
to let you know that he finds this consistent and he 11:40:57

has no objections to this special use. 11:41:01
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you have objection?
>>> We have objections but if they go before the
Variance Review Board and get those granted.
It is a very small site. 11:41:15
It's a very small site.
And it's existing so he's limited in what he can do.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why wasn't this done as a PD, and
then it would have been one-stop shopping?
>>MARTY BOYLE: I think probably in hindsight, we 11:41:38
probably could have counseled him to come in a PD.
We didn't think there was going to be that many waivers
required.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems to me that this is really
not the right place for this use. 11:42:00
It's smack in the middle of a residential area.
And I feel really terrible for the petitioner who has
already, you know, set up his church there.
But if you were to look at it by any of our regulations
which are meant to protect other folks who live around 11:42:13
there, the piece of land just isn't large enough to
accommodate the parking and the buffering and the --
minimally.
And if the church is successful, which I'm sure they
hope it will be, then the impact on the neighborhood 11:42:28

will be even more intense. 11:42:30
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll wait for the petitioner.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Good morning. 11:42:47
My name is Herbert Harrigan, 5117 north 17th
street.
And we want to use it as a church, as a church for a
small congregation, and whatever access to do to get it
approved. 11:43:15
>> Mr. Harrigan, what happens if your ten patrons or
membership decides that they want -- they all want to
come to your church and you don't have the room for
them?
You want a waiver from eight spaces to four. 11:43:37
And then suppose you want to enlarge?
What would you do then?
>>> We could use a bus.
We could use a transportation vehicle, our van.
And if in the future we grow, move to bigger space, 11:43:56
then fine.
But that's where God put us right now.
>> Is this a house?
>>> It's my house, yes.
>> Do you have a living room, a dining room? 11:44:25

Did you configure the inside of this, an assembly room 11:44:27
or something?
>>> Before we take a couple walls off, and --
>>: Do you live there now?
>>> No, we don't live there. 11:44:41
We use it as a church.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The site plan says 25 seats.
>> 25 seats.
He's got four parking spaces.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just reading it. 11:44:54
>>GWEN MILLER: So what do you do about parking?
>>> As far as I know we don't have no problem parking.
So if that's the case, now we have grass, we park cars
we can park on there.
But if the city requests us to have four cars or two 11:45:11
cars or one car, we would be able to go with one car.
We could pick up everybody, like I said, we could have
a van and pick up everybody in one van.
And make it easy on everybody.
>> So nobody would drive to church. 11:45:26
You just pick everybody up.
>>> If that is the case, yes.
A lot of churches do that.
They don't have to drive.
They pick somebody up. 11:45:35

We are small right now. 11:45:36
We have no problem with driving them to the church or
picking them up by the church.
One car.
>> Are there neighbors next door to to this house 11:45:47
already?
>>> Yes.
We have no problems whatsoever with them.
Because we do a lot of things.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if anyone here wants to speak 11:45:59
on this item.
Does anyone in the public want to speak on number 88?
Anyone here want to speak on 88?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The ladies in the back, are they
members? 11:46:14
>>> My wife and two members, yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Supporters.
>>> Yes.
They come with us.
They come. 11:46:21
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What are you planning to do about the
fencing? You can't have fencing in the overlay
district.
>>> So what you mean, if I have -- whatever you request
me to do, I'm ready to work with the city. 11:46:39

Not tomorrow, but however. 11:46:44
If you want a fence, a wood fence -- no, like you said.
Concrete.
I don't know which kind of fence.
>>> You can't have wood and can't have chain link so it 11:46:54
leaves you one option.
>>> Well, the option, what can I do?
Praise the Lord.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you have a church already?
This is going to be the first place you are going to 11:47:07
meeting?
Are you all meeting somewhere now?
>>> No, we are still meeting there.
We been meeting there for almost going on two years.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They just got cited. 11:47:16
>>> They told us, a sign there, and we told them we
find out we have no permit.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ask Cathy a question.
She seems to have interest. 11:47:42
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I have not been sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you have any additional
information to give us on this, Cathy? 11:47:55

I saw you sort of -- 11:47:57
>>> Oh, I was just listening. The third option for the
fencing is the PVC.
I'm not really sure which we are we are going on. This
it's unfortunate because he has been operating for a 11:48:08
couple of years and then wound up in this citation.
>> Was the citation --
>>> For operating an illegal use.
>> Was it complaint driven by a neighbor?
Or was it just city -- 11:48:19
>>> I don't know fountain was through a sweep or not.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because of a sign on a tree.
There's something to be said for the fact that they
seem to have been doing this for maybe two years and we
haven't had neighborhood complaints. 11:48:37
>>> It is a very small building.
In the Sulphur Springs area.
It's a small, little old concrete block house.
It's kind of nonintrusive because it looks like every
other house. 11:48:51
When you throw the sign up, it's aparent that
thatth is a church.
As far as the variances 50s oops when he first came
in, many, many months ago, even when Angela was here,
we saw it at that time as a church and a residential 11:49:03

use and you are not really sure of waivers at that 11:49:06
time, and you counsel them to do a special use because
that's what it said in the code.
>> It's unfortunate it's a two-step process for them,
because -- and I want to explain this this to you, sir. 11:49:17
Even though we might approve you today, then we are
sending you to another board for an additional set of
approvals.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.
It would be possible, even though they have applied for 11:49:34
special use, for us to ask you, the staff, to work with
them and have them reapply for a PD?
As a way of addressing?
>>> You could allow him to amend the petition.
He would need to do a renotice. 11:49:50
There would be a 30 day notice requirement.
He would have to pay the $300 difference.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We could waive that.
>>> The site plan would essentially be the same.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What that would accomplish, it would 11:50:02
recognize these seven waivers that he needs rather than
then having to go to the variance board which I think
would frankly be very pressed to try to rationalize any
of these waivers.
>>> If he's willing to do that. 11:50:16

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we could take a break on this and 11:50:17
have you sort of explain the implications of that and
then come back and see what it is.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Absolutely.
>>GWEN MILLER: We will go to number 89 while they do 11:50:29
that.
Continued public hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I received a call
yesterday from Terry Cullen, with the Planning
Commission, who said that his understanding of our 11:51:01
agenda was that he had five minutes to chat with us
about the comprehensive plan after lunch.
And he said, Linda, there's not -- we can't even get
into a substantive conversation in five minutes,
obviously. 11:51:15
So he wanted to either know if we could reschedule him,
or if because we are not going to be discussing ethics
at length, we wanted to give him additional time today.
And I just relay this to council, whatever council
would like to do. But it would be nice to let him know 11:51:30
before we come back.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Lunch time workshops on the plan.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We were going to start.
Why don't we do that instead?
Remember Rhonda was going to get with you the lunch 11:51:44

time workshops. 11:51:48
And pass along --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did we have two workshops scheduled?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the planning?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We were going to do some workshops 11:51:57
not on Thursdays but other days to discuss the plan.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe we didn't even call them
workshops.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's still not the comp plan. 11:52:25
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to continue or give him a
little more time?
What do you want to do?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: He definitely needs more time.
Given how busy we are in January, Madam Chairman, and I 11:52:38
apologize for having this conversation now.
But I figure we need to have them before lunch.
Okay.
Looking at our workshops for this afternoon, are we
going to just hold off on the ethics code? 11:52:52
>>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
The gift portion will be discussed later.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The only thing I had to struggle
through, where is the --
>>THE CLERK: On the last page. 11:53:15

At 1:30 you also have the treescape. 11:53:18
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the stormwater technical
standards?
Madam Chairman, what do you all think?
How long do you think all this is going to take? 11:53:32
>>GWEN MILLER: The tree might be quite lengthy.
Depending on questions you might have.
Ethics won't be that long.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The stormwater, it's my understanding,
is going to go forward. 11:53:51
I don't know how long that presentation is.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's going to be lengthy.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If it's the pleasure of council I
will get with Mr. Cullen and see if we can't pick a
time in January. 11:54:01
>>GWEN MILLER: do you have to make a motion now or wait
until --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You can make the motion now.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move that we reschedule until
sometime in January and I will work on a time to bring 11:54:13
it back this afternoon.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: So the motion to remove it from
today's agenda then.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to reschedule item 13 to 11:54:21

January. 11:54:27
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What are we doing? 11:54:32
Are we going to start this one?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: We have about three and a half
minutes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Till noon.
>>GWEN MILLER: She said it's going to be quick. 11:54:44
Go ahead.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 88.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
Church on 17th street. 11:54:56
I spoke with Mr. Harrigan.
He's fine with going to PD.
It looks like we have a solution.
If I could get a motion from council to allow him to
amend the petition to a PD, and then reset the hearing 11:55:04
for January 19th at 10 a.m.
That will give him enough time to do notice, and then
we can alter the site plan and come back before you.
>> So moved.
>> Second. 11:55:17

(Motion carried). 11:55:17
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did we have any discussion on the
fees?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Not for amendment between petitions,
you don't. 11:55:23
Sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have the motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried) 11:55:36

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are we on 89 now?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
89.
>>MARTY BOYLE: Item 89. 11:55:48
Marty Boyle.
This is V 05-66.
>>THE CLERK: 88 they continued.
>>MARTY BOYLE: If you look on the Elmo, you will see
the subject site in green. 11:56:10
And it located on 22nd street, just east of
40th street corridor.
It is zoned RS-50.
And they are coming in for a special use for the
property. 11:56:29

The property location is 4911 north 42nd street. 11:56:30
And proposing a daycare facility.
The existing modular building had previously been
approved for a special use 2 permit for a church, V
91-55 was approved in May of '91. 11:56:46
The existing building will be converted to a daycare
with the future maximum student count of 100 students
providing care from infant to pre-K and after-school
care to 12 years old.
Initially the daycare will have 20 students. 11:57:01
A semicircular drive has been provided in the front of
the daycare building to allow for safe drop-off and
pickup of children in the daycare facility. This site
is part of 40th street corridor, eminent domain
relocation case. 11:57:20
She had had to relocate because of the taking.
The owner only has until January to relocate to this
site.
Land development, we do have objections.
And the objections are based on we need some 11:57:36
clarification for the student-teacher ratio.
The plan shows 100 students, and we are concerned that
it only shows four teachers.
And that's just a clarification that maybe the
petitioner can provide for us. 11:57:51

The following are the special use criteria in chapter 11:57:56
27 regarding daycares.
Six or more children or adults. The following specific
standards shall be used in deciding application for
approval of these uses. 11:58:06
In the RS-60 zoning district, the site shall have
direct access to arterial or collector road. The site
does not have access to an ar ter your or collector
road.
It is on 42nd. 11:58:20
That is a local street.
Petitioner is asking for a waiver of this requirement.
Also, the petitioner is requesting the use of a wood
fence.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does petitioner have any problem 11:58:30
with the waiver?
Does transportation have an objection with the waiver
on 42nd?
>>MARTY BOYLE: They did not object.
Petitioner is requesting use of a wood fence. 11:58:45
In the East Tampa overlay district, it is prohibited
the use of a wood fencing for residential uses.
It only allows for decorative fencing.
The issue with this site is it's 900 lineal feet.
So they are asking for a waiver for the wood fence in 11:59:00

the East Tampa overlay because it would be such a 11:59:02
financial hardship for the petitioner to be able to
afford.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What are the surrounding neighbors?
>>> What are they? 11:59:15
They are residential.
>> Single family?
>>> Single family.
So the only objection we have is for clarification on
the 100 students. 11:59:27
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I note the child care will be
regulated by state regulations.
But it just strikes me that the size of the structure
and the size of the play area couldn't possibly
accommodate 100 students. 11:59:38
And that perhaps we should make that change on the site
plan to reflect what really would be accommodated,
which would probably be more like 30.
If it's 30 days kids, you have enough parking, you have
enough play area. 11:59:52
I don't know where they got the 100 from.
>>> That's why we asked for clarification on that.
Also before I leave, Tony Garcia, Planning Commission,
called and said he has no objections.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner? 12:00:05

>> I'm representing Agee. 12:00:16
She is presently located on 40th street at 744
north Gray Street.
Not the same name that you have here but is existing
today. The problem we have, let me address the 12:00:31
questions first and then I'll go to the other.
First about the number of teachers.
We are going to meet whatever code says to do.
And based on this, the building probably could carry
about 60 people. 12:00:45
But to expedite everything, we will easily do 30 people
without a problem.
Because that's basically what we have now existing.
We don't want to lose our people, because she's in
operation now. 12:00:57
And with some delays which has already caused great
hardship, we are in the process of developing plans and
things so she can make application tomorrow for a
building permit, just that thing.
The other question in reference to the teacher ratio, 12:01:15
I've covered that.
The other is the wood fence.
And the reason we are asking that is because when this
began, started talking with council about it, this
ordinance was not approved. 12:01:28

So it shouldn't come under this particular application. 12:01:33
However, before this date that all this was approved,
if you look at the other way around this is a taking,
as she stated, andful it will be a very, very financial
hardship on her to do that. 12:01:46
We checked about that. The average cost for a concrete
block fence is $10 a linear foot.
This is a huge site.
Possibly bringing down the construction area.
It would really impact this project in such a way with 12:02:05
this concrete block fence that it would be almost
undoable.
So the other thing I would suggest, if we can't do
that, if we can come up with some kind of time frame to
come up with it over a period of time. 12:02:19
Right now she does not have the funds to do it and we
don't need to close this business down and she she's in
court now with the state, and that was a really bad
situation.
And the other thing, it's going to be an asset to the 12:02:32
community.
There's a school right behind where it is now.
So in fact it's going to be better. The property is
large enough, I have talked to her about it, that she's
anticipating increasing the density with more 12:02:43

buildings. 12:02:49
So this is really a good location for her.
It really worked out great.
If we could just get this thing open today.
It would be fine. 12:02:59
But with this, it's a major situation.
I have some pictures if you want to see them or not.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let me go to the audience and see if
there's anyone in opposition.
Is there anybody here want to speak on item number 9? 12:03:10
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
Sir, it looks to me from this plan that there are a
number of houses that back up to this.
>>> On the east side of it.
In the rear, up to the east it's vacant. 12:03:26
But on the north and south, yes.
>> Yes.
Have you had a chance to talk to those people and let
them know what your plan is?
>>> Yes. 12:03:36
Yes.
>> The fact that they are not here fussing, they like
it?
>>> Yes.
As a matter of fact, some of them to the south use our 12:03:40

property to go into their property. 12:03:43
And we discussed that with them.
And they didn't object to the.
Of course we didn't object to the.
And if the wood fence is approved, we are going to make 12:03:49
gates for them so they can -- because the property is
so small over there, on the south side, and they have
other stuff that they bring, trailers and things like
that.
So we will deal with them. 12:04:04
>> And is this going to be six in the morning till six
at night operation?
>>> Right.
No night operation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: All on the site plan? 12:04:13
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What kind of wood fence do you
propose?
>>> The kind of wood fence that the city requires.
It's under section 27 as to what kind.
It's six foot high solid wood fence that you see all 12:04:29
over the city.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried). 12:04:41

>>CHAIRMAN: What's the pleasure of council? 12:04:41
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question for staff.
The gentleman referred to what they can -- he thought
30 was a good number they can accommodate.
Certainly the parking spaces would support the staff to 12:04:53
have that.
If they were to build another building and expand it
for students and for teachers, would that trigger them
coming back for staff review to make sure that all that
could be accommodated? 12:05:08
>>MARTY BOYLE: I believe when you make a change like
that in the special use and it's residentially zoned,
you have to come back for another special use approval.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does the petitioner understand that?
>>> Yes. 12:05:25
I have a comment.
In reference to that, I already anticipate changing to
a PD.
When I do that, we are not going to do it -- so we
won't have to come back again. 12:05:38
And wait two to three years, I would make a PD for
that.
And get the approval.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To close. 12:05:53

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close. 12:05:55
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to move -- are we reading?
Just move to approve S-2 with the modification and site
plan. 12:06:10
That the reference to number of students be reduced
from 100 down to 40, just to give you a little slack.
And also that -- does the site plan speak to the fence?
>>> Yes.
>> I'll agree with the waiver on the six foot wood 12:06:35
fence.
Anything else?
I move an ordinance approving a special use S-2
approving a daycare in an RS-50 zoning district in the
area of 4911 north 42nd street, Tampa, Florida, waiving 12:06:48
the required access to arterial or collector street,
access to a local street, to a 6-foot solid fence, by
allowing the use of the fence, providing an effective
date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion. 12:07:09
Mr. Shelby?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council member Dingfelder's caused the
need to have the site plan written on.
I want to have it clear for the record that
petitioner's representative has no objection to that. 12:07:24

>>> No objection. 12:07:26
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to do one more petition has
an appointment at two so we need to do number 90 so he 12:07:33
can make his appointment.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are we waiving? 12:07:43
Is that waiving the rule?
>>GWEN MILLER: It just past 12.
>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of 5th
Avenue between fourth and sixth avenues, from rep a 12:08:03
de Cuba.
This dead-ends into the railroad tracks.
Oops 50s petitioner owns everything highlighted in
red, also a small sliver on the north side to the
railroad tracks. 12:08:26
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we have a property map?
>>> This is looking west to the railroad.
This is the property here on the south side.
They own this where the cars are parked.
This is a shot looking toward the dead-end of the 12:08:48

railroad. 12:08:51
Another shot across the railroad, Fifth Avenue picks up
on the other side of the railroad tracks and then herds
heads north.
>> When was it the last time it was a through street? 12:09:02
Never?
>>> I don't think it's ever been a through street since
the railroad tracks have been there.
This is the railroad tracks looking north from the
railroad tracks. 12:09:17
This is a shot of petitioner's property.
This is another shot of the petitioner's property
looking south.
The last picture is a picture abutting from the north
side. 12:09:34
We have no objection.
This is in the Ybor Historic District.
>>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner.
>>MARK BENTLEY: 201 North Franklin Street.
I represent petitioner MIZE and Sefair properties, to 12:09:50
convert to mixed use project, roughly 30 condominiums
and 30,000 square feet of office and/or retail.
>> Are there brick streets?
>>> There are not brick streets.
In terms of the curbing, actually, the Barrio Latino 12:10:11

had to weigh in on this, and the recommendation they 12:10:15
wanted actually to be vacated, essentially replicate
one of the streets in Ybor City, not just the typical
parking lot.
So we get in front of the barrio on that issue, I 12:10:27
think, next month.
>> I was just concerned about the --
>>> That's part of the ordinance actually.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just to clarify.
So you are going to adhere to what the barrio directs 12:10:42
in terms of maintaining the grid, the appearance of the
grid?
>>MARK BENTLEY: That's correct.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let me see if anyone in the audience
wants to speak on your petition. 12:10:51
Anyone in the public want to speak on item 90?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance vacating, closing, 12:11:01
discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way, a
portion of Fifth Avenue between north 13th street
and new Republica de Cuba, 14th street, in Leslie's
subdivision, a subdivision in the city of Tampa,
Florida Hillsborough County Florida the same being more 12:11:27

fully described in section 1 providing an effective 12:11:29
date.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
[Motion Carried] 12:11:36
We are going to take a recess until 1:30.
But are we going to finish our public hearings or go
into the workshops at 1:positive 30th?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I would finish the public hearings.
>>GWEN MILLER: So the workshop people know that we will 12:11:49
not start at 1:30 on the workshop.
We will go into our public hearing.
When we finish the public hearing we will do the
workshop.
We stand adjourned until 1:30. 12:11:59

(Recess taken at 12:13 p.m.)
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is.
Called to order.
Roll call. 13:39:00
Oh.
[Roll Call]
>>JAMES COOK:
Lying south of Bay to Bay Boulevard.
And west of Crosstown expressway, Bay to Bay off-ramp. 13:39:08

Let's zoom in on the he will movement petition to 13:39:15
vacate. This this is the off-ramp going to Bay to Bay.
This is the petitioner's property lying south of
Santiago street.
This is looking north from Santiago towards the 13:39:40
off-ramp.
Esperanza.

This is the portion going to the barricade, right here.
And Esperanza cuts through right here. 13:40:01
This is the dead-end at the off-ramp.
This is Esperanza looking south from the off-ramp.
This is a portion of Santiago street, east from
Esperanza towards the off-ramp.
Petitioner's property is off the picture right here. 13:40:25
I'll show you that in a second.
This is Santiago street looking south from the
Crosstown off-ramp.
This is looking south along the off-ramp.
Everything vacated is on this side of the fence. 13:40:41
Isn't any portion -- any of this portion of the
off-ramp.
This is the petitioner's property.
Santiago street runs right through here.
It's unimproved, grass. 13:40:54

This is another shot. 13:40:58
This is not the petitioner's property. This is on the
northwest corner of Esperanza and Santiago. Both of
those streets are approved.
This is Esperanza looking south from Santiago. 13:41:13
Santiago to Esperanza. Staff has no objections as long
as drainage and easement is reserved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Has everyone in the audience been sworn
in?
Were you sworn in before we left? 13:41:28
Would you please raise your right hand?
>>THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner? 13:41:41
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the stated purpose of the
vacating?
It's a very unusual little piece.
>> One piece or two pieces?
It's: One piece of property. 13:41:57
It's one lot.
We requested them to vacate this.
Its useless to us.
It dead-ends.
East of Santiago. This little rectangle is Esperanza. 13:42:10

This is the petitioner's property here as it now 13:42:13
exists.
This is what they want to propose to do.
They want to add on glass on the north side and add a
driveway, so take an additional area now being used as 13:42:24
a road.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for the legal
department that is relevant to this and the previous
petition for vacation in Ybor.
And that is, has the city ever charged people money 13:42:40
when they get the street?
When we vacate property, it adds value to the property
owner's property.
Do we charge them for the property?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: No, ma'am, we do not. 13:43:00
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we?
>>> We have explored that before and the answer to that
is no, ma'am.
The reason -- let me rephrase that. In very rareins it
is answer is yes, and that is when the city owns the 13:43:12
underlying fee.
Where the interest of the right-of-way, the underlying
fee is actually in a reversion versionry status to the
abutting property owners.
Whenever that right-of-way is released. 13:43:27

So we don't have the standing to charge for it because 13:43:29
we don't have the fee interest.
That is all.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So the only financial gain we see is
that the property owner's property is larger and now 13:43:40
they pay taxes on that?
>>> That's correct.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Good afternoon.
Gregory Haney, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, suite 21 13:43:53
petition for petitioner.
I have been sworn.
I'm here to answer any questions or concerns.
I have nothing further to add to that report.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members? 13:44:02
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
on item number 91?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close. 13:44:10
(Motion carried).
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing and abandoning all that part of southeast
perns a Avenue and southwest Santiago street lying
south of Bay to Bay north of San Juan street east of 13:44:30

Ferdinand Avenue and west of the Crosstown expressway 13:44:36
in Palma Ceia park, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more fully
described in section 2 hereof, providing an effective
date. 13:44:46
>> Motion and second.
(Motion carried) need to open item 92.
(Motion carried).
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
I can certainly call my office and find out. 13:45:12
I thought I had heard that it was don'ting or moving.
But I'll go ask.
>>GWEN MILLER: We'll go to 93.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm on it 3.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open 93. 13:45:25
>> Second.
[Motion Carried Unanimously]
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Number 92, there should have been a
letter, but the petitioner is requesting a continuance
to January 12th. 13:45:48
I do have one upstairs that I'll bring down and give to
the clerk.
They would like it continued to January 12th.
The reason being is that at this juncture both the
region and DCA are objecting to the proposed change so 13:46:00

they need to deal with the issues with the DCA before 13:46:04
we get to public hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: How many do we have on the 12th?
Daytime?
>> Daytime. 13:46:19
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
to speak on item number 92?
We have a motion.
The only thing you can speak on is the continuance.
They are not withdrawing it. 13:46:32
It will be continued to January 12th.
>> They let us know it was coming up to date but they
never told us it was delayed or postponed.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
You have to come back on January 12th at 10 a.m. 13:46:49
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We apologize for the inconvenience.
(Motion carried)
Alvarez.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
WZ 05-118. 13:47:06
This is a petition for a 4(COP-X) for 2223 North
Westshore Boulevard, suite B-202, an association, full
alcohol, in association with a restaurant-bar
establishment. The name of the establishment is bar
Louie, Tampa. 13:47:26

And there are several properties that are wet zoned 13:47:27
within a thousand feet.
It is located within the International Plaza.
You will notice that there are no residential, and no
institutional uses within a thousand feet. 13:47:39
I did note the second page of the report that the site
is currently wet zoned as 4(COP-R).
They are seeking to change that to an X, which does not
require the semiannual reporting.
The petitioner can go into detail. 13:47:51
>>> Gene Haines, Tampa police.
I have been sworn.
We have no objections to the wet zoning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> My name is Jamie McMullen, 2223 North Westshore 13:48:08
Boulevard, suite B-202.
I am the petitioner.
I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the most recent
establishment that's in the space that you're looking 13:48:18
to go to?
>>> It just an extension to the Pat improvement it's an
existing pat improvement we are looking to wet zone the
entire restaurant and patio as well.
It's an existing patio that we already have there. 13:48:29

>> Why is it you are not going 4(COP-R) as opposed to 13:48:31
4(COP-X)?
>>> We are getting the R because we are selling more
alcoholic beverage than food currently right now.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members? 13:48:43
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
on item number 93?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried) 13:48:50
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance repealing order
making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of
alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-X) for
consumption on premises only at or from that certain
lot, plot or tract of land located at 2223 North 13:49:13
Westshore Boulevard, unit B-202, Tampa, Florida as more
particularly described in section 3 hereof waiving
certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict, providing an effective date. 13:49:27
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
We need to open 94.
>> So moved. 13:49:34

>> Second. 13:49:35
(Motion carried).
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
This petition is for 915 South Howard Avenue, WZ
05-119. 13:49:42
Property zoned CG.
They are asking for a 4(COP-R).
It is in association with a restaurant located in the
Soho district.
There are several properties also wet zoned within a 13:49:51
thousand feet.
There is immediately a multifamily property immediately
attached, zoned PD.
They do need a waiver for the other wet zoned
establishments. 13:50:04
The adjacent residential property.
Institutional uses within a thousand feet, Curtis Hixon
park, which actually I was surprised there is a second
Curtis Hixon park apparently according to the surveyor,
located at lake view road and Bristol Avenue. 13:50:17
It's 883 feet away from the site.
And bay crest academy daycare is within 40 feet of the
site.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Where is the academy?
>>> Across the street. 13:50:34

40 feet. 13:50:36

On the third page of the reportdy note that we would
like petitioner to provide additional testimony to you
regarding the nature of the use in the rear of the 13:50:50
building.
On the survey, there is a covered patio in the rear
that appears to be open.
The police department did do a site inspection.
We just wanted assurance that no one is going to walk 13:51:00
off the premises or what kind of nature of alcohol
sales or activity is going to be in the rear under that
patio because it is open, and there is an adjacent
residential property.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the name of the Italian 13:51:20
restaurant?
Primadonna?
>>> Yes.
>>> Gene Haines, Tampa police.
We have no objections, just the concerns that are noted 13:51:28
in the report.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Basically the rear area that they
are referring to is for the walk-in coolers.
I talked to the police department about that. 13:51:40

They called me and asked what was that for? 13:51:41
You have to wet zone it because you store beer and wine
in those coolers.
What I suggested to them that we would do was to put up
some kind of a fence so it wouldn't be visible from the 13:51:53
public.
It should be noted also that on the state alcoholic
beverage cut-out, you have to have one point of ingress
and egress and that's where the public comes into the
front. The back is for deliveries. 13:52:06
I also have a number of letters of support from the
property owners immediately adjacent to it, to the
west, the residential area.
It's actually a condominium.
And we had asked for specific safeguards to be placed 13:52:21
in the ordinance, conditions that we have committed to,
and transmitted that request to the city attorney's
office.
And they included no outdoor music, no outdoor pay
phones, lighting that's direct add way from residential 13:52:35
area, and the limit on the sale of alcohol to 1 a.m.
And that's with the restaurant inside.
I also have a letter from Dr. Randy Feldman who
indicated -- I'll give you the originals -- I urge your
support for the wet zoning petition scheduled for 13:52:53

December 1st, 4(COP-R). 13:52:55
I have lived in the neighborhood for many years and
enjoyed the various restaurants conveniently located
there.
Restaurants like Tony's and the former primadonna's 13:53:02
were good assets.
The restaurant is a large parking lot which exceeds the
requirements and is convenient for neighborhood
patrons.
The new owners of Tony's. 13:53:13
I wish to request your support.
I have known the owner since they first opened their
existing restaurant and have complete confidence in
them and their new endeavors.
It should be noted that I personally own townhouses 13:53:28
located behind this facility and adjacent to the
property in question question.
Knife concern whatsoever and urge City Council to
approve the request.
There are several other letters from adjoining property 13:53:41
owners in the same spirit.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
on item number 94?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close. 13:53:54

>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department. 13:53:54
If City Council is inclined to include the conditions
that the petitioner's representative just mentioned, I
will have to substitute the ordinance.
Someone other than the petitioner had shared the 13:54:06
conditions with me, and because it wasn't the
petitioner, the owner of the property, I wasn't in
position to include the conditions but I did prepare
the ordinance.
But the clarification with regard to hours of 13:54:19
operation, what was requested of me earlier in the
week, was that the sale of beverages be no later than
12:00 midnight Sunday through Thursday, and 1 a.m.
Friday and Saturday, and that the business operation be
opened no later than also 12:00 midnight Sunday through 13:54:37
Thursday and 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday.
That's a little different than what Mr. Michelini just
represented.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We concur with that.
I'm sorry, I forgot to separate out the weekdays. 13:54:47
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I got an e-mail from Don Kleman,
either here or he was involved in the -- he's a
neighbor in that area.
But he says that he's hoping that we can treat this the
same way we treated old meeting house. 13:55:10

He says he believes, quote-unquote, he believes 11 p.m. 13:55:13
is a reasonable time to open and close the restaurant
because of the drinking.
And I guess based upon the same arguments and the same
discussion we had last week about old meeting house. 13:55:28
I know Mr. Michelini has indicated this doesn't have an
outdoor component like the old meeting house does, but
other than that I think it's pretty similar.
It's right next door.
So I have a little bit of concerns on the hours of 13:55:42
operation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This was a restaurant that has always
served alcohol, right?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: That's correct.
>> And what were the hours of operation. 13:55:54
>>> I don't know that they had a restriction.
They were open till 2 a.m., whatever the state law
allowed last time.
This was a concession that the owners thought would be
reasonable and presented to the property owners in the 13:56:03
area.
No one said we want this.
It was something that they came up with and said, this
is reasonable, we are proposing it, and we have no
objections. 13:56:15

As a matter of fact, we didn't have any trouble at all 13:56:16
getting letters of support from the residents
immediately to the west.
And they would be the most affected property owners.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: My own feeling would be to go ahead 13:56:25
with the conditions that were proposed simply because
it's always been a restaurant that has served alcohol.
Old meeting house didn't in the past.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have a couple of questions
about the parking area which kind of backs up to the 13:56:42
neighbors.
Is there a solid masonry wall back there?
>>> It's an 8-foot masonry wall.
The development itself built.
One thing I failed to mention, they are required to 13:56:54
have 24 parking spaces.
They have 34 parking spaces on the site.
>> My other question is about lighting in the parking
area, because you want lighting that doesn't affect
people who live behind it. 13:57:10
>>> That's why we said we were going to direct light
ago way from the residential areas so there would be no
lights going back toward their property, it would
actually be directed the other way. The lighting
that's existing there now is mounted on the side of 13:57:20

Hugo's, on the Hugo's building and shines toward the 13:57:22
parking lot.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. McClain also indicated he had a
concern this was going to be a sports restaurant.
Do you have that information, Mr. Michelini? 13:57:36
>>> What the owners have committed to is a Mexican
tapas restaurant.
It does have, I guess, some sports theme to the.
They are going to put TVs or something in there. But
it still has to function as a restaurant serving 51% 13:57:50
food and 49% alcohol.
>> My concern is not so much about necessarily just
about the adjacent condominiums.
My concern is about the adjacent neighborhoods of
Parkland Estates, and Bristol has always been a 13:58:04
problem.
The family was there last week talking about, you know,
drunk people in front of her house till late hours in
the evening and that sort of thing.
It not that -- that restaurant has been closed for 13:58:21
about two years, I think, primadonna.
So even though there is some history on that building,
it's not recent history, and Howard is changing.
So, anyway, I still have some concerns about it.
>>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second to close. 13:58:37

All in favor say Aye. 13:58:40
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried) clerk.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Did she say she needed to change the
ordinance? 13:58:59
Already did it?
In five minutes?
I move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content
beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R) for consumption on the 13:59:08
premises only in connection with a restaurant business
establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of
land located at 915 South Howard Avenue, Tampa,
Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance 13:59:20
based upon certain findings, imposing certain
conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried). 13:59:31
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to open number 95.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried) 13:59:41

13:59:42
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development, this petition for
Fowler Avenue, requesting a 4(COP-X) which is
consumption on premises only for alcohol.
According to the application, it is in association with 14:00:02
a restaurant and lounge.
For those of you who have been up to the university
area, this is the old Hops site and behind the toys R
us, the old Winn-Dixie.
Six theaters. 14:00:22
There are two wet zoned properties within a thousand
feet.
The Pizza Hut and the woody's barbecue across the
street.
There is a residential property within a thousand feet, 14:00:29
the oakwoods condominiums.
There are no institutional uses.
If you note on page 2, I did note from staff that we
are recommending that given the use that they have
requested as a restaurant lounge that they do change 14:00:42
the -- consider changing the application from a
4(COP-X) to a 4(COP-R).
I included the reasons.
A restaurant has reporting requirements per 370 to
prove that the use -- to show the alcohol sales are 14:00:56

truly incidental. 14:00:59
But the food sales equal that 51% and the alcohol stays
49% or lower.
Given that they are asking for the 4co X they are
claiming that the alcohol is incidental. 14:01:09
However, there is no reporting requirements to the city
so we have no way to verify that on a regular frequent
basis.
Per section 380 -- I'm sorry, that's the reporting
requirement. 14:01:23
370 is the waivers.
You will note as I said before there is residential
within a thousand feet and other alcohol
establishments.
370 allows you to grant the waivers because the use is 14:01:32
incidental.
However, once again, we have no way to check that
because there are no reporting requirements, because
they are not asking for the R.
It all ties together. 14:01:42
Basically that's our recommendation.
And the petitioner can definitely explain that to you.
>>> Gene Haines, Tampa police, I have been sworn.
We have no objections to the wet zone.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Basically, this is the reopening of 14:02:03

the Hops. 14:02:07
The Hops used to have, I believe, a 4(COP) designation
because they actually brewed beer on the premises.
They also had food as a component.
And the bull ring is anticipating having similar types 14:02:19
of promotions and offering less expensive foods.
And because the food is less expensive, your
percentages may be close.
They are not sure if they are 51-49 but they would
rather not go into that category if they can avoid it. 14:02:34
They have already been in contact with the USF folks
and the neighborhood, people in that general area.
One of the things that separates this from all the
other properties is the railroad line that runs
directly behind here. 14:02:50
You're almost 500 feet between this, and in a walking
line between here and any other properties, except
commercial properties.
And there's a 2(COP) within 240 feet which allows for
on-premises as well as off-premises consumption. 14:03:08
They are not asking for off-premises couples but are
asking for the X designation.
I'm basically here to answer any questions you might
have.
It's a very deep property. 14:03:22

It's self-contained. 14:03:24
It has more parking than they know what to do with.
And they are trying to get open here before the end of
the year.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members? 14:03:32
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.
To the south, and it appears that there's a significant
road.
Is that the access ramp off the interstate?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: No. 14:03:43
What's in the back is the railroad line.
>> Okay.
So it's separated from the residential community to the
south?
>>> The residents and by a wall. 14:03:51
It's a very, very deep parcel of land.
>> One other question.
We are just talking about rezoning the site of the
building, not the entire parcel, correct?
>>> That's correct. 14:04:03
It is the building only, and not the entire parcel.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to speak
on item 95?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second. 14:04:14

(Motion carried) 14:04:15
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance making lawful the
sale of beverages regardless of alcohol content beer,
wine and liquor 4(COP-X) for couples on premises only
at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land 14:04:36
located at 2141 east Fowler Avenue, 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 in conflict, providing an effective date. 14:04:54
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: 96.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
>> Second. 14:05:05
(Motion carried).
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
This petition is for 1202 north Frankland street
located in the CBD1, just north of here.
It is requesting the ability to sell full alcohol in 14:05:22
association with a restaurant.
They are requesting a 4(COP-R).
There is one wet zoned property within a thousand feet
at 112 north Frankland, the united Methodist retirement
center of Tampa is the residential community locate 14:05:38

within a thousand feet and there are five institutional 14:05:41
uses.
All the waiver provisions are mentioned in the staff
report.
We have no concerns. 14:05:47
>>> Gene Haines, Tampa police.
We have no objections.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Leslie shire, petitioner, north Frankland.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members? 14:06:03
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What are you planning to do there?
>>> It's going to be a restaurant.
>> Yes, we see that.
It's an R.
Can you give us more detail than that? 14:06:14
>>> Yeah.
I currently own two restaurants in San Francisco, and I
was born and raised in Tampa.
So I'm bringing the concept of both of those here,
which is smaller plates of food, it's going to have 14:06:23
live music, and a rooftop deck as well.
>> Does Vermont a name yet?
>>> Yes.
It's going to be called Fly on Frankland.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are you going to be serving alcohol 14:06:40

outside on the rooftop deck? 14:06:42
>>> Yes.
>> What are the hours going to be?
Because there are condominiums going in everywhere.
>>> I know. 14:06:49
It's to serve until the state law as of this point
right now.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I love the idea of an interesting
restaurant.
My only concern is that the people you are going to be 14:07:03
impacting don't know because they don't live there yet
because their condos are under construction.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's good.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, it's good that I'm sure there
will be patrons. 14:07:18
The question is will what's going on make them crazy?
And I just wonder, noisewise.
It's across the street to the south and the west and
the east and the north.
Here, here, here, here, and there. 14:07:33
>>SHAWN HARRISON: But also literally right next door to
the south.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, liquor doesn't make noise.
It's music that makes noise.
So, you know, like when you stop. 14:07:48

>>MARY ALVAREZ: They shouldn't have wet zonings -- 14:07:53
these wet zonings for anybody, right?
>>> Based on my experience of owning the two
restaurants in San Francisco which is residences
besides you, on top of you, next door to you, I'm just 14:08:06
very used to keeping a very good relationships with the
neighbors.
So when that does occur, because those are the people
that are going to be supporting the restaurant, you
need to be, you know, together with them. 14:08:18
So at that time, if music is becoming an issue, or the
noise on top of the rooftop deck, I definitely will
adjust to make sure that the neighbors are happy.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to speak
on item number 96? 14:08:30
>> Move to close.
>> Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried).
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I'm still
ununcomfortable withty deof serving alcohol outside 14:08:40
until 2 a.m.
The wet zoning is fine, but a wet zoning with service
outside and potentially with music outside, I think, is
a formula for causing a problem right there.
And I'm not comfortable with this, without some 14:08:59

modifications. 14:09:01
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that this is one of those
self-selected things, if somebody is choosing to live
on Frankland street and they are consciously picking an
urban life-style. This is not a suburban life-style, 14:09:14
and that they want that kind of energy, and they
recognize that it's going to be more of a night life,
urban kind of thing.
So I think I'm okay supporting it.
But I have a question. 14:09:33
Not wanting you to vote on this.
But is your property within --
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's a good question.
Marty, I don't know, takes crow flies, maybe 500 yards
or so away from there. 14:09:45
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I would say it -- (off microphone)

Is it within the same block?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
>> About three blocks. 14:10:10
>> And the loud music is not on top of the deck.
I don't know if you were getting that impression.
But the live music is actually inside the restaurant,
and it's not music that's meant to be rock or anything
crazy. 14:10:22

The restaurant is not meant to be a nightclub. 14:10:22
It's meant to be a restaurant with complimentary music
like jazz and reggae and that sort and actually inside
the restaurant.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone) 14:10:39
>>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance making lawful the sale of
beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic
content, beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R) for consumption
on the premises only in connection with a restaurant
business establishment on that certain lot, plot or 14:10:56
tract of land located at 1202 north Frankland street,
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 in conflict, providing an 14:11:11
effective date.
>>CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Nay. 14:11:18
>>GWEN MILLER: Harrison, no.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Workshop.
>>GWEN MILLER: Information from council members before
we go into that. 14:11:28

Mr. Dingfelder, do you have anything? 14:11:29
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
We have a visitor in our midst.
She's been observing us.
If you want to pan to the crowd. 14:11:47
Nobody is listening as usual.
Maybe she wants to come up and say a few words.
Thom, do your thing.
>>> Hi!
>> Is that a tan? 14:12:11
>>> No, this is me being embarrassed.
>> She's actually Teresa Myers second cousin.
I'll let you tell.
You can go ahead and talk for yourself.
She's doing some work here and observing council. 14:12:22
She's going to hopefully participate in our workshop
this afternoon.
>>> That's pretty much it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Welcome.
What's her name? 14:12:34
>>> Sarah Day Anderson.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Council had previously asked ray
Miller from Hartline to come speak to us about certain
issues related to bus shelters in West Tampa.
He's available and can come next Thursday morning. 14:12:55

So if you want to put him. 14:12:58
Whatever time you wish.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: 10:00.
69 all in favor?
[Motion Carried] 14:13:10
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And we discussed this a little bit
in the past.
If you look at our sequence on our agenda, for example,
today, we had items 1 through 13 that we did before we
got to the public participation section. 14:13:28
And actually, I counted --
>>GWEN MILLER: You didn't do 12 and 13.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We actually passed eleven motions
before the public got a chance to speak.
And Marty and I talked about this briefly. 14:13:45
I think that, you know, if the public comes, we should
figure out a way -- and I don't know exactly how it
is -- but we should figure out a way that the public
has a chance to speak before we start passing things.
Because in actuality, the public spoke to about two or 14:14:04
three items that we had already passed, after the fact.
So if we are serious about public input, we should
figure out a way to fix that.
And I'll leave it up to Marty and the chair to figure
that out. 14:14:20

>>GWEN MILLER: Today we passed it because these were 14:14:20
continued resolutions from another meeting.
We put it under unfinished business.
But usually under unfinished business, it would usually
be a staff report or something. 14:14:32
We had made a motion to ask staff to come talk to us
about.
If you look at those resolutions we passed this
morning.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The bottom line is this could happen 14:14:40
again and again.
>>GWEN MILLER: Then don't make a resolution to put it
under unfinished business.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, but it's appropriate to have it
under unfinished business because if we carry it over 14:14:53
that means we want to talk about it and we did talk
about it.
But at the same time this T public should have a chance
to talk about it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Not a resolution. 14:15:02
>>GWEN MILLER: Not a resolution.
Can they talk about a resolution?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)
They give their own personal input to City Council,
contemplates action. 14:15:29

So it's an opportunity for public to voice those items 14:15:30
except for a public hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems to me a simple solution
would be to shift the agenda slightly and put it right
after the ceremonial activities, and after the approval 14:15:44
of the agenda, the request for reconsideration by the
public, and the agenda public comment, and then --
>>CHAIRMAN: Unfinished business and staff report?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We used to do that right after
ceremonial activities. 14:16:15
>>GWEN MILLER: Should go into staff report after the
ceremony.
Mr. Harrison?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: On the flip side, at the same time
people come to listen to the things that happened 14:16:27
before the public comment section, and then want to
comment on that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem is we are passing
motions, and then they get a chance to speak to those
motions. 14:16:39
Typically we are not circling back based upon their
comments.
That's the part that concerns me.
>>GWEN MILLER: We could put it of a after uninfinished
business following staff reports and put the audience 14:16:53

portion between there. 14:16:55
We can do that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the agenda public comments
before unfinished business.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's what I'm saying. 14:17:03
Put it in -- let the staff speak, then do public
comment, then unfinished business.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)
Today it was 10:30 or 11:00.
Maybe that's why you want to consider changing the 14:17:40
order of business, see how that works.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't follow my suggestion, it will
fail.

>>ROSE FERLITA: What was it so I can pose it? 14:17:53
No.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: One reason for public comment is to
give one's input to council to consider something,
rather than to hear what has been said.
The time for a come taker perhaps is at the end of the 14:18:13
agenda where somebody who wishes to make a come taker
to talk on any matter.
>>GWEN MILLER: So you're saying that after approval of
the agenda, we are going to go to requests for
reconsideration, audience, and then staff report, and 14:18:28

then unfinished business. 14:18:31
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Give at try.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It seems to me we would want to get the
staff reports so we go about the business.
And we do the staff reports. 14:18:41
But separate staff reports and the unfinished business.
Do the staff reports and then reconsideration, and
public comment.
And then go into unfinished business.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I like Mary's idea. 14:18:58
>>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
I'm on a roll today.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you have to make the motion?
>>THE CLERK: Would you need to amend your rules, to
change the order of business. 14:19:15
And when you're making your motions determine which is
going to go in your staff report and which is going
under new business.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The staff report is when they sign
up. 14:19:25
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Department heads.
>>THE CLERK: But staff report and city employees but
that's not on the agenda anymore.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Can I suggest, we have gone through
painstaking efforts to redo this agenda. 14:19:39

And I don't want to simply at the drop of a hat decide 14:19:42
that we made a mistake by going this way.
Can we just sort of table this and watch it and see if
it continues to be a problem for awhile?
Because I think today is unique, because of the way it 14:19:54
turned out.
I'm not sure of Mr. Dingfelder's concern.
But I'm not sure going back through that exercise --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm fine with that, keep watching
it. 14:20:06
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I still feel that the staff reports are
separate from unfinished business.
That's my only --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But how many times does it happen? 14:20:37
I don't want to be put in a reactionary mode.
I want to be a proactive person, you know. I don't
want to react to something that might have happened or
is going to happen or will happen.
We want to do proactive things. 14:20:53
And if we need to change this thing somehow, say like
Mr. Harrison says, we'll take a look at it in another
couple of weeks, and then maybe make a decision in
January.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm good with that. 14:21:08

>>MARY ALVAREZ: We only have a couple more meetings 14:21:09
anyway.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I have been looking 14:21:15
around for some time for the Planning Commission
presentation to schedule an opportunity to discuss the
local comp plan.
And so I need to ask City Council, would you rather
meet on a Wednesday at lunch? 14:21:34
Or would you rather make it a 1:30 meeting, perhaps the
beginning of February?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Lunch on Wednesday.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to schedule a discussion with
the comp plan on Wednesday, January 19th -- 14:21:53
18th, rather.
>>THE CLERK: Mascotte room?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
Around that lunch.
We'll have Terry Cullen and Michelle over. 14:22:06
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I may not be here that day.
I have a Finance Committee meeting.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We'll have many of these meetings.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's okay.
You go ahead and have it. 14:22:19

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second. 14:22:21
(Motion carried).
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Nothing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have nothing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, just a very quick, for 14:22:29
our listening audience.
Can you, as our chairman, tell us, so we can tell
people that are calling us, what's going on with the
selection process and when people should be calling in
or submitting their names? 14:22:43
>>GWEN MILLER: Didn't you get an e-mail from me
yesterday?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you announce to the public?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tell them what we are talking about. 14:22:56
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)
I don't believe the chair is contemplating any action
until the end of September.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So not only -- take names, say wait
till September? 14:23:51
>>GWEN MILLER: No names.
Nothing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And can come in and not submit.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Those are all issues to be discussed.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's why we wait until September. 14:24:04

>>MARTIN SHELBY: A lot can change between now and then. 14:24:05
And also that I am sure that it can be arranged to have
that information put out on the web page and through
other access.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. 14:24:18
Mr. Shelby, I was around a previous time, when this
came up.
And there was some discussion about whether a person
could submit their name if indeed they were going to be
running for City Council. 14:24:33
And I think that it would be -- I think it would be
helpful for the public, for council to have that
conversation earlier than September, so that folks in
the community would know, for example, I personally
would not support somebody putting their name in who is 14:24:47
also running for office.
Because I think that gives them an unfair advantage.
So I think it would help the public to sort of know
where we stand on that kind of thing, so that they
would have a sense of trying to be appointed or not. 14:24:59
Also if you could work out whatever the process is
going to be, how, who votes.
Is it like picking people from a Planning Commission?
You know, how are we going to do it?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, it would be either a workshop or 14:25:13

a special discussion. 14:25:15
If you wish -- or have the discussion a few weeks
earlier.
I will start immediately towards the process.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why would it impact anybody? 14:25:24
If they are going to run, aren't they just going to
run?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If they are sitting filling a
vacancy while they are running it gives them a leg up.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, I agree in concept. 14:25:35
I'm just saying why would it make any difference if we
cut off the decision until September related to any of
the qualifications that we'll be looking for?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why would it --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why would we need to discuss it 14:25:49
before September, I guess?
I'm trying to figure out a scenario.
If somebody is going to run, would this make them
decide not toe run, or to run, or what?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe yeah. 14:26:00
I mean, I don't know.
But I think it would be important for people to know
whether that was going to be one of the stipulations
rouse.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chair? 14:26:12

Let me give you one snare yeah that was presented to 14:26:13
me.
You guys are going to be the one that is decide.
You might think it makes more of a competitive type
arena and you don't want somebody sitting here thinking 14:26:21
about competing with one of you all, because then it
all makes it political as opposed to serving the
constituents that we serve.
There is one gentleman that talked to me about, well,
if that's the case, and that's in the criteria, I would 14:26:35
like to serve to see what public service is about.
I have some intention or some aspiration of running.
But if I have the opportunity to do this, then I don't
want to run this time.
So it will make a difference, John, in how people do 14:26:50
what they want to do or why they choose to either
submit their names or not.
So I think you guys having a preliminary discussion
before you come up with the guidelines might help.
If this many people are calling and telling us the 14:27:02
different scenarios now, I'm sure at the first of the
year, so you're going to have more people that are
concerned.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: July, September.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, the scenario that I 14:27:14

discussed with the chair would be to have the 14:27:16
discussion and get some direction at the beginning of
September.
And I don't think would you want perhaps more than a
month's process for somebody to fill out an 14:27:23
application, have the application available, let's say,
for instance, the month of November, and then council
can cannot make a decision until obviously there are
vacancies.
So that would leave the time from, let's say, September 14:27:34
to October before the application process begins to
finalize what the process would be and put people on
notice.
If you want to make it sooner that's fine, that too.
But that's the reason and the rationale. 14:27:48
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And I thought everything was so simple.
Goodness gracious, you know.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have done nothing.
We made no public announcement on anything, to my
knowledge, neither Ms. Ferlita nor Mr. White have given 14:28:00
any indication as to if they intend to resign and when
that would be effective.
So it's all just been engendered by a newspaper
article.
And I would agree that there's no reason to do anything 14:28:13

here until at least September. 14:28:16
>>ROSE FERLITA: The only reason I was raising a
question is so people don't think there's something
they need to be doing now and miss the boat.
So I think this was an effort to say, I don't think the 14:28:25
rest of the council has decided anything that they are
doing and certainly next year will be the time.
And Mr. Shelby, you and I had this conversation
yesterday about somebody else with the press that was
concerned. 14:28:38
And we obviously, once we qualify, have to resign and
it has to be effective the date of when we would
presumably take oath which is September -- I don't
know.
I'm sorry, November 21st? 14:28:52
Is that when?
>>GWEN MILLER: So you may be here until then.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's right.
This is just to understand, no rush, it was one of
those times where the tribune or the times, don't 14:29:04
remember which, brought up what's going to come.
But it's not coming in anytime soon.
The Tribune is causing some problems for us.
But, anyway --
>>GWEN MILLER: In the e-mail, told to tell them if 14:29:17

anyone called -- 14:29:21
>>ROSE FERLITA: My aide will probably tell me that, and
I probably haven't read the e-mail.
But the public isn't reading my e-mail.
So, okay, one last thing. 14:29:33
Every month, I get up here, and praise the firefighter
or the police Officer of the Month, and talk to them
about what they do and what we take for granted.
And it's very enlightening, and eye opening when you
see exactly what they do do. 14:29:53
TPD called me Sunday morning about 2:30 as public
safety chairman, anytime there's a police officer down,
and this Sunday there was a police officer down,
officer Brian TRLAK.
And sergeant John hawker was his partner. 14:30:07
Did he not get hit.
But I immediately went out to Tanner, I guess about
3:00 in the morning with Chief Hogue, and it wakes you
up about what these guys and women do for us every
single day. 14:30:24
Thank God he was shot in the chest but it was deflected
by the vest, and then again he was shot in the arm.
And it's very traumatic.
And every time they go out they just don't have any
idea what's going to happen in terms of, you, know any 14:30:36

kind of emergency or shooting or somebody is going to 14:30:40
call the wife or husband and say your wife or husband
has been shot.
We had a conversation awhile back, and I'm happy that
we are taking heed to that. 14:30:48
Trends of TPD were supposed to -- were thinking about
in the event that there was a crunch, to offer some of
their finances to replace some of the defective vests.
And I don't know, I believe that they are looking at
other things to focus on to help TPD as well. 14:31:06
Chief Hogue stood out here and said they were going to
take care of them in a very expeditious manner.
And it's one thing to talk about.
Another thing to see.
We looked at the vest. 14:31:18
We saw the police officer's blood.
We saw what could have happened and what did happen.
And, you know, as always, they all acted like
professionals.
And those are the things that we always say thank you 14:31:27
for.
But sometimes we don't see them.
It sure makes us say thank you even more.
I'm glad he's doing well and I appreciate what they
have done. 14:31:37

And thanks to Chief Hogue and his troops. 14:31:38
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's all.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one thing.
I failed to mention, I had gotten an e-mail from a 14:31:44
gentleman that was questioning our motion, when we were
talking about the adopt the river program.
I don't know whether you all got an e-mail.
But he was talking about we were -- we directed him to
withdraw apparently from consideration applications 14:32:13
for -- I don't know if that's what we meant to do if
you know what I'm talking about.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had some additional conversation
about that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is he with the -- 14:32:29
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: River board.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think he's right.
Go ahead.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Far be it for us to turn back grant
money, and I understand the problem wasn't affording 14:32:41
the craft, it was staffing it, that it would take about
$200,000 to provide the personnel to go up and down the
river and use the craft.
And that was the money that's the annual, recurring
cost, I talked about with Steve Daignault yesterday, 14:32:54

that he didn't think we had the money to staff it. 14:32:58
But, I mean, I would love to see us accept the grant
and have the craft.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As public works chair I had a long
conversation with chuck Walters and Steve, after I 14:33:11
received similar e-mails, and there's a few of those
floating around, received the same comment back from
staff.
I don't accept that comment.
I mean, perhaps in this budget year, okay, they didn't 14:33:22
make accommodations to have somebody be able to drive
that watercraft.
But I told them that I really expected them to try to
figure out a way to find the money for the person to
drive that watercraft. 14:33:35
Because I think it's an excellent program.
I think that we should have this type of boat out there
picking up the trash off the river and off the bay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think you're right.
And I don't think that was our intent at the time that 14:33:48
we decided not to have the adopt a river.
So I don't know.
Maybe we could redirect them to find money to get a
depollution craft, and next year we will put the money
in for the operation of it. 14:34:06

But I'd like to make that in the form of a motion. 14:34:07
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you. 14:34:15
That's it.
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like to do a commendation for
Lowry Park Zoo, troop number 47.
They are going to be celebrating their 10th
anniversary at the Lowry Park Zoo. 14:34:23
I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Clerk, do you have anything?
>>THE CLERK: Just to receive and file.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved. 14:34:32
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go back to item number 12 of our
workshop on trees, we need to open.
>> So moved. 14:34:43
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>> Phyllis Fleming, Planning Commission staff.
At the September 12th meeting the Planning
Commission met and reviewed the proposed ordinance on 14:34:53

amending chapters 13 and 16. 14:34:55
And moved that it was consistent with the comprehensive
plan, and that you should review it.
And I'm here to answer any questions if you have got
them. 14:35:07
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While they are coming up, I just
want to say as the person who chaired in committee that
I'm thrilled we are finally at this point of discussing
this for first reading. 14:35:30
And that what we discovered, we had this committee, it
consisted of citizens and developers and interested
people in the community.
What we discovered was that our existing ordinances
really were pretty adequate, and the issues we have 14:35:44
primarily were administrative inadequacys, and the
staff recognized those and processed the ordinance.
And I would say that has been and continues to be the
majority of our challenge, is making sure that
administratively within the city everyone is on the 14:36:09
same page.
And then the second most significant thing we found --
again it isn't in the ordinance itself -- was the lack
of a wearness of the public.
Some people thought it only applied to oak trees. 14:36:22

Some people thought it didn't possibly apply to them 14:36:24
because it only applied to commercial property.
So getting the word out to the community is really one
of our challenges.
And I think that our homeowners associations are doing 14:36:32
a good job, I think our staff is beginning to spread
the word.
Whatever we can do to make the public aware there are
protections from trees, they need to tune in.
>>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snelling? 14:36:46
>>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination.
That was a very good introduction, thank you.
That saved me having to repeat that.
But that's exactly correct.
And we had come to council previously to bring forth 14:36:58
the results of what was going on from the committee.
Long story short, what ended up happening is that it's
a very emotional thing.
Ms. Saul-Sena said it.
It was difficult to get a pure, pure consensus on the 14:37:15
variety of issues that we talked about.
So at staff's suggestion, we said, we asked council if
we could kind of take a step back, you know, bring
forth a couple, five, six or seven different items,
that we felt were virtually uncontroversial, not a 14:37:31

whole lot of discussion to take place, bring it back to 14:37:34
City Council, make that presentation, and go forward
and vote on those, get those off the table, and at a
later date, within the next six months, eight months,
ten months, whatever, as some of these things start to 14:37:46
filter down and enforcement procedures, to each of the
parks, the departments or business and housing
development, the tree hotline is one of the things that
we had told but.
It working very well. 14:38:00
We had some calls and were able to do some proactive
work there.
And Ms. Karen Palus and Cindy Miller are working
together fine tuning some of the bumps in the road that
in the past existed and I think they are making some 14:38:18
good progress there as well.
So we have been proactive in that fashion.
And one of the promises that staff made was to go ahead
and come back in a few months after these are, like I
said, off the table and discussed. 14:38:29
What I am here doing today is to bring you up to speed
and present to you those specific changes that we did
work through.
So I have given you a handout.
And what I have done is -- this does not translate. 14:38:44

Some of the maps will. 14:39:01
But in your handout you have two items that I think you
will probably be able to work off.
The first is this section here which is on the cover of
your packet, just the bullet points from the various 14:39:08
changes that we have made, and the correction that is
we have made.
And the second is the matrix, which Gloria Moreda and
my staff put together delineating the exact section
that's being changed. 14:39:24
The existing code Watt read and what was being proposed
and where the rationale for that particular change came
from.
What I will do, some of the parts I am going to go
through rather quickly to focus in on a couple of 14:39:36
things that I think will probably merit some
discussion.
But absolutely this is your workshop, where you decide
to have me stop and explain things, of course, at your
wish. 14:39:49
The first thing where I have right on the top of the
bullet points is sections 1 through 5.
Those are basically editorial changes.
Throughout the code, different departments and city
heads and city departments get reference, different 14:39:59

governmental agencies get reference, and different 14:40:02
tools that are used for outside codes are referenced.
And we are just bringing all of those up to speed.
Because the last time the technical manual, some of
this code was changed was back in '89, so we changed 14:40:17
the name from community services and business and
housing development, from the city Parks Department to
Parks and Recreation Department, and as you can see
it's the rest of those things.
The last thing that happened was we identified using 14:40:30
the current edition of the particular technical manual
that the Parks Department and Construction Services
Center all used as reference guides, to use the current
edition rather than a rendition of 1985 or 1997 it.
That's code parlance to use the most current edition 14:40:50
available.
Section 6, you can see a listing.
We never did define arborist in the code, or demolish
or demolition.
But it gets all the way down, until you get to the one 14:41:10
where it's talking about the landscape area trust fund.
And that's one of the things I am going to talk about
later on, is that a trust fund be established that will
act as perhaps a minor funding source that the city can
use, and it's always tough to find money to do stuff. 14:41:33

And this was one of the ways that we felt we can 14:41:36
generate a little bit of money, and make some areas
green, and pervious again.
The next section is section 7, which talks about exempt
trees. 14:41:51
Basically what this is, is that certain trees are
identified as being exempt from acquiring a permit to
have them removed.
I have listed them here and the rest of them are
specified in the actual document itself. 14:42:04
But it's the Carrollwood, the golden Raintree and the
chefle.
I have been told that they are invasive, and I am
certainly not the expert, so I will deal with it if
that happens. The other is invasive species, the same 14:42:21
number of trees.
But you will actually -- they used to not be, if you do
a site plan, you not required to take away certain
species, but now when you go out to do any site
clearing -- and this is not the entire list, there are 14:42:39
others -- if these species are on your property you are
actually required to move them as part of an overall
improvement program to return some of the more native
trees and more native species.
Section 9, this has S another one we'll talk about 14:42:53

later. 14:42:58
This was one of the items that we had brought back to
council that we said staff.
This was something that City Council had specifically
asked us to bring forth here. 14:43:04
This had been one of the ones that were debated.
We were asked by council to go ahead and bring this
forth, and we can have that conversation as we get back
to that section of the code.
The emergency hazardous tree removal, what this has to 14:43:18
do, when you look at it, it was decided by the
committee if a tree is truly in an emergency hazardous
situation whether it's protected or grand or whatever,
the example is, and what this does is say if it's truly
hazardous tree, in an emergency status and identified 14:43:34
as such by the director and the parks arborist, and
they say if you don't need to take that tree down now,
because it could hurt somebody, it's leaning on the
house, if it's determined to truly be a hazard, the
notion of making somebody wait for two weeks or two and 14:43:50
a half weeks until somebody has a chance to object to
it, you're not going to listen to that objection anyway
because you have made the legitimate determination that
it can be causing a public safety danger.
And example of this, if there is a large tree and it's 14:44:02

kind of halfway leaning and you see the roots coming up 14:44:05
out of the ground.
Now you get another rainstorm, more dirt goes away,
boom, it's coming down.
So we don't have to wait the two weeks. 14:44:13
Get the guys out there.
Take it down.
Make the area safe.
That's really what that was all about.
And I doubt that those particular findings will be made 14:44:22
lightly.
Section 10 really adopts an updated tree and landscape
technical manual.
Most of the things that are in the manual, we did
identify some stuff about reviewing demolitions but 14:44:39
many of the information and the technical manual, I
just want to show you a couple of items.
It really was to help clarify.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I have to compliment
Thom and his staff. 14:44:55
They make things so much clearer by adding graphics, by
showing radiuses.
>>THOM SNELLING: This is pretty much a residential site
plan.
And what we are trying to do is make the technical 14:45:09

manual that if somebody -- a regular John Q public, 14:45:12
Mary Q. public, can actually use as it relates to their
site or smaller developers sometimes don't have the
same wherewithal or expertise to do this.
So we have added a graphic about what a residential 14:45:27
would look like, how the tree area, the wells get built
around the trees, some of the -- how you have to
protect it, what a protective radius is.
We have done that for that.
We have also done it for your basic very simple 14:45:39
commercial lots.
Same thing about W the pond and how you protect the
tree and identify the tree radius and the barriers that
go around it.
And how you treat your buffer areas and what kind of 14:45:53
site plan you can actually submit had, to make the
inspector's job a little easier if you make it a little
more clearly what they have to look for and how to look
in certain places.
Just a couple of other things. 14:46:09
We have done throughout the code, we have added more
clear actual sketchings of the trees and protective
barriers, and how you barricade the trees.
We tried to add scale, how the trees related and where
the measurements from. 14:46:27

It not from the middle of the tree. 14:46:29
It not from the drip line.
It's where the trunk starts.
And we have that throughout the whole code, with
various graphics that are going to be used to help us 14:46:41
explain what what the code is all about.
We will probably not reproduce in color, as much as we
like to. The expense of reproducing in color would be
difficult.
It wouldn't be difficult, it would just be expense jif 14:46:54
and we aren't going to be able to afford that.
The other item is the in lieu fee.
I want to skip over there and come back and discuss it
as part of the landscape fund.
The section 14 where it talks about the pervious area 14:47:07
barrier requirement being changed.
Previously it had been four feet.
That has increased to six feet.
That is the area if you have a technical question about
that, we can explain it clearly but it bumped it from 14:47:18
four feet to six feet.
It needs to go up to as close as four feet, given
whether you build over a root system and do a Lentil
construction.
And we add sod clarifying language. 14:47:36

It used to be if you built it close it was on your 14:47:38
property.
I mean, it was to go back and forth to properties.
I think this goes mostly back to the property who are
the petitioner. 14:47:49
The last one establishes the trust fund area.
Hopefully you have the yellow, or the color map.
You can see, we have used that to identify the amount
of dollars that are going to be assessed.
And that's based purely on the property appraiser's 14:48:11
office.
At that point that changes.
Even after we do that, and I have to ask Gloria if that
will change as the assessed values change.
And she's shaking her head yes. 14:48:23
So as property values shift and change, it's going to
be based on the assessed value.
Will that be recalculated on an ongoing basis so we
don't have to adjust that?
>>> It's going to be calculated with each and every 14:48:41
submittal.
Every time someone submits -- that's going to be part
of their submittal process.
So one day you may have a value of $2.10, and two weeks
later your neighbor comes in, cot go to 2.50, you know. 14:48:52

Hopefully it will go to 2.50. 14:48:56
I would like to touch basis -- is the landscaped area
included, and councilman Dingfelder had several
questions on that from stuff I got back from him on
exactly what this meant and how you go about looking at 14:49:21
that.
Basically, the whole notion of doing it, a landscape
area in lieu knee, we have talked to council
previously.
People coming in with various S-2 applications, 14:49:31
rezonings, variances, special uses, what have you, and
there they were saying we would like to reduce the
landscaped area by 300 feet, 500 feet, 700 feet.
And given the merits of the case, council would say,
okay, that sounds like a reasonable thing, you are 14:49:48
going to give him a few more trees, a park bench, a bus
stop, whatever.
You made the trade based on that.
Staff has made a proposal to sweeten the pot, so to
speak, in that, okay, we'll consider those things, but 14:49:59
whatever you're asking for, then there's going to be a
dollar amount associated with the relief of 500 square
feet, a thousand square feet, 750 square feet, that
will go into this landscape trust fund.
And as it accumulated, it has to be spent, whatever 14:50:17

district it comes from, is the same district it would 14:50:21
have to be spent in.
One of the questions that councilman Dingfelder had
pointed out was whether or not these things could be
transferred from property to property. 14:50:32
So our proposal is that it runs with the land.
It's not going to be that I would help pay a thousand
dollar for waiver for a certain amount of landscape fee
and then transfer that to somebody else.
A transfer of development rights. 14:50:48
There's no transferring of these rights going on.
It runs with the land.
Just like variances run with the land, rezonings run
with the land.
Whatever activity takes place in terms of relief tore 14:50:58
fee would also run with the land and you can't move it
to another property.
I just wanted to make that clear.
With this money it would then go into the trust fund
which would be administered by Parks, and that was one 14:51:12
of the other questions.
The city recently hired the greenways and trust
coordinator, and she's been working very diligently to
acquire different kinds of trails and greenways without
the city. 14:51:26

Cindy Miller's question was could that money be used to 14:51:28
acquire some of that green space?
And as far as Gloria and I -- and it's up to council
how to craft the code of course-E but if you spend it
on something green and impervious and it actually 14:51:42
becomes the city's, then yes.
What he would don't envision to the be if you're doing
aboard walk over somebody wetland on Dora bike trial R
trail, even though it says "and trails," if you're
doing a paved bike path that kind of meanders in the 14:51:58
right-of-way, I don't think you should, because
remember where it came from.
It came from sacrificing green space.
The whole notion is to get some of that green space
back in the ground. 14:52:11
So our interpretation of that question is, no, for
green space, what the city acquiring, yeah, but not in
its a paved bike path or paved walkway.
>> We had some concerns about members of the
development committee, that the money be spent. 14:52:30
There were concerns that we were accruing money and not
spending it and the things you plant will grow faster
probably than the money sitting in the bank throwing
off a little bit of interest will grow.
So I would like to rehear some -- 14:52:49

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It says it has to be spent within 14:52:55
five years of collection.
>>THOM SNELLING: I thought it was.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's in the book.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree with you. 14:53:06
I think we should be using it to acquire new green
space.
However, I would take the language that's here, 161 (E)
on page 14, it says all funds collected from the
removal process shall be utilized for the express 14:53:25
process of improving park land, and/or improving a
public right-of-way.
By prior enhancing, reestablishing green space within
the boundaries of the district.
How does that jive with what you said? 14:53:48
>>> Public right-of-way and the light of our public
right-of-way, there are huge parks of green space.
I think that was our intention when we kind of crafted
that, is, again --
>> In other words when you take asphalt and turn it 14:54:06
into green space, then that would request for this.
>>> In my opinion, yes, sir, as long as what you are
doing is creating per views space area.
The city is always cleaning right-of-way and
maintaining it and all of that. 14:54:30

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to be sure this isn't going 14:54:31
to be used to mow existing right-of-way.
That is not the intent.
>>> It is certainly not.
It is not for new. 14:54:41
It is not for maintenance.
And Karen is shaking her head, we understand that. We
can get with Karen -- with Ms. Palus and Gloria and
myself and make sure that section of the thing is
tightened up. 14:54:53
We'll take another look at that.
But it's clearly an intention to require brand
newspaper previously un-had green space.
It's not for picnic tables or mowing lawns or pavilions
or that stuff. 14:55:09
>>> But it also says to enhance green space.
>> Trees, bushes, things like that.
>> Does it say bushes?
>>> Yes.
>> Maybe I'll put trees in parenthesis. 14:55:26
>>THOM SNELLING: All my experts are all shaking their
head, yes, that's Watt means.
If it's green we can do it.
If it's not we can't.
We can't get green out of a can of spray paint. 14:55:39

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Have we tried that before? 14:55:44
>>> I have.
It didn't work for very long.
Any questions on that?
>>GWEN MILLER: No. 14:55:55
We can move on.
>>THOM SNELLING: That's the extent of my very brief
presentation.
I know you have been here a long time.
Did you receive all this stuff. 14:56:06
So you can look at it and chew on it but I'll answer
any questions you might have about anything.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Actually, the tree and landscape code
that you have given us, the manual on this, it has
nothing to do with protected or grand trees that are 14:56:20
existing now that may be a detriment to patios and
pools and stuff like that.
In the code is that?
>>> That has not changed.
Whatever exists now for trees that are causing 14:56:38
structural damage, we did not change that, with the
exception of you bring up what council asked us to put
in.
Whatever protections you have now for a protected tree
or a grand tree causing structural damage to your 14:56:52

house, to your garage, to your patio, whatever, that 14:56:54
has not changed.
We are allowed to use the same process.
You still have the ability to remove it.
The legal -- and, you know, I don't mean to trip over 14:57:05
this one, but that was one of the sticking points about
what happens if you take it out.
Council has had some famous cases in front of you where
where a person took out a tree that. Was at council's
request. 14:57:24
You know what, Thom, we got to stop that, and you have
to put it in. The committee was like we'll have that
discussion at the workshop so that has been changed,
where if you are requesting a demo of a grand tree, and
under the claim that it causing structural damage to my 14:57:42
house, and then the Parks Department, the CSE, the
experts involved, engineers, whoever, they go out there
and they look and say, you know, you're right, and it
is lifting your foundation or it is cracking or
structure or framework or whatever, you can take it 14:57:56
out.
And I don't have to go through that whole dance again.
You know, they end up demoing the house in the short
run anyway.
This particular proposal says if you put a stay on the 14:58:10

demo of a house for two weeks, that's a bold move. 14:58:15
That's certainly a bold move.
And I have got two attorneys up there.
They understand land use law as well as anybody, and
takings law and everything like that. 14:58:35
That's a discussion that council should have as far as
how to go with that because that's a tough one.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think I understand it pretty well.
Believe me, I'm not an expert at anything.
But it would seem to me like what you mentioned there, 14:58:52
the structural damage to a house, and they are not
planning to demolish their home, they just want to
protect their home from the tree that's causing the
damage.
That's where I'm coming from. 14:59:12
>>> It's in the manual, and you're absolutely right, to
take it out of the code as to the process that you go
through.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Out of all the things on the bullet
point summary, which ones were totally 14:59:43
noncontroversial?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Everything but for that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Everything but section 9.
That there is not consensus from everyone that was
involved in thatth that council can go ahead and 14:59:56

act on. 14:59:59
>>THOM SNELLING: Sections 1 through 5.
That's clarification.
That's good.
The section under definitions, I did not hear anybody 15:00:05
squawking one way or the other.
Exempt trees, section 8, invasive species, exempt 2
section 7, invasive species section 8, the tree manual
section 10, believe it or not, there was a lot of
discussion on the in lieu fee, but with the additional 15:00:27
provision that staff had the ability.
The development was H community was like concerned, oh,
yeah, I don't mind paying the money but don't have to
have to go to a Variance Review Board and take out two,
three, four square feet per unit. 15:00:42
If it's 10% or less, that was a staff review.
And there's something that councilman added language in
there that I want to talk about in a second, too.
But that may be new portion.
Everybody agreed to that. 15:00:58
That was my understanding.
I think if the development community could live with
that, the neighborhood community, the Greene community
so to speak, they were okay with that because they felt
they had enough protection that you can't do too much 15:01:11

damage. 15:01:14
Staff do too much damage.
And you know how I am.
But that was fine.
That was section 12 15:01:24

With the exception of the two-year stay, that is
clearly the lightning rod that. Is clearly the
lightning rod.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that you all have done 15:01:42
yeoman's work to get to where we are.
I know that we have got public comment.
But I think everything other than section 9, which
maybe we could hold until further discussion.
About it it seems to me like we are ready to go. 15:02:00
I think that in lieu fee is a great idea.
>>> That was Gloria's, actually.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Good job, Gloria.
I think the development community, you hit the nail.
They said it about -- we just want to see result. 15:02:17
And the tree trust fund, there's a million dollar in
the tree trust fund that tiny little bits have been
spent.
And we ought to put that money to good use as well.
But I'm ready to go on everything other than 9 right 15:02:40

now. 15:02:44
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm ready for all of it including 9.
I think we are ready for 9 as a community.
I think we don't need to have another example.
Otherwise legal wouldn't have presented this as a 15:02:57
possible ordinance.
I trust their judgment.
I haven't done the research but I'm sure they wouldn't
put it in front of us unless it's a defense
international, novel approach to take. 15:03:12
I think we can put 9 into place and see what happens.
9 is to prevent fraud.
That's what that provision is meant to.
Mary, it's not meant to keep people from tree down to
protect their house, but it's meant to prevent be them 15:03:31
from taking the tree down and then knocking down the
house a year later or three months later in the case of
palm a tree a.
At my house one month later.
Because it's what fraudulent people try to do. 15:03:45
But let me clear this.
The only last concern on section 9, and I don't think
this is a big change, my concern is what if somebody
takes the tree down and then sells the property?
There's no notice to the person, to the buyer, to the 15:04:07

innocent buyer, that we have this limitation on that 15:04:11
home, okay?
So in other words they say, oh, yeah, I'll buy that
tear down.
And look, that grand tree was taken out the 15:04:23
illegally -- because it was taken out legally.
You could sell to the your brother-in-law.
You sell it to an innocent stranger and they would have
no way of knowing that restriction is on there, unless
I'm reading it wrong. 15:04:43
So what I was thinking about is we could be put
something on the title, or we could require that a
notice go on their property that specifically says this
property, warning, has a two-year hold, and then that
way when they go to do their title search as the 15:05:08
innocent purchaser, they will have the warning there
and that will puck up in the total.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Wouldn't it be on the title search?
>>DAVID SMITH: You could have something what's known as
a bona fide purchaser without knowledge. 15:05:27
What you want to do is have a provision in here that
records a notice that you have granted the right to
demolish a tree, and it's a condition in the
agreement -- not to demolish the building within two
years. 15:05:44

So you would have to put something in the public record 15:05:45
or the VFP.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Snelling, did you notify all
members of our committee that this meeting bass today 15:06:03
at 1:30?
>>> Yes.
>> I see one loyal person.
We have many loyal committee members.
>>THOM SNELLING: Everybody on the committee, sent them 15:06:14
an e-mail, sent them a matrix, sent them a copy of the
proposed language.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I submit to my fellow council
members it's an example of how comfortable they felt
that they are not all here. 15:06:25
But I'd love to hear from the one who is here if we
might.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison first.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I didn't want to talk about 9 yet.
So I guess now we are deep into 9. 15:06:36
So what does 9 mean?
I see that there's this out providing where you can
petition City Council somehow, and it becomes their
burden of proof that they didn't do anything
fraudulent. 15:06:53

>>DAVID SMITH: Mr. Harrison is talking about the second 15:07:00
issue, about whether or not this is Constitutional.
What the saving provision attempts to do is prevent any
regulatory challenge this is a taking within two years.
Think I without that saving provision the legal 15:07:23
department would not be recommending this to you, from
a legal perspective.
The problem with the two year prohibition is things can
come up. The house may have been more damaged by the
tree before than we anticipated meaning it could be a 15:07:37
legitimate mistake as opposed to a subterfuge.
Anything could happen.
So as long as there's some recourse for that property
owner, and under a legitimate circumstance, we think
that saves the regulatory -- hate to use the word 15:07:52
scheming but the regulatory process that we are
creating from being clearly unconstitutional.
But you're absolutely right.
It's an issue that we are concerned about.
And it requires a great deal of care and that's why we 15:08:06
have this in essence remedy provision in there for
those instances in which a remedy is appropriate.
But you're right.
It does put the ball back in your court.
>> What is the remedy provision? 15:08:18

>> That they come in here and they provide you factual 15:08:20
evidence that they really did, at the time, they wanted
to remove the tree to protect the house that was their
intent, but here's the what's come up.
One thing that could happen, the structural engineer 15:08:31
could say upon reviewing the property, we believe the
foundation is unsafe, it could collapse, there are
children in the neighborhood, people who live in the
house, et cetera, it is not safe to retain that
structure, it needs to be demolished. 15:08:45
Therefore would you issue a demolition permit.
>> But it is the property owner's burden of proof that
what they have done is not with fraudulent intent.
In other words, they come to us cloaked, I guess, with
the suspicion that what they did was improper so they 15:09:00
have to come in, they have to hire lawyers, they have
to come in themselves and they have to hire an expert.
But a burden is placed on them.
And so I guess my question would be, how can we -- is
there some way to increase the fine or increase the 15:09:18
penalty for someone who violates this, but it still
becomes -- it's still the city's responsibility to show
that they did something improper?
>>DAVID SMITH: You could take that approach.
I understand what you're asking, which in essence, if 15:09:41

the property owner, appears to be a subterfuge, which 15:09:45
if shifts the burden so to speak on the city.
>> Up to $15,000: Which is the state limit.
>>> The state limit is 15,000.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The 15,000 doesn't mean anything. 15:10:07
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The value of property in South Tampa
is so enormous, it really undermines thousands of
punitive --
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm really just directing my
questions to Mr. Smith for now. 15:10:19
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry.
>>DAVID SMITH: It's almost impossible to legislate for
good morality and good character.
If I'm really a dirt bag, I just take the tree down,
what can you do to me? 15:10:31
You can charge me $15,000.
Don't come in for permission.
I just take it down.
You're limited to $15,000.
So, I mean, I don't want to give you any illusion that 15:10:38
somehow we are going to prevent people from doing
things you don't want them to do.
So you could make the decision that in that light you
don't want to take the risk that's attendant to section
9. 15:10:53

I wouldn't want to let you believe we aren't somewhat 15:10:56
concerned about it but I would not elaborate my
concerns because we may be defending it some day and we
think it's defensible.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, you mentioned some of the 15:11:08
examples that you had sounded like emergency hazardous
removal.
Could you mention a fire?
You mentioned a tree that was doing structural damage.
Wouldn't that come under that emergency hazardous tree 15:11:25
removal where it says are not required?
>>> First I am only giving illustrations.
But I understood this came up in the context that a
property own worry say I need to remove this grand tree
because it's a structural hazard to my house. 15:11:42
So they remove the tree and then come back in in two or
three months with a demolition permit to knock down the
house.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Would you say, if somebody said that we
could make a motion to make sure that we put that in 15:11:58
the title search?
>>DAVID SMITH: There's two different questions here and
they are getting blended together.
Mr. Dingfelder's question is how do we make sure
innocent purchasers are on notice of this fact? 15:12:11

And we would put in the public record -- and Thom 15:12:14
assures me they record things in public notices -- if
there was some phenomenon that would identify the owner
of the property so it would show up in your title work,
if when you come along as a purchaser, so you would 15:12:28
know about it.
And that was the point, to make it known, so in
essence, also, your remedy here would then follow the
property more effectively, which is the issue that you
have, I think it was number 11 you were talking about 15:12:41
earlier.
Whether that was a factor.
>> And forgive me for -- because I'm really a little
green on this -- green -- but if you have a property
that's in an emergency situation, and, for instance, 15:13:00
you had that fire that you were talking about, and you
needed to remove the tree because it was closer to your
house and it had burned, wouldn't you want somebody to
go ahead and rebuild that house instead of waiting for
two years? 15:13:18
>>> Yes, we are only talking about the situation when
the order is in the reverse, meaning you remove the
tree because it's a threat to your house.
>> How do we make that distinction?
I mean you're talking to a lay person here. 15:13:30

>>> The way you make that distinction in the ordinance 15:13:33
is if you remove that tree and your reasoning is to
protect the structural integrity of the house, you are
not going to be allowed to obtain a demolition permit
for that house you're trying to protect for two years. 15:13:43
That's what the provision says.
>> But suppose you had the house that burned and the
tree was next to it that needed to be removed because
they wanted to build a new house, and it wasn't their
fault that the house burned down, but they needed to 15:14:00
remove that tree to build their house?
>>> That's a good question.
And I wasn't inextricably involved in this whole
process.
>> You understand? 15:14:12
>>> I certainly do.
Your question is do they get to remove the tree in that
instance?
>> And do they still have to wait the two years?
>>> The two year provision wouldn't apply in that 15:14:21
situation.
>> Understood that situation but that's not the way it
says here.
>>> Because you're reading the summary.
>> Yes, I'm reading the summary here. 15:14:30

>>> If you read the actual text. 15:14:32
>>DAVID SMITH: The actual ordinance deals with if you
have permission to remove the tree first because it
threatens the house and then come back and try to
remove the house. 15:14:45
So your situation is a different question.
That is, do I have to protect the tree in the course of
demolishing my house?
I don't know what the answer is.
I guess that depends on whether it's something you can 15:14:56
reasonably do.
But that's a different question.
>> Can you give me a different answer?
>>DAVID SMITH: I don't know how they make that
determination. 15:15:10
That's a good question.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The impetus for this effort came
from a many-page, very well thought out series of
recommendations that came from a group of sense,
Melanie, Higgins, and the original request was to look 15:15:25
at a five year stay of demolition, that this two year
is a highly watered down version of it and a
compromise, after much conversation.
>>DAVID SMITH: And so there's no confusion I am simply
trying to address the legal questions that were raised 15:15:47

by Mr. Harrison and Mr. Dingfelder. 15:15:49
I'm certainly by no means speaking for the
administration.
I heard the administration is not recommending section
9. 15:15:57
So just so that's on the record.
But we have looked at it.
And we believe it's defensible.
I heard somebody else was directed to do that, so
rather than put them in the awkward position I'll go 15:16:10
ahead and tell you.
But I'm directing the defensible aspect of the
legalities of it.
We looked at.
So we would rather you give us nothing but creme puff 15:16:19
stuff.
But we think it's permissible with the saving
provision.
Because the property owner has the ability to come back
in and explain the extenuating circumstances. 15:16:29
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's the whole key.
We are not saying we are going to be unreasonable
because Mr. Harrison has in his lap a half page
provision about, okay, if you get in this jam, okay,
where you have taken out the tree, but then something 15:16:44

happened, you know, fire, or the structural issue, or 15:16:48
some other thing, they have a clear opportunity to come
in front of us and tell us what the hardship is.
And if we believe them, then we grant it.
Yes, it is a little bit of a burden on them but they 15:17:02
had the benefit of having that tree taken out and it
was a grand tree which we all deemed to be important.
So I think it's fair.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public like to speak on
item 12? 15:17:15
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Except for Sue.
Kidding.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The rules tech particularly the
workshops --
Sue Lyon: Do you need to swear me or anything? 15:17:42
>>GWEN MILLER: No.
>>> My name is Susan Lyon.
I'm the official tree hugger for the City of Tampa.
I just was watching you on television and saw the tree
ordinance was coming up so I thought I would come in 15:18:00
case you needed some help.
And the part about taking down the tree really doesn't
go into what Mary was talking about.
I have a confession to make in front of God and
everybody. 15:18:20

I spoke to construction service busy taking down a tree 15:18:20
at one of my rental properties.
I thought Dave Jennings was going to have a heart
attack.
But he told me, I couldn't take it down. 15:18:28
I said these crazy tree huggers.
But if you make the application to take down a grand
tree, to save the construction of the house, you have
to prove that it's hurting your house.
Well, if you take down the tree to save the house, you 15:18:49
don't turn around and tear the house down the next day.
And we have had instances of that.
That they sold them and did bad things, and like Mr.
Smith said, if you're a dirt bag, you're a birth dag
and there's nothing you all can do. 15:19:05
We had one in our neighborhood, it was a grand tree,
it's on a non-buildable lot.
They still killed that tree.
We had to let them take it down.
It is up for sale right now with a for-sale sign even 15:19:16
though it's a nonbuildable lot.
We have got it marked on all the city records and
everything.
But somebody is going to get taken advantage of on this
one. 15:19:30

So we do the very best we can. 15:19:30
But you can't solve all the problems and you can't keep
people from being crooks.
We have a wonderful police department and they spend
all their time trying to save people. 15:19:43
And this is as good as we can figure out what was going
on.
I purposely didn't sit on the tree ordinance,
workshops, because I wanted other people's opinions on
it. 15:19:57
Everybody knows how I feel about the trees.
I try to hug 'em all.
You can't save 'em all.
There's certain one that is need to come down.
If they are in the lot you have to build a house on it, 15:20:08
you have to do it.
If you want to build a house and there's a tree there,
you can get permission to take the tree down O.it in
the roll already.
It's not a problem -- I mean it's a problem, but if you 15:20:21
are building a house and there's a grand tree in the
middle of the lot you can take it down.
I had to explain to a lot of people that that's a
permissible thing to do.
If there's no way to use that lot, we cannot deny you 15:20:34

the right to use your property. 15:20:37
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With VRB permission.
>>> Yeah.
You have to go through the hoops.
But we still cannot deny you the right to use your 15:20:45
property.
And none of us want to do that.
Land is too valuable in Florida.
Not just South Tampa.
You try buying a piece of land anywhere else in town 15:20:57
now, too.
$15,000 doesn't cut it.
We have to trust the people.
And we make the laws the best we can.
And it's not easy being green. 15:21:07
I have been green for a long time.
It's not easy.
I thank you all very much.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Sue, you have been obviously at this
for a long time. 15:21:22
And how often does it arise where you have a situation
like what has caused us to do number 9?
How many times?
>>> It's not real often.
Because in the beginning we didn't even put that in the 15:21:37

ordinance. 15:21:40
You could cut down a tree to protect a house.
That was not the original tree work that we did.
Linda brought it up that we needed to protect people's
homes if a tree was hurting it. 15:21:52
It has to come before a lot of hoops so people don't
usually do it unless it's serious.
But there had been three or four instances that I can
remember that were very blatant.
One in Palma Ceia particularly. 15:22:08
Everybody in the city had looked at this grand tree and
said you can't cut this tree down.
And finally they figured out a way to do it.
And the next day they sold it to a builder and they put
in townhouses. 15:22:24
And that's what brought it up,.
>> I'm just trying to think to save the expense and the
burden of having to come down in front of us.
What the possibility of the appeal or the initial
action when someone is under 9, they go to, I don't 15:22:42
know, somebody else, Gloria or construction services or
someone like that, and they are the experts.
They are the ones that have damage that is more
widespread or something like that. Making someone down
come before us. 15:23:07

>> I don't think there will be many people that will 15:23:07
come down before you.
If you put this in the rules then people know they
can't do it.
And 90% of the people won't do it. 15:23:17
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I guess if you are going to take the
tree down you aren't going to mess with this anyway.
>>> No.
You just pay a tree down.
>>> You make rules for honest people. 15:23:36
Downtown make rules for dirt bags because they aren't
going to follow them anyway.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
I thought of a question for the administration.
What's the administration think about 9? 15:23:45
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the administration here?
It not David.
>>GWEN MILLER: Talking about Thom Snelling, Gloria?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The administration, whatever that
means, doesn't like 9. 15:23:58
And I --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Parks and rec.
Karen Palus, parks and recreation.
One of the things that we shared with you all that we
discussed as a staff is some of the tracking mechanisms 15:24:14

and the ability to do that, and the other issue that we 15:24:17
were concerned about is the legal issue which Mr. Smith
spoke to. So those were the initial concerns that when
Cindy and I talked about those items that how do we
manage it, how do we track it, and then not taking I 15:24:30
shall on the property rights and I think Mr. Harrison
spoke to, today.
How do we manage it and what do we do about it?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is it the official position of the
administration they don't want us to act on number 9? 15:24:52
>>> Well, we were very concerned about those items,
specifically.
Right now there's not a way for us to manage that
information appropriately.
So that would be our recommendation at this time, until 15:25:05
we can look at it a little bit further and talk about
that somebody more.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have the ability to track
people who have been found, 9:just once but several
times in violation of the tree ordinance of cutting 15:25:23
things down, you know, the Saturday afternoon chain saw
massacre sort of thing, can you track that now?
>>> That is not my department but I believe we can.
I am going to pass to Cindy.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel like we need to have some 15:25:35

kind of recourse. 15:25:41
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why are we getting sidetracked?
>>> Because I think it's similar.
It people trying to do end roads and do we have the
ability to do anything about it and what does the 15:25:54
administration think about that?
(***)


>>Cindy Miller: There's the public service and there's
the public records as to what you look at in a title 15:30:53
search.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I suppose that becomes the City of
Tampa's, some staff member's responsibility.
And if we have the executive branch of city government
saying we are not ready to do this yet, I think I'm 15:30:56
just not -- I was at 49%.
Now I dropped back to 25%.
So it sounds like there's an issue there.
>>DAVID SMITH: As a dirt lawyer to be distinguished
from a dirt bag, the only way we can do this and not 15:31:12
create a VFP is to record to the what's known as the
recording statute.
By that I mean the State of Florida recording statute,
recording with the clerk's office, so that it shows up
in your deed search. 15:31:26

I don't know that the CSC records of that nature, you 15:31:28
just record -- or do you record in the public records?
You get an official record, book and page.
As long as we record in the official records then the
parties are on notice as long as it's been properly 15:31:43
indexed, which I'm sure the property owner will have a
legal description, Thom?
We are having a workshop here it seems like.
Do we have an ordinance?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me ask you this. 15:31:55
There's two demolition permits a week, or two or three
or four demolition permits a week.
There's 200 a year, okay?
If you had a list, a manual list, of these half
dozen -- we don't even issue that many -- these half 15:32:10
dozen homes we are talking about hanging in front of
the building permit reviewer, they wouldn't even have
to be computerized.
All they would have to do is just look at it.
>> Cindy Miller: And I think our issue is making sure 15:32:26
that the track it is land.
And most of our general public would not be going to
construction service center looking at the permit.
It would be the party having to look at the official
record that a title search would do. 15:32:39

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's a separate issue. Let's say 15:32:41
it's the same property owner, okay?
I just got my tree taken out.
A year later I'm going to come back in and pull my
demolition permit. 15:32:55
They take it to your department and ask for a
demolition permit.
That demolition permit reviewer could look at the list,
which is a very short list, of the homes that had this
hold placed on it. 15:33:09
>>> Let me make it easier because it's a workshop, it's
not first or second reading.
Let me get you the facts.
Because I think in fairness it's the type of thing
where, let me make sure as to what site can report, 15:33:18
what service center -- when we were asking questions on
a particular situation they said they could not capture
that data.
Let me see how it would be going prospectively and
before it comes before council so we can incorporate 15:33:36
into any comments before first reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: This is first reading.
>>> I'm sorry.
We'll Vermont between first and second.
>>GWEN MILLER: 15:33:46

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We need to add the language about 15:33:48
the title recording.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Everything but 9.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem if you do that it's just
going to linger and not get addressed. 15:33:56
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would rather move everything but
9.
>>> This is a workshop.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's not a workshop.
>>> We had it where no witnesses were being sworn. 15:34:10
>>GWEN MILLER: It's not a zoning.
>>> But in any event we still have some time to answer
the question.
But that's a policy and procedure matter as opposed to
something that that would necessarily change the 15:34:21
language on that.
So let me get you an accurate answer as opposed to
trying to guess as to what we can do.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we don't include it we can --
can we leave it in and see what the answer is? 15:34:44
If it's not administratively possible I can go along
with pulling it out on second reading.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And if we can't let people know.
>>> Cindy: This is our first step.
We will be back to you in 2006 with other changes in 15:35:03

the tree code. 15:35:05
So then Thom identified there are other changes that
have to be made within the code as it is now.
So maybe he can talk about those specific issues and
how it effects the reading and wording. 15:35:17
But we can come back to you with the information for
second reading or we can bring it forward when we next
come forward with other code changes because we know
there's going to be some in 2006.
>>THOM SNELLING: Setting that whole issue to the side 15:35:36
for just a second, I defer to legal's interpretation of
this.
There were some -- after we sent these comments around
to council we got back, there's one couple of sentences
that I would like to actually substitute from council 15:35:57
that we got back which helps clarify.
It has to do with the in lieu thing so that's a good
thing, has nothing to do with this section, that kind
of clarifies, and gives staff a little additional
direction, brings a little more clarity. 15:36:12
And I want to read that you language on page 15 of the
actual ordinance itself.
1, parenthesis, the director designee.
It currently reads at the third line down midway
through that a practical difficulty exists. 15:36:32

We are given language that -- and I'll read tout 15:36:35
verbatim: To show that a practical hardship exists
associated with the physical dimensions of the lot,
existence, the lot, existence of a protected tree or
similar physical constraints, the increase of density 15:36:49
or intensity of the development shall not be included
as a qualifying hardship.
That's the language we are being asked to bring back as
a proposal.
Staff looked at that and had a lot of conversation 15:37:02
about that and we feel that brings a little bit of
additional clarity to what a practical hardship is, or
a practical difficulty is.
It says that, yeah, the practical difficulty, but we
are not going to be looking at a practical difficulty 15:37:13
saying I want to get ten units versus being able to get
eight units.
That language kind of clarifies that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On page 15, where are you?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't see this. 15:37:26
>>THOM SNELLING: It's not in there.
I'm sorry.
That's why I read it to you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's too much to digest without
seeing it. 15:37:38

>>THOM SNELLING: Okay. 15:37:40
We are proposing -- we have read it and we wanted to
talk about it here a little bit.
We think it makes a lot of sense to have that further
clarification and we would like to make that actually 15:37:50
part of the ordinance, which I think --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You have to give it to us in print.
>>THOM SNELLING: Right.
So even if we made it, we would still not go for first
reading, correct? 15:38:04
Or no?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Why don't you bring it back next week
and that will give Cindy time.
It sounds to me like everything except for the
possibility of 9 will fly through. 15:38:19
And then we'll just discuss what's left on 9.
And have additional language here next week.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can we read this for first reading?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Motion to continue it to the next 15:38:29
meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion.
Did we get a second?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: To continue till next week. 15:38:38

At what time? 15:38:40
>>THOM SNELLING: The changes that we have -- I don't
think this would have to go to doc agenda.
>>GWEN MILLER: One week at what time?
Unfinished business? 15:39:05
Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you could get us that language 15:39:11
you were just reading.
>>THOM SNELLING: I will have it in your boxes tomorrow.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are ready for item number 97.
Workshop on stormwater.
This is a workshop. 15:39:23
The first one wasn't a workshop.
This is a workshop.
Ethics.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need a second. 15:39:35
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
(Motion carried).
>>DAVID SMITH: David Smith again from the city
attorney's office.
You have got two different sections down here, 97 and 15:39:44

98. 15:39:47
What I did was circulated a memorandum to each of you
along with the provisions to the ordinance.
We are requesting that you postpone consideration of
the gift treatment because the ethics commission had a 15:39:56
proposal that they had made with respect to a solution
for handling gifts.
We have prepared that along with two or three other
versions.
You have got four different gift versions. 15:40:08
And that needs to be reviewed by the ethics commission.
They haven't seen what we drafted.
As a courtesy to them we are requesting that we
postpone that, unless you decide you want to keep it
the way it is which you are certainly free to do. The 15:40:21
current version before you today deals with what I'd
call the glitch items.
And I'll briefly go through those.
But it makes no changes to the gift item.
So any action you take today is going to leave the gift 15:40:30
issue intact.
I guess, Marty, we are not taking any action today
since this is a workshop.
But that's what you have before you.
And I would recommend, if we come to you with gifts, we 15:40:40

do so, probably January 26th was the date we talked 15:40:46
about that would give you an opportunity to get all the
versions before you, look at them carefully, consider
it carefully, before we go forward on that item.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is it a requirement to come back 15:41:00
with the gift this year at all?
>>DAVID SMITH: No, it's not.
That's up to you.
If I could walk you briefly through the changes on the
glitch item, the first one expanding the definition of 15:41:11
lobbying.
What we have done is tried to capture those instances
where someone comes and visits with you or any other
government official.
Before something is officially pending. 15:41:21
Therefore they are not lobbying because nothing is
pending for approval, and their action is not
disclosable.
This captures that by saying if you have such a
meeting, and then you file knit any anytime within 12 15:41:32
months of that meeting you have to file your lobbying
disclosure.
Bear in mind it's just a disclosure.
Nonetheless it is a disclosure.
And if you think 12 months is too long a period of time 15:41:45

we can certainly shorten that. 15:41:48
If you think six months is sufficient.
Whatever you want to do, you know.
We put 12 because 12 months parallels the state
statute. 15:41:56
The definition of lobbyist is slightly contracted.
What we are proposing is that you delete governmental
and quasi-governmental officials who appear before you,
or touch base with any other official within the city,
with respect to governmental business. 15:42:14
For example, I may have phone calls with people in
D.O.T.
In fact we do that on a regular basis.
Technically one of those people that when you talk to
me you are supposed to file a lobbying disclosure. 15:42:25
Right now, those people are supposed to be filing
lobbying disclosures and we are recommending you
exclude them from the definition of lobbying so those
intersection that is happen quite frequently are not
subject to be that kind of disclosure. 15:42:39
Bear in mind it's only governmental, quasi-governmental
officials and only with respect to their governmental
business.
Yes, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Would that include Sports Authority? 15:42:47

>>DAVID SMITH: It would. 15:42:52
The third item is outside employment.
This was originally -- and I have a correction before
you, if you got your corrected version hopefully, there
was a reference to other than as provided in a 15:43:02
collective bargaining agreement.
That's we don't have any collective bargaining
agreement that addresses this issue.
Outside deals with all employees, not just appointed
officials. 15:43:16
Since it's all employees, we are going to have those
employees report to their department heads.
And deal with it at that level.
And then the department heads deal with it vis-a-vis
the mayor. 15:43:27
So the mayor does not provide written approval for all
5,000 employees.
That's going to be delegated to the department
directors.
The fourth provision is prohibited receipt of benefits. 15:43:36
Currently, there's a complete prohibition on doing
business with the city, period.
So if I work for the city, and my wife was working for
Verizon, we have a contract with Verizon, we now have a
problem. 15:43:49

It's more expansive than was intended. 15:43:51
So the intent here again, first parallel the state
provision, so that you cannot award any contract from
your department to someone who is related to you.
So if you have control over the contract, you can't 15:44:03
give it to a related person.
That should be clear.
That would be improper.
The other thing is, you can't exert any improper
influence elsewhere in the city. 15:44:13
So if my wife were a lawyer I clearly couldn't give her
a contract as a lawyer.
But not only that, I should not call Bonnie Wise and
say you really want to hire my wife the accountant, or
my wife. 15:44:25
That would also be improper.
So those things remain improper.
But it's not a violation just if you're related to
somebody who has a contract with the city which
unfortunately is pretty broad right now. 15:44:33
So second to the last issue is deleting the additional
voting conflicts.
Some of you may remember this came up, there was a very
extensive connection with whether you or anybody with
whom you were related might, either does or might have 15:44:50

a direct or indirect benefit from that that appears 15:44:53
before you, which is much more expansive than the state
law.
Our own ethics commission interpreted it parallel by
finding you have to have a direct benefit. 15:45:04
So the thing was if you are going to interpret it like
the state law we should interpret it as the state law
so we don't have any confusion.
Post appointment representation again is really
clarification. 15:45:16
The language indicated people employed after June 15,
1989, anybody who is still employed after June 15,
1989, the two years had already run, so base if I if
you are an employ when the city you have to wait two
years before you come back and lobby somebody with 15:45:31
respect to city issues.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Does that parallel state law?
>>> I'm not real sure.
State law had an odd concept awhile back that was
almost an entitlement to come back and appear in front 15:45:43
of the state authority.
And so they then turn people in.
We don't take the view there's entitlement and the harm
is intended to be prevented in misusing any information
you receive or possibly even shaping policy and going 15:45:57

out and taking advantage of that policy. 15:45:59
Those are the harms intended to be prevented.
As long as you have worked with the city after that
date that's what's really relevant and it's only
foreign two years. 15:46:11
So if you left more than two years ago you are not
prohibited anyway.
So it prevents the possibility of misusing office and
leaving immediately and taking advantage of it.
Yes, ma'am. 15:46:19
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So these changes that you're talking
about, they were reviewed by the ethics commission?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And these were their proposed changes for us?
>>> I wouldn't want to tell you the exact language. 15:46:30
Some of the language is mine but the concepts were
discussed.
The last issue is business entity.
I don't know that we spoke to the ethics commission
about that. 15:46:43
I think we did.
But the change in the definition is two fold.
One is we referenced business enterprise, and we also
clarified that the definition of business entity is not
limited to within the city. 15:46:53

So those are the two things to paragraph 7. 15:46:55
As you can see, those are all in the nature of glitch
bills or corrections.
I think they are consistent with the intent, initially.
I think they are consistent with the intent initially. 15:47:07
But now we have got clear language to carry that intent
out.
That's essentially where we are at.
If you have any comments or any direction to us, we
will bring this back, I assume, for a first reading. 15:47:17
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We can put this on first reading today
on a workshop?
>>> No.
We have to bring it back to you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Technically you can if you open the 15:47:32
floor and allow people to speak, you can bring it back
today if you wish.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to be speak on item number 97?
Move to close? 15:47:45
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It has to be a motion to open the
floor.
>>GWEN MILLER: We did.
I asked. 15:47:55

>>MARTIN SHELBY: It has to be by motion of council. 15:47:55
>>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open the floor.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a second?
Don't want to open fountain nobody second. 15:48:06
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Might as well be put on the consent
docket if you want for unfinished business for first
reading, unless you want --
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We are being asked to vote on
something we don't have in black and white. 15:48:20
>>GWEN MILLER: A motion to let the public speak.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's all we are doing.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We were doing that so we can vote on
the changes.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Exactly. 15:48:31
>>DAVID SMITH: You do have the changes before you.
The actual ordinance that has all the corrections with
the stricken and underlined type.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes to wait another we
can put it put it on the next agenda. 15:48:49
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I feel comfortable with those changes
because the ethics commission is pretty much the one
that directed our legal department to make the changes,
and to draft the ordinance.
That's why I'm happy with that. 15:49:03

But if you want to wait till next year, now -- next 15:49:05
week, it's fine with me.
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure?
Do you want to vote?
Let's make a motion, somebody. 15:49:14
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move we put this on for first
reading next week.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried) 15:49:20
Number 78.
We need --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Was that a motion to put it on the
pending calendar?
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 98. 15:49:29
>>DAVID SMITH: 97 and 98 may not be as functionally
strict as what we are speaking about. I think what you
are really doing is deferring the gift issues.
So you put it on the pending calendar.
Or move to the a day certain, whichever is your 15:49:41
pleasure.
>>GWEN MILLER: You say January 26th you still want
that date or what?
>>DAVID SMITH: If that's your pleasure to move forward
it with, January 26th is fine. 15:49:53

>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved. 15:49:54
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
January 26th.
>>GWEN MILLER: To continue 98 until January 26th.
>>DAVID SMITH: I think it's a little unclear to Mr. 15:50:03
Harrison.
They still bifurcated it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's fine.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which one are we voting on?
>>GWEN MILLER: 98. 15:50:14
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which is what?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Gifts.
>>GWEN MILLER: January 26th to what time?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Unfinished business if you like.
Or put it as a workshop. 15:50:23
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, do it at the end of the meeting.
Just put it at the end of the meeting.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay. 15:50:33
>>GWEN MILLER: Carried over.
Carried to next week.
We go to item number 99.
>> Cindy: Our presentation is about 20 minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have to open the workshop. 15:51:12

>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved. 15:51:14
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open the workshop.
(Motion carried)
Cindy Miller, director of business and housing 15:51:30
development.
I think what might be helpful is if I mention that this
is truly a preliminary workshop.
And after chuck does his presentation, I'll sort of
come back as to what next steps are. 15:51:42
But as a way of introduction, I would like to say that
chuck and I have been on board in our respective
positions for just about a year now.
So we have been working together on this with various
stakeholders, as a matter of fact we have either had 15:51:54
individual meetings or collective meetings together
with various members of the public, as well as entities
and builders that have an interest in it from the
construction standpoint.
A few months ago there was a public meeting that was 15:52:08
held where all of the neighborhood and civic
associations were invited, builders, and the
engineering community.
What we are basically going to do today is present a
summary of various changes in the stormwater technical 15:52:21

standards that we are presenting to you for your input, 15:52:26
and to address any questions you may have at this
preliminary basis, and then chuck will do the technical
presentation, and I'll be back to basically discuss
where we would go from here. 15:52:40
Thank you.
>>> Chuck Walter: If I could have the PowerPoint,
please.
I'll try to go through these.
The handout that I have given you on the front cover 15:52:53
page has basically the 8 bulletted items.
I think you can probably follow along on the screen on
this.
But I just wanted you to have a hard copy, so we are
going to be coming back to you a number of times with 15:53:04
this and you will have something you can reference.
To show up with the first item which is single-family
homes converting to commercial uses.
This is a very classic condition that we have in Hyde
Park and other areas where private family residential 15:53:17
homes have a commercial use and generally what happens
in those cases is that they need to put in a few
parking spaces, so it starts out.
Then it's a couple more, a couple more, and it becomes
accumulative issue for the neighbors that surround the 15:53:31

site. 15:53:34
And it's generally -- it never trips any triggers is
the problem, because these are small sites.
So they never trip a trying theory says that we need to
now have stormwater code and stormwater issues involved 15:53:44
with our site.
And woo we are basically proposing at this stage is
that when you come in and rezone your property into a
commercial use, we are going to say that, okay, you are
going to have your site is a new site, you are going to 15:53:57
need to put in stormwater provisions, for your entire
site, as if it were new.
Now generally speaking, that type of retrofit would
have been very difficult for a property owner.
And this is the first time that you are going to see 15:54:11
this introduction of a trench system.
And I am going to discuss it again in a couple options.
But it's an underground system that's reallytively
inexpensive and easy to install and will still allow a
property owner to have roughly speaking full use of 15:54:24
their site.
It's basically a 2 by 2 trench filled with a large pipe
in the center that will allow for some infiltration of
surface water and allow the site to still be used.
These are examples of these types of properties. 15:54:42

Yes, ma'am. 15:54:45
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Doesn't this have to have the approval
of the neighbors around them?
And doesn't it depend on what type of business that
they want to put in? 15:54:55
>>> Yes, ma'am, it does.
If they are going through the rezone process, it will
go through that normal progression.
What we are saying is this is one of the stormwater
provisions that will be addressed when they go through 15:55:05
that process, that this would be like an automatic
aspect of doing that rezone.
But you will have to bring your site up to stormwater
standards.
>> But if they are in, say, an RS-50 or single-family 15:55:19
area, and they are on a collector street, or arterial,
and it's nothing but neighborhoods, there's no other
commercial areas around them, how can they even attempt
to put in a commercial use in there?
>>> That would be totally up to that rezone process. 15:55:39
Stormwater wouldn't guide that issue. But if that
usual you was going through, this would be tacked onto
it.
So as they are going through the rezone this is just
something to be put on that rezone because it would 15:55:50

have to go through full land use consideration. 15:55:52
>>> Cindy Miller: There are also certain structures
along, say, Azeele and Swann where there was the area
that there are single homes where they can be utilized
for commercial purposes. 15:56:07
So again there's some areas rezoned that could be used
in both ways in our planning.
It also would have to apply as permits are being issued
for the these kinds of conversions that would not take
a rezoning. 15:56:18
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
I'm sorry.
>>> Oh, no, I encourage you.
This is another example of that type of facility, over
time increase it is amount of impervious area. The 15:56:30
next one we are talking about here is the two-year
look-back.
This is the provision that you are already a commercial
site, and you are, over time, adding a parking space,
adding a parking space, and you never break the 10,000 15:56:44
square foot threshold of a single activity that will
kick in a stormwater regulation.
Right now there's basically a two-year look-back for
accumulative process to decide if you get that 10,000
square feet and we are suggesting it be extended to 15:57:00

five years to increase that window of look back so you 15:57:03
don't have somebody waiting for that deadline, then
they add two spaces, then they add two spaces.
And very typical commercial type.
They buy the lot next door, then put in two spaces, 15:57:17
then put in two more.
Here's basically the city's first attempt to really put
a cap on the amount of impervious area.
There is today, you could go out on a residential lot,
and make your entire site, property line to property 15:57:34
line impervious.
And what we are saying is we need to put a cap on that.
And our first blush is 85%.
If you feel like that's a reasonable number log at the
character of much of what's developing around town. 15:57:52
Also, this is again where we start to introduce the
trench system for residential properties, when you go
over the 50% threshold.
And what we are suggesting is that 85% threshold will
stay there, and anytime that you come in for a permit, 15:58:07
that issue will be readdressed.
And if the permit requires a survey.
And here's a very prime example of where that condition
would be met.
This is a large home in South Tampa. 15:58:20

They are very near the 85% threshold. 15:58:22
And now they decide, they are under it, though.
They fit under the 85% threshold but they decide they
want to expend that walkway that's in front of the
property and put in a nice paved area. 15:58:33
That's where we would trip the trigger.
We would say, oh, you're getting too close to that 85%.
You can't go over 85%.
If they are required to have a survey as part of their
permitting process. 15:58:46
Because that's the only way you can measure is when
they come in from W a set of surveys showing that
information.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: This is happening all over Tampa.
>>> Yes, ma'am. 15:58:59
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 85% strikes me as a modest -- what
you're saying is that only 15% of the site has to be
impervious.
And that's so little.
How did you come up with 85%? 15:59:15
>>> A good question.
As part of the stormwater rate study, we went around
and evaluated basically all of the properties in Tampa,
and how much impervious area they have.
That's how we came up with the scale on how people were 15:59:27

assessed. 15:59:30
And what we really saw was that the average,
particularly in South Tampa area where this is a bigger
concern, the average was 65% as it sits today.
So when you look, if it's 65%, you have already got 15:59:41
quite a few that are over that number, and not that
many that are under the 50%, so what we felt like was
we didn't want to put a huge barrier in place.
But with the average being 65, 65.9, something like
that, that 85% was not unreasonable, and within kind of 15:59:59
a mean range of what is existing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I honestly think it's too modest.
I honestly think that 80% is more reasonable.
That's only saying that 20% of a lot, if you have a
6,000 square foot lot, that's saying that 20% -- just a 16:00:19
little tiny bit.
A little over 1,000 square feet is going to be not
permeable.
Given the stormwater issues that we see happening, and
given the fact that what used to be a yard is now 16:00:36
becoming a homesite, I think 85% is not just enough.
I think it should be 80%.
Or 75%.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We started at setbacks.
You couldn't strike that because those could be parked. 16:00:54

This. 16:00:58
>> But if you start with a piece of dirt and then a
typical RS-50 or 6 S 20 you could only --
>>> Structures, No. though not impervious.
>> I know. We could start there and say that's house 16:01:12
house footprint.
We could say that's your typical driveway.
That's your typical driveway.
And what else do you need to be impervious?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Your pool. 16:01:23
>>> Pools are generally considered not impervious
because the general construction technique in Tampa is
that they don't have automatic pop-offs so they do
actually hold back water.
People have to drain their pools in Tampa. 16:01:38
Many places that I have been, pools have automatic pop
offs, and when they have that, then you do need to
consider them as impervious.
But if they don't have an automatic pop-off, basically
after the storm event, it stops raining, then people go 16:01:54
out and drain their pool, which when you look at impact
to the system that's okay.
That's not an impact to the system because they are
doing it while it's not raining.
So that's the logic behind the pool. 16:02:03

>> So is that how you are going to write it into your 16:02:06
standard?
>>> It's already in there, that the pool doesn't count
for that construction technique issue.
>> Is it the pool or just a pool without a pop-off? 16:02:14
>>> Again, we have talked to CSE about this.
What is the standard -- people don't build pools with
pop-offs.
It's just local construction technique.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The entire front yard can be paved, 16:02:27
then you have your structure, then you have paving on
the side, and you have the pool as your impervious
surface.
And you meet the 80 or 85% requisite.
But the reality is, every square inch of your lot is 16:02:41
covered with hardened material.
>>> It would be a very large pool, but yes.
>>> MARY ALVAREZ: Take this example.
Said that is close to 85%.
Suppose this owner decided to put in another driveway 16:03:11
or something.
He would do it to the left or would he do it to the
right?
And what would constitute the 85% in there?
>>> The additional driveway. 16:03:24

He would have his existing survey on-site, on file. 16:03:27
And he would come in and say, I want to add this amount
of impervious area.
When we look at it on file we say, you're over the 85%.
You may not. 16:03:38
>> And how close is he did you say to this?
You said he was close to 85% here?
>>> Right.
>> So he couldn't come to you and say I want to put a
driveway in here? 16:03:52
>>> Right.
>> Gotcha.
>>GWEN MILLER: You may continue.
>>> Cindy and I were starting to say what kind of
survey requirements? Because the kind of thing we hear 16:04:10
about and hear horror stories about is they put in more
fill than they said they were going to, and they didn't
build what they said they were going to build, and now
it's backing up water onto my lot, and we said, well,
gee, we need to develop some survey standards. 16:04:25
And so we started going down that road and started
talking to the city surveyor, and basically we have all
the survey requirement that is we would need.
What we don't have is a back check.
We don't have as -- an as-built requirement, that would 16:04:38

go a long way to resolve these issues. 16:04:43
Because then, even a year or two after they are done,
and suddenly decides to bring in fill after the project
is complete, we would have something to check it it
against to make sure they brought in fill. 16:04:54
Six inches of fill in some of these back yards is
nearly impossible to see after sod has gone in.
And that happens all the time and that's what blocks
people's drainage and that's what we get a lot of calls
about. 16:05:10
So this as built requirements, it's frankly the most
significant issue that's on the table.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does the survey include elevations?
>>> Yes.
>> So not your typical survey? 16:05:24
I mean, doesn't your typical survey that I have, I
think, just shows where the house is and where the
driveway is.
>>> The existing provisions for survey in our existing
code has topography and others as well. 16:05:35
It has TOPO shots.
Even on the adjacent properties to show how water
leaves, the excite.
So those are shown in the planned stage.
Sher not shown after they are finished. 16:05:47

As built. 16:05:50
Very significant issue.
And just a very typical extra survey task.
We do hear from the development community, are adding a
task, are going to slow down our site plan and CO. 16:06:03
But we really feel this is an important provision.
Stormwater facilities to increasing the current four
feet, whatever the standard easement would require.
We are a big issue.
And here is a real good prime example. 16:06:19
Has a four-foot setback and right to the line of what's
required.
But that building -- this one is fortunate.
But it's open and obvious to the homeowner but that
home owner is basically relying on the structural 16:06:34
integrity of that stormwater slew to hold up his
garage.
And we definitely put him on notice that this is his
issue.
He's doing it at his risk. 16:06:44
But we shouldn't subject people to this.
Many people don't understand the implications.
Particularly if it was a pipe underground that they
wouldn't even see.
So we are saying basically we need to extend the 16:06:54

setbacks when there is a stormwater facility within a 16:06:57
property line, or in the area.
And it's mostly to protect the future property owners
that will have that property.
Here's another real big one that we have seen over and 16:07:07
over.
And I think most of the council members heard about
this from residents.
No in-fill permitted within three feet of the property
line to reduce impacts and adjacent properties. 16:07:18
Somebody wants to come in particularly down in the New
Tampa and South Tampa.
They need to get their house up above, the storm search
elevations so they bring in fill.
You look at it from one side and say, well, you brought 16:07:30
in fill, looks like you have been able to keep it away
from the trees so the trees will be okay.
But on the other side, it's horrendous.
And this is not uncommon.
And by at least going with a 3-foot setback on all fill 16:07:43
near the property line basically know it will change
the development character in these areas to a stem wall
construction.
People are going to have to build on stem wall -- you
see the erosion has already formed and is looking to 16:08:03

impact the adjacent property owner. 16:08:06
Yes, ma'am?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: These are all really good
recommendations but this one in particular I have had
so many complaints about. 16:08:14
I'm so pleased you're bringing this to us.
Thank you.
>>> The two next ones are a little more staff intensive
issues.
Basically South Tampa also had a significant 16:08:26
abandonment of the existing drainage system.
The swales in much of South Tampa have been abandoned
over time and filled in.
And what we are basically saying is that needs to be
corrected. 16:08:40
This is something that you may hear about over time
because this is a public-private partnership that we
are talking about.
It would be too difficult we feel to put all of this
requirement on the property owner when they want to 16:08:49
come in and put in a driveway, to go out and survey and
reestablish he will slayings -- elevations.
When these cases occur the city will do that.
We will go out and do the engineer and survey needed so
the correct pipe size is inscheduled. 16:09:04

What that's going to do and mean in reality is the 16:09:07
first property on the blowing bock block may have to
wait a little while to get a permit because we will
have to go do that work.
Then everybody else that comes in on that block will be 16:09:18
able to take advantage of that information.
But it would be too expensive for to us do it all at
once, and we have taken some rough numbers that we
think we can keep up on it, we can contract it out, we
can address this issue over time. 16:09:32
It may take us -- if nobody is putting in driveways it
really doesn't matter.
But this is an important one to reestablish that
drainage system in South Tampa.
We are going to basically create a similar GIS coverage 16:09:48
to the red-line list, so that these areas will know
that this is an issue with our neighborhood.
We will probably try to consider some kind of public
outreach on this issue as well so people are on notice
this is an issue so people might want to take an extra 16:10:03
one or two weeks.
And this is a very classic example, people fill in the
ditch, and this causes a lot of our road flooding down
in South Tampa.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Council, this one was a little 16:10:23

confusing to me when I first heard about it. 16:10:25
I have mixed feelings about it.
Basically what Mr. Walters is saying, that if you
construct a new house and new driveway, then you have
to put in the new culvert underneath that driveway, 16:10:38
even if it doesn't go anywhere right away.
>>> Right away.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I went to the meeting that he
had out in the community on this issue.
And there was some grumbling about this concept. 16:10:52
I don't know how loud the grumbling was, but there was
clearly a little bit of grumbling in the industry about
this concept because basically what we are doing is
sort of mothballing the ability to create this drainage
system down the road. 16:11:09
When the new house goes in on that street and you put
the culvert on the driveway, I imagine you just cap it
off?
>>> Fill it with dirt.
>> Fill it with dirt or whatever. 16:11:19
But when we get another ten houses on the same block,
we can connect them and recreate the drainage system.
And that's the intent of this.
>>> Correct.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, so even the first 16:11:29

piece, we are going to put in that piece -- 16:11:35
>>: Although it looks silly.
>> You know what?
We are seeing the pieces connect.
It just takes a long time. 16:11:46
>> Hopefully we can reestablish the drainage system.
>>> Very accurate.
This last one is kind of a technical issue.
If you are going to put in a stormwater pond or this
trench system on your site, we need to basically have 16:12:00
people make sure that we are, A, dischargers to the
city system, doesn't go onto your neighbor, and B,
where it does discharge to the city system, it's
something hardened, it's something fixed so that we
don't end up with an erosion problem, so we don't end 16:12:16
up with unintended consequences to have all water
moving across the site.
Another is kind of a technical issue but we have seen
it to be a pretty significant one.
When it does exceed the five-year storm event it pops 16:12:31
off.
It goes in the neighbor's yard next door because there
is no provision on how that system would outflow.
There's one last point that I would like to make that's
not on this list because it doesn't involve the 16:12:43

technical standards. 16:12:45
And that's going to be when Thom comes back to you with
the rezone rewrite.
We are going to ask during the rezones that developers
show their stormwater management system in concept. 16:12:54
That's a new thing.
That's one of the Gans in the process that the public
doesn't really have a sense whereof the ponds would be
on the site during the rezone.
And it's actually something that people care a lot 16:13:07
about.
It also has to Po tension to impact trees and other
issues on their site.
So we would like to have that issue considered and
addressed pictorially during the rezone process. 16:13:16
So you will see that as Tom brings forward the
provisions to the rezone.
And Cindy, do you want to close it off?
>>> Cindy Miller: At this point, this would be
developed with these changes into ordinance form. The 16:13:35
process is as it is with other codes and technical
manuals, that it would have to be submitted to the
Planning Commission for their approval as to
consistency of the comprehensive plan and would have to
come back to you for two read he isings. 16:13:48

This is a workshop so I don't believe you can take any 16:13:50
official action on it.
But we would from this point take it forward into
putting it into ordinance form for your consideration.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is excellent. 16:14:01
I think it's long overdue.
My only question, is it tough enough specifically in
terms of the 85% of impervious surface?
You don't have to answer that.
My question is, are you going to be taking this to 16:14:12
T.H.A.N.?
Are you going to be taking it to the neighborhoods for
their input?
>>> One thing as I mentioned in our public hearing --
not public hearing, public meeting -- is that we had 16:14:22
invited every neighborhood association, civic
association to attend that.
So that went through as well as to contractors, as well
as to engineering.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Very little neighborhood showed up. 16:14:34
>>> But again we will be back before you as well to be
able to take this information.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I specifically request you take this
to beach front homeowners and sunset, because they have
probably the most egregious examples in the entire city 16:14:55

of problems with this. 16:14:57
>>> Walters: We'll be sure to use Shannon and talk to
the president.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: In response to your question, "is
this tough enough?" 16:15:09
It's my understanding the technical standards started
out a little bit tougher.
Though got watered down a little bit as it ran through
the process.
That's about all. 16:15:21
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we are hearing from developers I
want to make sure that we are hearing --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since chuck has been on board,
apparently there were stricter things being proposed.
And then by the time they got to us, they are a little 16:15:34
looser, although frankly still -- they are still good.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the workshop.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh move to close.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
(Motion carried). 16:15:50
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion to bring it back.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Need a motion to send to the
Planning Commission?
>>> When we write the code we'll bring it back to
transmit. 16:16:01

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One brief comment. 16:16:01
I have been meeting with different people who are very
interested in Tampa being a green city, a sustainable
community.
This is good business stuff. 16:16:08
There are lots of more creative things we can do to
incent sustainability.
I have had an opportunity to talk about it with Mr.
Walters and I think the community is going to come to
the spring and say these are things we'd like to see. 16:16:21
This is like good basic stuff.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
We are going to go to our audience portion.
Anyone in the audience that would like to speak.
16:16:32
(Meeting adjourned.)