Tampa City Council
Thursday, February 16, 2006
9:00 a.m. session
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this transcript was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
09:07:31 [Sounding gavel]
09:07:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:07:33 The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
09:07:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:07:38 It gives me extreme pleasure this morning to introduce
09:07:42 my favorite pastor, Father Joe Pusateri with the OLPH
09:07:51 church and also my fellow Rotarian at the Ybor City
09:07:55 Rotary Club.
09:07:56 He's also a chaplain.
09:07:58 So he will lead us in the invocation.
09:07:59 Please stand for the invocation and keep standing for
09:08:02 the pledge of allegiance.
09:08:05 >>> Thank you, Mary, for your warm welcome.
09:08:07 Madam Mayor, worthy counselors, let us pray.
09:08:15 Lord God and father, we thank you for this our city.
09:08:21 We now pray for the City of Tampa, its mayor and her
09:08:29 As we pray we recall the city of God, your city, which
09:08:33 is a theme in your holy book.
09:08:35 Your city is a city of peace, justice, brotherhood,
09:08:39 and security.
09:08:41 Your city is a city where you are honored.
09:08:46 We pray that the City of Tampa will more and more
09:08:50 reflect your city, and in its term become a model for
09:08:54 other cities.
09:08:56 Send to this City Council your Holy Spirit, and grant
09:09:00 with great wisdom and profound understanding of the
09:09:04 needs of the people of Tampa.
09:09:07 We pray for the employees of the city, especially for
09:09:10 those whose work puts them in dangerous or life
09:09:14 threatening situations.
09:09:16 We pray for favorable weather.
09:09:19 We pray for sufficient income for the city to function
09:09:22 efficiently without burdening its citizens.
09:09:26 We thank you for the decreasing crime rate, and we ask
09:09:30 for even less crime and more security for our citizens
09:09:33 of Tampa and its tourists and especially at Gasparilla
09:09:39 We pray for jobs, with dignity, for all who are
09:09:43 willing and able to work.
09:09:45 Protect the city, Lord, from fire, epidemics,
09:09:51 earthquake, floods, tsunami, and especially
09:09:55 May people of various races and different social
09:09:58 strata live here in harmony.
09:10:01 We pray for our citizens in the military.
09:10:04 Keep them from harm's way and bring them back safely
09:10:07 to their families.
09:10:10 Lord, shower your blessings on the City of Tampa.
09:10:14 Keep it always in your favor.
09:10:16 We make this prayer with humble hearts and for your
09:10:18 glory, each in his or her own way.
09:10:30 (Pledge of Allegiance).
09:10:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:10:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
09:10:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:10:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:10:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:10:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:10:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:10:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:10:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Dingfelder.
09:10:54 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time I turn it over to Mary
09:10:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We are going to have a special called
09:11:00 CRA meeting.
09:11:01 Roll call, please.
09:11:06 >>THE CLERK: We need to recess council.
09:11:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We will go into recess for just a few
09:11:12 minutes, about five minutes, then come back to
09:11:26 (City Council in recess)
09:11:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: CRA is now in session, called to
09:12:07 Roll call, please.
09:12:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:12:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:12:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:12:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:12:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:12:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:12:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:12:22 We just have one item that we have to take care of
09:12:24 this morning.
09:12:25 So we are going to defer to Mr. Territo, our counsel.
09:12:34 >>SAL TERRITO: Good morning.
09:12:38 Formally submits to you the zoning recommendation.
09:12:40 They have reviewed the second amendment of the CRA
09:12:45 police department site plan and have recommended
09:12:48 What they are asking you to do today is receive it and
09:12:51 submit to the City Council.
09:12:52 We already have a public hearing set for 9:30 for next
09:12:54 week for City Council.
09:13:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So is this the existing document we
09:13:08 have already seen a few weeks ago an and voted on?
09:13:12 We transmit this?
09:13:14 >>SAL TERRITO: Yes.
09:13:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No changes?
09:13:17 >>SAL TERRITO: No.
09:13:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Garcia, good morning.
09:13:21 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff. The
09:13:23 Planning Commission at their regular meeting this past
09:13:26 Monday, February 13th, heard comments regarding
09:13:29 the proposed CRA amendments to the old police station
09:13:33 site, CRA area, and they unanimously approved the
09:13:38 I have copies to receive and file for you all this
09:13:49 >> Move to receive.
09:13:50 >> Received.
09:13:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a motion to move the
09:13:56 resolution and second.
09:13:58 All in favor?
09:13:59 >>SAL TERRITO: I apologize.
09:14:02 I had a substitute for the exhibits.
09:14:04 I didn't have colors.
09:14:07 I'll pass those out, if I may, as well.
09:14:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You know, you are really confusing me.
09:14:17 >>SAL TERRITO: I confuse well.
09:14:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It doesn't take much.
09:14:21 All right.
09:14:21 Do we do it now?
09:14:23 All right.
09:14:23 We have a motion and a second to move the resolution.
09:14:27 All in favor please indicate by saying Aye.
09:14:33 I just want to remind you, this is not a public
09:14:36 hearing, this is just to move a resolution.
09:14:38 We will have a public hearing on February 23rd at
09:14:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all documents.
09:14:48 >> Second.
09:14:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Indicate by saying Aye.
09:14:51 Motion passes.
09:14:52 >>SAL TERRITO: I would ask you, if you works have a
09:14:55 special CRA meeting next week, about five minutes, at
09:14:59 There is a change to the agreement that the City
09:15:01 Council and CRA approve for East Tampa, a minor
09:15:05 change, it does require a change in contract which you
09:15:07 approved back in November.
09:15:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
09:15:11 Is that all right?
09:15:11 We need a motion.
09:15:14 >> So moved.
09:15:15 >> Second.
09:15:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Motion next week for 8:45.
09:15:20 8:45 sharp.
09:15:22 8:30 for the ones that can't make it.
09:15:25 All in favor please indicate by saying Aye.
09:15:28 Motion passes.
09:15:28 Thank you.
09:15:29 This meeting is adjourned.
09:15:30 (CRA meeting adjourned)
09:16:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
09:16:22 Roll call.
09:16:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:16:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:16:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:16:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:16:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:16:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:16:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:16:29 At this time we are going to yield to Ms. Rose Ferlita
09:16:32 who will do the Officer of the Month.
09:16:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: I guess we are back on track now.
09:16:47 Good morning, Madam Chairman, colleagues, ladies and
09:16:50 Good morning as well.
09:16:51 As always it is my pleasure to present the Officer of
09:16:55 the Month, and as always I'm honored to share the
09:17:03 podium with the chief so he can say why he chose
09:17:06 officer Cruz.
09:17:07 >>CHIEF HOGUE: Thank you very much.
09:17:10 Again, I would like to say thank you to council for
09:17:15 taking the time to recognize a police officer each
09:17:19 This month it's officer Alvin Cruz.
09:17:22 And Alvin is one of the main reasons, along with lot
09:17:29 of other police officers, that the crime rate is
09:17:31 coming down in the City of Tampa at significant levels
09:17:34 each year.
09:17:36 Myself and the major, you know, we work behind a desk
09:17:40 and really don't do much other than just kind of give
09:17:43 It's officers like officer Cruz here who are out there
09:17:47 every day really making a difference for the citizens
09:17:49 of Tampa.
09:17:50 I would like to read agent synopsis of why we selected
09:17:52 him as Officer of the Month for February.
09:17:56 Officer Alvin Cruz is a proactive officer who in one
09:18:01 month arrested six felony suspects, recovered victims'
09:18:05 property and removed a loaded semiautomatic handgun
09:18:09 from the street.
09:18:10 The successful month began with a traffic stop, where
09:18:12 a passenger was spotted holding a can of beer.
09:18:16 Officer Cruz and his partner began asking the
09:18:18 passenger for identification.
09:18:19 He gave a false name and fled on foot.
09:18:22 During the lengthy foot chase officer Cruz saw the
09:18:26 passenger was armed with a handgun.
09:18:30 Cruz called for additional units, and captured the
09:18:34 career criminal with a violent past.
09:18:36 Two weeks later officer Cruz grabbed two more felons
09:18:39 from the streets of Tampa.
09:18:41 After a BOLO went out on a CVS robbery officer Cruz
09:18:46 quickly spotted the getaway car, managed to detain the
09:18:50 two suspects until officer arrived with the victim who
09:18:54 identified both of them as the armed robbers. The
09:18:56 very next day, officer Alvin Cruz again arrested
09:18:59 several felons who were in the process of victimizing
09:19:03 citizens of our community.
09:19:04 He was the first to respond to an apartment complex
09:19:06 where several suspects had burglarized three cars.
09:19:09 He quickly searched the parking lot and discovered
09:19:12 three burglars hiding in a car.
09:19:14 Without hesitation, officer Cruz confronted and
09:19:19 arrested the suspects.
09:19:19 This officer's diligence and quick thinking led to the
09:19:22 successful capture of six felons including a career
09:19:27 The outstanding efforts of officer Cruz have earned
09:19:30 him the Tampa Police Department Officer of the Month
09:19:33 award for February 2006.
09:19:41 We are very proud of officer Cruz.
09:19:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Chief, thank you.
09:19:47 And I don't want to alter your presentation but I
09:19:51 think the fact he said he doesn't do much, under the
09:19:58 leadership of achieve who says he doesn't do much and
09:20:01 does tons of stuff I think I want to correct that and
09:20:05 congratulate you and the men and women of TPD for
09:20:08 coming back with those type of stats.
09:20:09 It's great, impressive and certainly should make our
09:20:12 citizens feel safe.
09:20:13 With that being said, officer Cruz, in behalf of the
09:20:16 council and the City of Tampa that we represent, it's
09:20:19 my pleasure to read this to you.
09:20:23 Tampa City Council commendation presented to officer
09:20:25 Alvin Cruz, in recognition of his outstanding service,
09:20:28 officer Alvin Cruz has been selected as the Officer of
09:20:30 the Month for February of 2006.
09:20:33 His frequent arrests to remove felons and career
09:20:36 criminals from the streets of Tampa, for making our
09:20:38 city a safer place, the City Council and City of Tampa
09:20:41 commends you, and I as public safety chairman
09:20:44 particularly say thank you, because you certainly had
09:20:46 a lot to do with the stats.
09:20:50 Thank you for what you do.
09:20:52 And now some of our corporate citizens would like to
09:20:54 say thank you in their own way, too.
09:20:56 So if they will come up.
09:21:01 >>> Danny Lewis from Bill Currie Ford.
09:21:04 Officer cruise, I am honored to be here this morning
09:21:06 to present you this watch and thank you personally for
09:21:09 all the hard work you do in making our city a much
09:21:12 safer place to work and to live.
09:21:14 Thank you very much.
09:21:23 >>> Hyde Park first command financial planning, on
09:21:26 behalf of my firm I would like to thank you for
09:21:28 keeping our community safe, a great place to live, and
09:21:32 here's a couple of gifts for you.
09:21:35 You might want to put them all down.
09:21:37 You are going to have your hands full in a moment.
09:21:39 But thank you.
09:21:40 And outstanding work for you and your fellow police
09:21:50 >>> Steve Stickley representing Stepp's towing
09:21:54 Officer Cruz, on behalf of Stepp's towing service we
09:21:59 would like to thank you for your contributions that
09:22:02 you give out there on the streets and your hard work
09:22:04 on keeping Tampa safe.
09:22:08 We would like to present this statue to officer Alvin
09:22:13 We also have a gift certificate to Outback.
09:22:15 Thank you very much.
09:22:17 We appreciate it.
09:22:20 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Good morning, officer.
09:22:23 Steve Michelini here on behalf of a couple of
09:22:26 different folks who would like to honor you.
09:22:28 One of them is Bryn Allen studios, would like to
09:22:31 present with you a gift certificate to have your
09:22:33 pictures taken, you and your family and friends, have
09:22:38 your portrait done.
09:22:39 Hillsborough County towing association would like to
09:22:42 present with you a $50 gift certificate to Carabbas or
09:22:46 Outback of your choice, Po boy's creole cafe, your
09:22:52 choice, $50 gift certificate.
09:22:54 And last but not least, list development and Bern's
09:22:58 steakhouse are providing you with a $100 gift
09:23:01 certificate to enjoy dinner at their establishment.
09:23:05 Congratulations and thank you for keeping Tampa a safe
09:23:16 >>> Jorge, we would like to thank you for all the work
09:23:20 you are doing in our community.
09:23:21 After all the dinners you can go to the movies for you
09:23:26 and your family.
09:23:31 >>> Representing Intervision eye care and eye wear.
09:23:34 On behalf of all of our doctors and staff we want to
09:23:37 present officer Cruz with an award for a free pair of
09:23:41 Ray Ban so he can look cool in the pictures after
09:23:45 going to dinner and everything else.
09:23:53 >>> Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo would like to present you
09:23:56 with a few tickets to the zoo.
09:23:59 And future successes.
09:24:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Officer Cruz again, thank you, on
09:24:14 behalf of our corporate sponsors who stepped forward,
09:24:17 we appreciate your support as well.
09:24:19 Would you like to say a few words, help carrying all
09:24:22 your presents out?
09:24:23 >>> Officer Cruz: I would like to thank the chief,
09:24:26 the major, and all those who are responsible for
09:24:28 selecting me as Officer of the Month.
09:24:30 I sincerely appreciate all these gifts.
09:24:33 I would like to finally say, you know, I love this
09:24:36 job, and take great honor in knowing that I am out to
09:24:40 make a difference and making the City of Tampa a safe
09:24:44 Thank you.
09:24:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chairman, do you think it's
09:24:52 safe to say that this officer's zone is clearly on
09:24:56 "cruz control"?
09:25:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Officer Cruz, I also want to tell you
09:25:03 the representative could not be here from but they
09:25:11 will be sending tickets as well.
09:25:16 From at the aquarium.
09:25:17 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time I need a motion to move
09:25:19 the public comments to after approval of the agenda.
09:25:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:25:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:25:25 (Motion carried).
09:25:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Does any council member have any items
09:25:29 they need to move?
09:25:31 Ms. Saul-Sena.
09:25:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this the time to bring up
09:25:36 Number 22 under my committee is a resolution of
09:25:40 Chamber of Commerce.
09:25:42 I would just like a staff person to come and fill us
09:25:45 in on the marketing that they are doing for the money
09:25:47 that we are giving them.
09:25:49 Thank you.
09:25:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other items?
09:25:54 Now we'll go to our staff.
09:25:58 I have Cate O'Dowd.
09:26:01 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Assistant city attorney.
09:26:04 I am here on a non-agenda item.
09:26:07 On January 5th, City Council passed two
09:26:09 resolutions scheduling plan amendments for this
09:26:12 One of the resolutions was for seven small-scale plan
09:26:16 The other resolution was for nine amendments that
09:26:19 included regular map amendments and text amendments.
09:26:23 Some of you may have already learned, I did contact
09:26:25 each of your legislative aides with regard to the nine
09:26:29 map and text amendments.
09:26:30 There was a misnotice and that is my responsibility.
09:26:33 The resolution incorrectly identified the date by
09:26:36 which the advertisement needed to run.
09:26:38 So I am here before you seeking direction on when we
09:26:42 can reschedule those nine map amendments.
09:26:45 Sounds like a lot.
09:26:46 But I think we could actually get them done in about
09:26:49 an hour, or thereabouts.
09:26:51 Two of the map amendments are privately initiated.
09:26:53 David Mechanik is representing the property owners.
09:26:56 The remainder of the amendments are city-initiated.
09:27:00 They are either text amendments or map amendments for
09:27:03 park properties.
09:27:04 So we are not aware of any opposition at this time to
09:27:08 any of the amendments.
09:27:10 There was was no known opposition at the Planning
09:27:13 Commission stage.
09:27:14 So a couple of dates that I discussed with David
09:27:16 Mechanik -- and I understand that one of the dates may
09:27:18 not actually work for council -- but originally we
09:27:21 were looking at possibly adding an extra meeting in
09:27:23 your April month, April 6th.
09:27:26 But I understand there is a dinner that evening that
09:27:30 may conflict with this, a Planning Commission dinner.
09:27:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Right.
09:27:37 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Another possibility is adding them
09:27:40 at 5:1 on keeping in mind that I think we can actually
09:27:44 get through it within an hour before your rezoning
09:27:46 hearings start.
09:27:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Does Vermont to be at night?
09:27:53 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Unfortunately they do. They have
09:27:56 to be held in the evening.
09:27:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I move we set it for that date.
09:28:02 >>GWEN MILLER: April 13th at 5:01.
09:28:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that all right with Mr. Mechanik?
09:28:11 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: It is.
09:28:12 I spoke with Mr. Mechanik.
09:28:14 He said the 13th would work for him.
09:28:19 The soon ter better.
09:28:21 If that is okay with council I can bring the
09:28:22 resolution to you this evening for approval.
09:28:24 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to do it on
09:28:26 April 13th at 5:01.
09:28:28 All in favor?
09:28:29 [Motion Carried]
09:28:33 Cathy Coyle.
09:28:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Good morning.
09:28:37 Catherine Coyle, land development.
09:28:39 Item number 30 on the agenda, file E-2006-8, chapter
09:28:43 27, this is a private privately initiated text
09:28:47 amendment to chapter 27 regarding potential use of
09:28:50 electric fencing in the city in certain districts.
09:28:56 On the agenda it says legal department to prepare
09:28:57 resolution setting public hearings.
09:29:00 After speaking with Cate O'Dowd and looking at the
09:29:03 code itself, we are suggesting the more appropriate
09:29:05 action would be for council to direct the application
09:29:08 to land development for certification.
09:29:10 The application is not complete as it sits currently
09:29:13 with the city clerk.
09:29:14 They did provide copies of other ordinances from other
09:29:19 However, they have not given us any proposed language.
09:29:22 And it has not been our practice to write it for them.
09:29:28 Ones LDS receives it we would submit to the
09:29:32 appropriate DRC members, any potential agency that
09:29:35 needs to review it.
09:29:37 Once again, text amendments for the chapter 27 do need
09:29:40 to go to the Planning Commission as well.
09:29:42 There is a step before it comes back to City Council.
09:29:47 So, with that, I would ask for the motion to be that
09:29:49 it is referred to land development for us to certify
09:29:52 completeness of the application, and then forward the
09:29:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:29:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:30:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: From a procedural perspective, I
09:30:03 think our procedure is a little messed up and perhaps
09:30:09 All I'll bet it hasn't been changed in who knows how
09:30:12 many years?
09:30:12 But it sounds like our procedure basically says that
09:30:15 any resident can just put a text amendment to us, and
09:30:18 then it sort of maybe goes through staff review and
09:30:21 then quickly gets sent over to Planning Commission.
09:30:25 I think there needs to be another intermediary step
09:30:30 that says we need to look at it and sigh if it's
09:30:33 anything we are the least bit interested in.
09:30:36 In this case, Ms. Coyle mentioned that it's an
09:30:39 electrified fence, the use of electrified fences.
09:30:42 I think after staff gives us the review it should come
09:30:46 back to us, we should do a quick workshop on it, or
09:30:48 some other procedure, mechanism that we want to do,
09:30:52 and then see if we want to even send it over to
09:30:54 Planning Commission.
09:30:55 We don't want to waste their time on something we may
09:30:59 not be the least bit interested in doing.
09:31:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I don't know if I agree.
09:31:03 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I would like to mention that people
09:31:06 when they petition for text amendment, they do pay a
09:31:08 fee, a $600 fee for that review and processing.
09:31:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I met with a constituent a week or
09:31:17 so ago, and he had put up a fence that had barbed
09:31:25 wire, razor wire on top of it because he had several
09:31:29 break-ins to his office and it's in Seminole Heights.
09:31:34 And the amount of paperwork and things that he had to
09:31:40 go through in order to get that were pretty
09:31:45 Is what is being proposed here in 30, will that
09:31:48 address anything at all having to do with --
09:31:51 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They did submit photos.
09:31:55 It sits above an six or eight-foot fence probably
09:31:59 another four to five to six feet.
09:32:02 It's got angle bars and then multiple electrified
09:32:06 And so -- I can tell you that upon our initial review
09:32:10 of the packet they did submit that we probably will
09:32:13 not be supporting it purely for aesthetic reasons.
09:32:16 The fire department has commented back there are
09:32:18 certain criteria they want them to meet as well.
09:32:21 It turns the fence out to be 10 to 15 high and it's
09:32:24 not attractive at all.
09:32:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What part of town is this in?
09:32:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They are proposing it potentially
09:32:32 in any kind of intense commercial or industrial
09:32:34 district, which are all over the city.
09:32:37 And as you know, many of our districts, our commercial
09:32:39 districts and industrial districts, butt right up
09:32:42 against potential residential districts.
09:32:43 So could you run into a point where you have got the
09:32:47 fences either across the street or adjacent to
09:32:49 residential properties.
09:32:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, if we have to recognize that
09:32:54 some parts of town, you have to be able to protect
09:32:57 your property.
09:33:01 And I want us to say you can't build something because
09:33:04 we don't think it's pretty.
09:33:07 So, I mean, 15 feet high, maybe that's a little
09:33:10 different issue.
09:33:11 But I would like us to take a look at the razor wire,
09:33:18 the barbed wire fence issues and see if there's
09:33:21 anything we can do.
09:33:23 And document cases in break-ins or anything like that
09:33:27 if there's a way to be able to streamline that
09:33:29 process, too.
09:33:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you.
09:33:33 You know, for instance, like in the Florida Avenue
09:33:36 corridor, there's a lot of commercial sites.
09:33:41 I have gotten many complaints about how that looks.
09:33:44 Say, for instance, somebody wanted to protect their
09:33:47 investment on that corridor with something like this,
09:33:50 I guarantee you, the community of Seminole Heights
09:33:53 collectively is going to complain about how it looks.
09:33:56 And that's just an example that I'm thinking about in
09:33:58 my mind.
09:33:58 I certainly need more information.
09:34:00 I need to see something about that.
09:34:04 At this point, I know that we have to allow our
09:34:06 citizens to take care of their property.
09:34:08 But at first blush I'm not too craze by this.
09:34:13 Before I can support it, I need some more information
09:34:15 and an opportunity to digest it.
09:34:17 I think we are going to have some problems, you're
09:34:19 right, on this type of a property that would be
09:34:21 allowed to use this kind of security fence, with other
09:34:26 types of properties, I think we are going to have to
09:34:29 have some interface that's not going to be too
09:34:33 So I need more information before I can support it.
09:34:36 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We are at this point asking you to
09:34:38 refer to the land development because it isn't
09:34:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: That means we don't involve the
09:34:43 Planning Commission at this point?
09:34:47 >>> Not at this point.
09:34:48 And at whatever point we come back to you, which --
09:34:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, you are going to come back to us
09:34:53 and give us your opinion about what this is going to
09:34:57 do or not do?
09:34:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Absolutely.
09:35:01 Because it's changing our code.
09:35:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's exactly what I was going to
09:35:05 mention to my colleagues, she's only asking for a
09:35:08 referral back to LDC and I think that's a wise move
09:35:12 because she can prepare it and send it back if we have
09:35:18 I think it's a good idea.
09:35:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to make sure that in the
09:35:22 flow of work being done that by doing this, a citizen
09:35:25 doesn't get to do something in an 8-week time frame,
09:35:30 that it takes council a year and a half to do.
09:35:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or we might have to chip in on that
09:35:39 600 bucks.
09:35:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Exactly.
09:35:42 I'm tickled to death and I want to share with my
09:35:45 colleagues that we are going to set a extra next
09:35:47 Friday from 12 to 1:30 because we have been working on
09:35:50 this chapter 27 changes for so long, and I don't like
09:35:53 the idea that, you know, maybe you stop on something
09:35:59 as a policy initiative by council to work on some very
09:36:03 specific microthing for an individual.
09:36:04 I just want to make sure that it all flows at the same
09:36:07 rate and hopefully the whole flow will be expedient in
09:36:10 the future.
09:36:11 >>> I can tell you in the chapter 27 changes this
09:36:13 section of the code is being altered to the V the
09:36:16 applications for text amendments be filed with land
09:36:19 development and then we will process them on a
09:36:20 semiannual basis so we get a more holistic look at
09:36:24 them and better review and then we bring them forward
09:36:26 to you.
09:36:27 Right now we are just dealing with the current
09:36:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And this really made my point.
09:36:33 I mean, each of us feels differently on the
09:36:36 substantive issue of this particular issue about
09:36:39 fences, and that's why these types of things after
09:36:42 staff evaluates it should come back to council, then
09:36:44 we should evaluate before we send to the commission
09:36:47 that. Was my point, and I hope the revised code might
09:36:50 reflect that.
09:36:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
09:36:53 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:36:55 Opposed, Nay.
09:36:55 (Motion carried).
09:36:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Item 33.
09:37:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Can't bring it up now.
09:37:07 We can?
09:37:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Item 33, I am wondering why we are
09:37:11 executing right of entry for the parade that happened
09:37:15 January 28th and February 11th.
09:37:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to have a staff member
09:37:21 here to discuss that item?
09:37:23 You can have that pulled from the agenda after you
09:37:26 approve the consent docket.
09:37:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to pull it.
09:37:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other items to pull from the
09:37:32 Mrs. Saul-Sena?
09:37:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I saw that Cindy miller is here in
09:37:35 the audience so she can answer the question that I
09:37:37 have on chapter -- on item 22 so we don't need to pull
09:37:42 from the agenda necessarily.
09:37:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are pulling it by discussing it.
09:37:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're right, you're right.
09:37:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you like to pull it for
09:37:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I already have.
09:37:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's vote on that.
09:37:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we need to approve the agenda.
09:37:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
09:38:01 >> Second.
09:38:01 (Motion carried).
09:38:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
09:38:04 would like to speak on any item on the agenda that is
09:38:06 not set for public hearing?
09:38:09 Anyone in the public like to speak on any item on the
09:38:12 agenda not set for a public hearing?
09:38:14 We go to item number 2.
09:38:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, Madam Chairman, is this
09:38:18 when we have people from the public?
09:38:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We are coming to the.
09:38:23 Item number 2.
09:38:29 >>> Cindy Miller: Good morning.
09:38:30 My name is Cindy Miller, director of business and
09:38:33 housing development.
09:38:34 And I'm here to speak on items number 2 and 3.
09:38:37 And if at this time it's appropriate at the end to
09:38:40 talk about item number 22 that councilwoman Saul-Sena
09:38:44 has mentioned, I'll be happy to address that, also.
09:38:47 For item number 2, this was -- questions were raised
09:38:51 in last week's council extra and I have had some
09:38:54 chance to look at the files.
09:38:55 My recommendation to council that we withdraw this
09:38:59 item from your consideration.
09:39:01 It did meet the legal requirements for a land
09:39:04 transaction, but it did not meet the procedures that
09:39:07 we had established over the past year.
09:39:09 So, therefore, I would request, with my apologies to
09:39:13 the potential buyer, that we ask that you not consider
09:39:16 this item and withdraw from the your agenda.
09:39:18 >> So moved.
09:39:19 >> Second.
09:39:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion?
09:39:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Procedurally, Mr. Shelby, didn't
09:39:23 you ask us just to hear these things, then hear public
09:39:26 comment and then take action?
09:39:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have had the opportunity for the
09:39:30 public to speak on these items.
09:39:32 You have already asked the public if anybody wished to
09:39:33 speak to this.
09:39:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We did?
09:39:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we did.
09:39:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I missed that.
09:39:38 Thank you.
09:39:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to withdraw.
09:39:41 (Motion carried).
09:39:43 Number 3.
09:39:45 >>> Cindy.
09:39:45 This is the land sales agreement and quitclaim deed
09:39:48 for property at 208 east Chelsea street. This
09:39:52 particular oh property is what we classify as an
09:39:56 uneconomic remainder, dimension dimensions 20 by 70
09:39:59 feet so it is something that is not a buildable lot.
09:40:02 It was offered for sale in the open process.
09:40:05 The only person who bid on it is an adjacent property
09:40:08 We recommend that this adjacent property owner be sold
09:40:12 this property.
09:40:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:40:17 >> Second.
09:40:17 (Motion carried)
09:40:20 Cindy: Council requested as to how we use reverter
09:40:26 clauses or options to purchase.
09:40:29 Item number 2, although it's now a moot point, there
09:40:32 is a reverter clause.
09:40:33 We did that.
09:40:33 For item number 3 it's not.
09:40:35 It not appropriate since it's an uneconomic remainder.
09:40:41 And if it's appropriate now to talk about item number
09:40:44 I know, councilwoman, if you have specific questions.
09:40:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My specific concern is as we are
09:40:50 giving the Chamber money to market the City of Tampa
09:40:52 that they are spending their energies in ways that are
09:40:55 important to the city, and by a tacking redevelopment
09:41:00 in West Tampa and creative industries and things that
09:41:01 are part of the city's policies and agenda, that they
09:41:04 are making that, what they put the energy into
09:41:09 >>> Right.
09:41:09 I'll tell you what I have been involved with, in
09:41:12 working with the chambers, specifically with the
09:41:14 committee of 100.
09:41:15 I think that Judy Genshaft and her leadership as the
09:41:19 chair of the committee of 100 the past number of years
09:41:22 has brought a number of new initiatives for exactly
09:41:24 what you are talking about, biotech, growth of
09:41:27 existing industries, and working within both the City
09:41:30 of Tampa as well as working with our colleagues at the
09:41:35 Dr. Genshaft has certainly helped push a lot of these
09:41:39 We work with the chamber as to QTI initiatives and
09:41:42 approaching the state for additional funding.
09:41:44 The quick closing fund that we work with the state and
09:41:47 enterprise Florida.
09:41:48 So we do see that those kinds of efforts are
09:41:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
09:41:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we all agree that this is
09:41:57 money well spent, that we probably would spend double
09:42:01 the amount of money if we were to try to do this
09:42:04 So Cindy, the last thing you touched on, which is the
09:42:09 quick closing fund, and the governor spoke about this
09:42:12 at the fair luncheon on Monday, where they set aside
09:42:15 an amount of money so that in order to maybe be that
09:42:18 last straw to entice a deal to come, he has
09:42:21 flexibility with the fund.
09:42:26 Do we have anything like that here at the city level?
09:42:29 >>> We don't have it at the city level but we working
09:42:31 with the chamber, and on indication working with the
09:42:34 county for these kinds of efforts and also our own
09:42:36 efforts, we do try to tap into that quick closing so
09:42:40 it is something that is utilized by us.
09:42:42 But we do not have anything of that type set aside
09:42:44 within our own.
09:42:45 We use other incentives, whether it is both the
09:42:48 administration and your efforts in trying to enhance
09:42:52 Other enhancements that we can do through public
09:42:55 That is often what we are utilizing showing our fair
09:42:58 share of those types of projects.
09:42:59 So I don't think we need to really establish a
09:43:03 separate fund in order to do that.
09:43:04 I think you are already doing it through the
09:43:06 incentives of the programs that the city is working on
09:43:08 across the board.
09:43:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I'll defer to your leadership
09:43:14 on that.
09:43:15 But I do -- I think it's a great idea in concept that
09:43:18 you have this fund that is available to be tapped.
09:43:21 And if you think we, through our normal incentives,
09:43:25 are able to make those enticements, then that's fine.
09:43:28 But we are just in an increasingly competitive world,
09:43:34 where we are fighting for these places, or these new
09:43:37 jobs with places like Charlotte and Atlanta and those
09:43:41 We need to be quick on our feet and lean and mean and
09:43:44 be able to try to move quickly as well.
09:43:49 >>> I absolutely agree.
09:43:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Going back to item 22 of the amount of
09:43:53 money for professional services with the chamber,
09:43:56 isn't that where the QIs come through?
09:44:01 >> This is where QTI, and to fund the chamber, this is
09:44:06 what they utilize to assist us on that.
09:44:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
09:44:10 I think it's money well spent because they are
09:44:12 bringing a lot of stuff in.
09:44:13 I went to the committee of 100 dinner last night and
09:44:15 it was really a well attended function.
09:44:19 And you can see that president Genshaft was really
09:44:25 upbeat about what everything is that's happened
09:44:29 through the committee of 100.
09:44:30 So I would fully support this.
09:44:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
09:44:39 I am going to go to Mr. Smith, he has to leave.
09:44:42 Item number 7, David Smith.
09:44:44 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:44:46 I apologize for you not having a written report but
09:44:48 there's a reason, actually several reasons.
09:44:51 First was I have been rather immersed in the museum,
09:44:55 and probably yesterday after as now the museum board
09:44:59 recommended approval, I think something like 39 to 1.
09:45:01 The second thing is, the written report wouldn't be
09:45:03 very helpful.
09:45:04 We have never discontinued our negotiations.
09:45:06 We have been continuing them.
09:45:07 However, I did miss two days, I had to reschedule
09:45:10 during the museum issues, because it just required a
09:45:14 great deal of time and attention to get the things
09:45:16 done that you will be looking at next week.
09:45:19 But more importantly we did meet last week, with
09:45:24 Erica, one of their negotiators located here in Tampa,
09:45:28 and we are progressing very well.
09:45:29 What Erica and I have done rather than have the larger
09:45:32 group, as you know you tend to have a lot of people
09:45:35 participating in this, there's technical issues,
09:45:37 there's legal issues, economic issues, there's
09:45:39 specific issues related to federal law.
09:45:42 We have simplified it.
09:45:43 And I think we have identified the business points.
09:45:47 And we have a package that he is going take to his
09:45:51 people, as we say in negotiations, his people, but is
09:45:55 going to come back, conceptually they are in
09:45:58 agreement, and if they are conceptually in agreement
09:46:01 we are going to try to vet it ourselves and see if we
09:46:03 are conceptually in agreement and with that we can
09:46:05 document the deal and bring it to you.
09:46:07 So we are making considerable progress.
09:46:10 Erica and I have a commitment.
09:46:12 I am going on vacation starting the day after tomorrow
09:46:15 for the first time in awhile.
09:46:16 But we are going to be extra the 27th and 28th
09:46:18 when we get back and we expect things to follow pretty
09:46:21 rapidly thereafter.
09:46:22 So we would hope to have something -- I hate to give a
09:46:26 deadline and then something comes up but I would
09:46:28 certainly like to have something for you all by the
09:46:30 end of March at the latest.
09:46:32 I think that's doable.
09:46:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
09:46:36 Thank you, Mr. Smith.
09:46:38 Now we go to item number 4.
09:46:42 Who wants to move the resolution?
09:46:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution.
09:46:46 >> Second.
09:46:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:46:47 (Motion carried)
09:46:48 Item number 5.
09:46:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution.
09:46:52 >>GWEN MILLER: It not a resolution.
09:47:06 >>> Here to speak on item number 5.
09:47:07 Passing out a hard copy PowerPoint presentation.
09:47:13 Good morning, council.
09:47:14 Good morning, public safety chair Ferlita, and with me
09:47:19 is Robinson from special events committee as well.
09:47:24 Although the majority of the response falls in law
09:47:26 enforcement discipline on number 5.
09:47:30 The highlights of item 5 were salary rates for police
09:47:33 officers and Gasparilla schedules which occurred on
09:47:37 January 28th of this year, and how the crowd
09:47:40 attending the Gasparilla event can be balanced on both
09:47:43 sides of the parade route.
09:47:47 PowerPoint now.
09:47:50 Inside the Tampa Police Department, my responsibility
09:47:52 as special operations division which has the planning
09:47:55 authority for the police department's role in
09:47:57 Gasparilla day events as well as all other special
09:48:00 events inside the police department and the city as
09:48:03 relates to that discipline.
09:48:04 I was the incident commander for Gasparilla, have been
09:48:07 involved in the planning for the last four years.
09:48:09 Again with me to talk about the salaries for officers,
09:48:13 the schedules and the balancing of the crowd as plans
09:48:17 are laid out.
09:48:18 Just to kind of set the tone for Gasparilla, of
09:48:21 course, this is our third special event in 13 days.
09:48:23 We start out with the Dr. MLK parade on the 16th
09:48:28 which is a Monday.
09:48:29 Following that Saturday is the children's extravaganza
09:48:33 which is held on Bayshore.
09:48:36 Then seven days later we have the Gasparilla parade
09:48:38 and the events continue throughout the special events
09:48:43 This is the second season that we have used the
09:48:45 staffing philosophy.
09:48:46 And we are obviously looking at crowd estimates that
09:48:49 we have always talked about, half a million
09:48:52 spectators, and we know the size of the city, so that
09:48:56 could almost end up one and a half times the city
09:48:59 basic population.
09:49:00 Our goal in this philosophy is to make sure that our
09:49:04 patrol shifts have normal operations.
09:49:06 We don't want to reduce any service delivery to the
09:49:09 entire city on Gasparilla regardless how big the event
09:49:13 So how we do this is the predominant patrol division
09:49:17 of the police department is on a 4-4 cycle, on four
09:49:20 days, off four days.
09:49:22 So what we do is we look to adjust a few officers
09:49:25 every day on patrol squad which allows them to have a
09:49:28 day back at work within that workweek.
09:49:30 So we use those days at the beginning of the week to
09:49:32 allow all these officers that normally would be
09:49:35 working those four days to have a day left to work on
09:49:38 that Saturday, the 28th.
09:49:40 And the ultimate goal is to avoid overtime to the
09:49:47 Zero impact to city-wide response.
09:49:49 Again, the primary goal.
09:49:51 On Gasparilla day we absolutely ensure that all patrol
09:49:55 divisions inside the Gasparilla footprint have all the
09:49:59 minimum staffing for day shift, evening shift and
09:50:01 midnight shift patrol divisions for our primary
09:50:03 service delivery and response.
09:50:08 The pre-event plan which basically the operational
09:50:11 time of that is basically the day before.
09:50:13 Friday, all day, we are looking at getting the
09:50:15 community ready for the circulation plans and the
09:50:18 parking plans that go with the Gasparilla corridors,
09:50:21 and it takes 65 personnel throughout the daytime and
09:50:24 the midnight hour to make sure that the parking plan
09:50:27 is in force, the one-way signs are in force, towing
09:50:31 any vehicles to make sure we have emergency access
09:50:33 into the area.
09:50:34 Then we come up on the event plan itself, which
09:50:36 requires 648 positions of law enforcement, and we are
09:50:41 augmented by the Hillsborough County sheriff's office
09:50:43 to the tune of 300 personnel, and the Florida Highway
09:50:46 Patrol Tampa division, with another 30 highway patrol
09:50:51 officers in the event, and our hats go off to sheriff
09:50:55 gee and his Hillsborough County sheriff's office to
09:51:00 help us out on these large events.
09:51:00 The extra duty plan took 171 positions.
09:51:03 Most of those were Gasparilla related.
09:51:05 And then of course we staffed the primary extra duty
09:51:09 positions out there on non-gasparilla assignments
09:51:12 which I will get into in a moment.
09:51:14 Again, you go into pre-event staffing.
09:51:16 We have 11 neighborhoods that have circulation and
09:51:19 parking plans.
09:51:20 So it's very extensive from a roadway perspective and
09:51:24 a square mileage enforcement plan.
09:51:28 Again, our ultimate goal on the parking and
09:51:30 circulation is to make sure that we have emergency
09:51:32 ingress and egress throughout the event.
09:51:34 As you know, this is predominantly in a residential
09:51:37 community and we have to make sure that the fire
09:51:39 trucks and the police's officers and other emergency
09:51:42 response equipment did K get into those neighborhoods
09:51:45 throughout the event.
09:51:45 And I already highlighted what the roles are of the 65
09:51:49 positions prior to the event.
09:51:53 Then I break out the rest of the plan and the staging.
09:51:56 And just to give you a geographical connection,
09:51:58 staging is on Bayshore between Gandy and Bay to Bay.
09:52:01 That's done by Tampa Police Department, highway
09:52:04 The route, the parade begins at Bay to Bay and
09:52:07 obviously goes down over the Platt Street bridge at
09:52:09 Florida Avenue, and it turns at Jackson and disbands
09:52:14 at Morgan street so it's an extensive route and that's
09:52:17 where the Hillsborough County sheriff's office helps
09:52:19 us in that area.
09:52:21 Then disbanding is where all the floats get escorted
09:52:24 out of the area and we try to open up the downtown
09:52:27 The invasion, the pirate fest, downtown, is another
09:52:30 major part of the plan.
09:52:32 Probably the largest is the neighborhood plan, which
09:52:34 again goes back to those eleven identified
09:52:37 neighborhoods inside the Gasparilla geographics that
09:52:40 need to park in the circulation and crowd control.
09:52:43 Then tactical overlay.
09:52:44 Of course we have a very large marine component that
09:52:47 We have heard numbers of 2500 and 3 hue water vessels
09:52:51 on the waterways.
09:52:52 We have aviation to make sure that we have an eye in
09:52:55 the sky throughout the event.
09:52:56 And we use our mounted patrol to help with crowd
09:52:59 And we have a swat and bomb response because we have
09:53:02 such a large crowd, and instantaneous delivery of that
09:53:07 Again that requires 648 positions from the police
09:53:09 department augmented by the police department.
09:53:12 >>GWEN MILLER: How much long longer?
09:53:14 >>> About two minutes.
09:53:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Council, what do you want to do?
09:53:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: Who wants to go first?
09:53:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Procedurally, did you want the major
09:53:26 to finish his presentation before you ask questions?
09:53:29 I guess the question would be then how much time does
09:53:31 counsel wish to spend on this particular item?
09:53:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: This is related to his presentation.
09:53:38 I was looking ahead on the PowerPoint.
09:53:40 And basically what I was addressing, we weren't
09:53:45 requesting how many officers we needed, the staffing.
09:53:48 It was specifically to address the schedule that Ms.
09:53:53 Ferlita requested, the salaries of the officers and
09:53:55 mandatory switching of their days off and those type
09:54:00 Those were the concerns.
09:54:00 Those are the only real two concerns we were
09:54:03 interested in.
09:54:03 >>> And how I'm addressing that is by showing the 1100
09:54:07 law enforcement positionings which is almost 100
09:54:10 positions larger than the Tampa Police Department has
09:54:12 done over these periods by showing the complexity of
09:54:15 the event and the way that it's staffed, to lead into
09:54:18 the fact that when we do adjust these days it's so we
09:54:20 can maintain primary service delivery on Gasparilla
09:54:23 day and not lose it throughout the week leading up to
09:54:27 So it's just showing the depth of that.
09:54:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Major, we certainly appreciate that.
09:54:33 And if we haven't had the opportunity before today to
09:54:35 thank you for what TPD does in terms of parades and
09:54:38 control, et cetera, let me take that opportunity now.
09:54:41 But I happen to agree with Mr. White.
09:54:43 I understand all the complexities, and this is a
09:54:45 wonderful PowerPoint.
09:54:47 But it's a little bit too comprehensive for what I'm
09:54:50 concerned about.
09:54:51 I know that you have that extra burden of trying to
09:54:54 cover it in terms of making this community safe and
09:54:57 visitors that come here.
09:54:59 But my concern was kind of just on page 2 of your
09:55:05 This is just way want to know.
09:55:06 Now I heard some conflicting comments, and I want to
09:55:09 ask you again, it is my understanding from several
09:55:12 sources that police officers are asked to take a day
09:55:16 off from their normal shift so when it comes to
09:55:19 Gasparilla day, that doesn't go into overtime.
09:55:22 >>> Correct.
09:55:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: So that is in fact the case?
09:55:27 >>> There is --
09:55:28 >>: They are told to take a Tuesday or Wednesday
09:55:30 whether you want to or not because you are going to be
09:55:33 free to work Gasparilla day whether you want to or not
09:55:35 and that's part of the job and that's fine.
09:55:37 >>> Sure.
09:55:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Certainly we don't want to burden the
09:55:40 finance standpoint in terms of O.T. but that's not
09:55:44 what I'm talking about.
09:55:45 They are working a day when they weren't supposed to.
09:55:47 They are told they have to.
09:55:48 It's mandatory attendance.
09:55:50 Some of that is not on-duty officer hours.
09:55:54 It's off-duty.
09:55:57 They work, for instance, at some of the residence on
09:56:02 Bayshore, the Bayshore residence pay off-duty salary.
09:56:05 >>> Correct.
09:56:06 >> But that officer has not been given the opportunity
09:56:08 to do both, to work that day and the day he's supposed
09:56:10 to, if in fact he wants to get the extra off-duty
09:56:16 And you're telling me -- and I'm not questioning you
09:56:18 but I want to reemphasize because it sure is different
09:56:22 what I heard when I talked to different people at
09:56:24 Gasparilla day -- you're telling me that regular
09:56:27 shifts throughout the city for the week before or two
09:56:30 weeks before, or that time period, there is never less
09:56:35 coverage on those shifts than there would be if we
09:56:39 didn't have Gasparilla?
09:56:41 Some of those shifts are not working with less police
09:56:43 Is that what you are telling me?
09:56:44 It's exactly the same if we went back and checked.
09:56:47 >>> The four days that we talked about adjusting their
09:56:49 schedule to get to that Saturday, those positions --
09:56:53 in other words, nobody is allowed any annual time
09:56:55 during this period.
09:56:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, no, but that's not what I'm
09:56:59 If you are telling a guy to take off Tuesday in
09:57:01 opposition --
09:57:02 >>> That squad is short that day.
09:57:04 >> It is short?
09:57:05 >>> Absolutely.
09:57:05 No different than if they were allowed to take that
09:57:08 >> But the point is no different, but somebody might
09:57:10 take annual leave, maybe some officers, but if all
09:57:14 officers that are involved in coverage for Gasparilla
09:57:17 are asked to take it off, major Bennett, I have to
09:57:20 disagree with you that the likelihood of the number of
09:57:23 gaps in normal coverage is going to be bigger than if
09:57:27 police officer "A" and police officer "E" decided to
09:57:30 take a day off just because they are entitled to with
09:57:33 no correlation to any particular festivity.
09:57:36 So it appears to me then from your answer that there
09:57:39 are many more shortages on shifts, those four days
09:57:44 before, because those officers are made to sign
09:57:46 something that says, you're taking off Tuesday or
09:57:49 Wednesday, pick.
09:57:50 And it's very comprehensive.
09:57:51 It's very broad spectrum.
09:57:53 So obviously there's going to be less coverage
09:57:55 city-wide than there would be on any normal shift.
09:57:57 That's my concern from the standpoint of public
09:58:00 And I think itemize the three concerns, that for areas
09:58:04 who really don't care about what happens at
09:58:05 Gasparilla, people who want the police officers that's
09:58:08 taking care of their area on a Wednesday, and they
09:58:11 anticipate if there's a problem, that police officer,
09:58:14 as many police officers on their shift, so if he calls
09:58:17 for backup it's going to be just as quick as every
09:58:20 That's a safety issue.
09:58:22 Then the second thing is that if that officer is not
09:58:24 pulled off of a shift on Tuesday, and he works his
09:58:27 full shift, so that he's available for over -- not
09:58:31 overtime, extra duty, then we have shorted him the
09:58:34 opportunity of having to put up with the wonderful
09:58:37 crowds on Gasparilla, and at least have the incentive
09:58:39 that he gets some extra money.
09:58:41 >>> There's a caveat to extra duty that it is a
09:58:43 voluntary program.
09:58:44 So hence we cannot -- once we switch to voluntary mode
09:58:48 and extra duty it's elective to sign up or not sign
09:58:51 Then the jobs do not get prioritized and then we end
09:58:54 up with gaps because officers can use their discretion
09:58:57 on which jobs they sign up and don't sign up.
09:58:59 And then the administration using 100% of the
09:59:02 personnel resources that day are going to have to
09:59:04 default to that officer's discretion in what they
09:59:07 would like to work versus what we see as the priority
09:59:09 and the needs for the city.
09:59:11 >> I would suspect because of the anticipation and the
09:59:13 need and the barricading, and maybe that's where the
09:59:17 public would be more welcome, that the residents on
09:59:20 Gasparilla, on Bayshore, probably ask for the off-duty
09:59:26 officers early.
09:59:26 But still, that still does not answer my question
09:59:29 about security in other areas on other days.
09:59:33 Don't think it's fair to the rest of the city, as much
09:59:35 as we all love Gasparilla and what it brings.
09:59:37 >>> And the only recourse would be to spend upward of
09:59:40 $450,000 in order to keep that deployment.
09:59:45 >> Major, I disagree with you.
09:59:47 I think there would be an opportunity for many
09:59:50 officers and I talked to some that would be willing to
09:59:52 work the Gasparilla if it were extra duty.
09:59:54 We obviously have a philosophical difference and there
09:59:56 are issues that we are not addressing.
09:59:58 And God forbid something happened because we have
10:00:01 shortages on shift because police officers are made to
10:00:04 be off when they don't want to and are not given the
10:00:06 opportunity to have extra money.
10:00:09 And I think everybody looks at extra money in terms of
10:00:12 I just disagree with you.
10:00:15 And there must be a better way to do this.
10:00:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
10:00:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we did a disservice to the
10:00:22 major over the presentation by cutting it off in
10:00:25 Because on page 4, it gets into the extra duty
10:00:30 staffing issues and the staff and summary.
10:00:32 And I need to hear that.
10:00:34 Because with all due respect to councilwoman Ferlita,
10:00:39 I'm not as well versed on any of this as some others
10:00:43 might be.
10:00:43 And so without taking too much time, major, if you
10:00:47 could just finish up your presentation, especially
10:00:50 your staffing summary, which is where you mentioned
10:00:53 the $450,000, I think that's critical.
10:00:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to have a motion to waive the
10:00:59 rules. The presentation is only five minutes.
10:01:05 >> So moved.
10:01:06 >> Second.
10:01:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to waive the rules.
10:01:08 (Motion carried).
10:01:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Go ahead.
10:01:13 >>> Okay.
10:01:13 I'm on the slide part, staffing summary.
10:01:25 There we go.
10:01:25 The goal is zero impact for the patrol deployment.
10:01:32 I understand councilwoman Ferlita to develop that
10:01:36 labor source for that Saturday to run through the
10:01:38 mission priority of that day.
10:01:40 When you do realize 1100 positions plus all of the
10:01:43 primary patrol responses on that Saturday, it's
10:01:46 critical that all resources are prioritized in the
10:01:49 mission of the Tampa Police Department for the best
10:01:51 interest of the city.
10:01:53 Going back to those days, and not allowing any
10:01:56 discretionary time off during that week, allows those
10:02:01 adjustments to occur, squad by squad, of what we call
10:02:04 the buffered zone, personnel.
10:02:07 In other words the buffer zone is you have a full
10:02:09 squad and you may have extra resources on that squad
10:02:11 that day to do discretionary work or self-initiated
10:02:16 What we do is we adjust those positions so the squad
10:02:19 has minimal staffing all week to allow the roll-over
10:02:23 of those four days to work on Saturday.
10:02:26 This could be realized in multiple incidents beyond
10:02:30 Gasparilla, including hurricane management.
10:02:31 It's just a way to roll your resources into a plan of
10:02:35 this large of a scale without switching to overtime
10:02:37 again to the tune of $450,000.
10:02:40 And that is after the full recovery of the extra duty
10:02:43 funds that went to the officers that were on duty to
10:02:47 fund places like the Performing Arts Center and Busch
10:02:49 Gardens and the dog track, which have such a reliance
10:02:52 on those police officers to accomplish their mission
10:02:55 on Gasparilla day as well.
10:02:56 And that's basically the summary of how it goes to do
10:02:59 that, that week.
10:03:00 And we do have to work within the confines of that pay
10:03:04 We don't have the ability to adjust those days beyond
10:03:05 that Sunday prior to that Saturday.
10:03:07 It's got to stay inside the pay cycle.
10:03:10 So we don't have the flexibility to do it for an
10:03:13 entire month.
10:03:13 We only have one week to get this done.
10:03:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
10:03:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just one question, Madam Chairman,
10:03:20 major, if I subscribe to the explanation, which I
10:03:24 don't, what happens to the extra money?
10:03:26 Does it stay in the police department funds that you
10:03:29 realize from --
10:03:32 >>> The cost recovery of the extra duty?
10:03:33 >> Yes.
10:03:34 >>> The cost recovery of the extra duty, it's my
10:03:36 understanding, goes into the city coffers, does not
10:03:39 come back to the police department.
10:03:40 >> Why doesn't it? That's not for you to answer.
10:03:44 Then there is another flip side.
10:03:46 We are going getting extra revenue because of shifts,
10:03:49 et cetera, to the police, then it seems the best place
10:03:52 for that to be spent is not getting lost in the
10:03:54 General Fund, it's to go back to TPD because I'm sure
10:03:57 you can always use extra equipment and extra noise
10:03:59 meters and lots of that.
10:04:02 >>> The moneys does go to pay for salaries in the
10:04:05 extra duty program both inside the city police
10:04:07 department as well as positions in City Hall.
10:04:09 So if it makes its way on the reimbursement to those
10:04:12 positions I'm not aware of it.
10:04:14 But I just know those positions are funded through the
10:04:16 extra duty program, for the management.
10:04:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:04:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of questions.
10:04:23 Number one, how much time do you, in your group, your
10:04:29 team, work on putting together this plan to make
10:04:34 Gasparilla work, and at the same time keep the city
10:04:38 >>> We start typically right after the Thanksgiving
10:04:43 My staff is devoted almost 100% of the time in other
10:04:48 event that is are in line with Gasparilla like the Dr.
10:04:50 MLK parade and the other events.
10:04:52 But the majority of their time ever since the holidays
10:04:56 leave us as Thanksgiving, are based on Gasparilla.
10:04:58 We have through the special events office, city extra
10:05:03 at least an hour or two hours up to Gasparilla, we
10:05:06 have an internal extra for an hour prior to that
10:05:08 extra, just on the city side, not including event
10:05:13 makers, which is the private side of the planning.
10:05:15 And then we have an internal TPD extra every week for
10:05:18 at least an hour, hour and a half, to talk about all
10:05:21 of the geographical divisions I went over during the
10:05:23 PowerPoint presentation.
10:05:24 So without having the figures in front of me, it's
10:05:27 just hundreds of hours in my area staff to plan for
10:05:30 Gasparilla, and execute it.
10:05:32 >> And the chief signs off on all of this?
10:05:34 >>> Yes, sir.
10:05:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In saving this money -- and I think
10:05:37 we all want to save the taxpayers money -- but in
10:05:41 saving this money, in your professional opinion, are
10:05:43 we putting the city at risk, the rest of the city at
10:05:50 >>> When we talk about the buffer management, which
10:05:52 goes back to adjusting the officers' hours throughout
10:05:54 the week, I have gotten zero feedback in a negative
10:05:58 fashion from those division commanders that are
10:06:00 assigned to reduce crime in district one, district
10:06:03 two, district three.
10:06:04 We have tried to lower the crime rate. This is the
10:06:07 second year we have used this planning technique.
10:06:09 Again it could be replicated in management very easily
10:06:13 which is ultimately my goal to use special event to
10:06:16 plan for emergencies.
10:06:17 When we recognize the fact we saved almost a half
10:06:21 million dollar through this strategy and yet still
10:06:22 reflectively reducing crime it's our position that it
10:06:25 continues to work.
10:06:26 >> How about the Gasparilla crime itself, Gasparilla
10:06:30 arrests and that sort of thing?
10:06:31 It appeared in the newspaper that the numbers seemed
10:06:33 to be pretty low this year.
10:06:35 >>> Yes, they were low.
10:06:36 We use sod new strategies this year, to try to reduce
10:06:39 And every year we tray to find a plan within the plan
10:06:42 to whittle away at some of the incidents that occurred
10:06:46 at Gasparilla to make it a safer event so it's a great
10:06:49 event for the city.
10:06:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for your hard work.
10:06:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you for your participation.
10:06:58 Does event makers pay toward your costs?
10:07:02 >>> They pay towards the extra duty costs.
10:07:03 The bulk of that 171 positions come from the
10:07:07 Gasparilla-related jobs that either transport money or
10:07:11 work the charity beer gardens which we do not work as
10:07:16 an on-duty capacity and that kind of goes back to the
10:07:19 mission prioritization I mentioned earlier.
10:07:22 Officers, if they elect to sign up for certain jobs,
10:07:25 some of those jobs would go unstaffed.
10:07:26 And then we would be challenged inside the actual
10:07:29 footprint to keep those resources intact.
10:07:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What about the parking tickets that
10:07:35 you I shall during the Gasparilla hours and throughout
10:07:38 the neighborhoods and all?
10:07:40 Does that go into the General Fund or does that go
10:07:42 to --
10:07:43 >>> I'm not sure how that revenue gets tracked because
10:07:45 it goes through the parking division and then from
10:07:47 there it would go its normal channels, I presume.
10:07:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:07:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Major, thanks for the report.
10:07:56 I think that it's amazing that as many people as we
10:07:59 have at Gasparilla, and we have as few incidents as we
10:08:03 do have, and it's a credit to you all, Sheriff's
10:08:06 Department, state police and everybody else that chips
10:08:09 in for this event, as far as the deployment and those
10:08:16 sort of administrative issues that were brought to our
10:08:18 attention by councilwoman Ferlita, I think that's
10:08:21 probably something well within your purview.
10:08:23 And if that feedback changes, you said you never had
10:08:28 negative feedback as to feeling like there's not
10:08:30 enough officers during that week ramping up.
10:08:34 If that changes, I'm sure you all will be back to let
10:08:37 us know we need to take some other action.
10:08:42 >>> And with a full approach to fighting crime is
10:08:44 something dealt with every month.
10:08:46 And I'm sure the district majors as well as the chief
10:08:48 will give direction in that at our staff meetings.
10:08:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, major Bennett.
10:08:54 We appreciate you coming and bringing up this report.
10:08:56 >>> I apologize I didn't get to the report about the
10:08:58 balancing of the parade route but we are looking at
10:09:00 that diligently.
10:09:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:09:03 We appreciate that.
10:09:05 Item number 6 was continued from last week, would
10:09:11 someone continue that?
10:09:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think I moved to the allow a
10:09:16 special event permit.
10:09:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
10:09:18 (Motion carried).
10:09:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:09:22 would like to ask for reconsideration?
10:09:29 >>> Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of council,
10:09:33 Andrew Baker, 100 West Kennedy Boulevard, suite 880,
10:09:37 Tampa, Florida.
10:09:38 February the 9th, Mr. Martinez came in with the
10:09:46 Rome Sheet Metal in developing town homes or that
10:09:50 particular site.
10:09:51 We are asking for a waiver of the one-year rule.
10:09:53 And the reason being is that we actually had had no
10:09:56 comments from the public prior to that hearing about
10:09:58 their concerns, based on council's position it was
10:10:04 suggested that we redesign the particular site for
10:10:08 consideration for single-family residence, and that
10:10:11 was the opinion of the overall neighborhood as well.
10:10:13 So we are just asking --
10:10:19 >>GWEN MILLER: It on now.
10:10:20 >>> Again this is Rome Sheet Metal on Rome.
10:10:23 We would like to ask for waiver of the one year rule
10:10:27 so we would have an opportunity to redesign the site
10:10:29 to consider alternatives for single-family which I
10:10:35 think was one of the recommendations from council
10:10:36 person Dingfelder and the concerns of council, that
10:10:39 would allow us to come back with a planned development
10:10:41 rezoning, allow us time to go meet with the
10:10:44 neighborhood association and the residents in in that
10:10:47 particular area, and just redesign the site for single
10:10:50 family that. Is our request, as a waiver of the
10:10:53 one-year rule.
10:10:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Baker, during this last week I
10:10:58 went out and looked at the site.
10:10:59 And I know whatever you do there will be better than
10:11:01 what is there now.
10:11:03 So I would like to move this.
10:11:05 >> Second.
10:11:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder.
10:11:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks.
10:11:09 Mr. Baker, in your letter to us, you mentioned
10:11:12 single-family detached, in your oral presentation the
10:11:17 word attached never came up.
10:11:19 >>> I have that letter that I will submit for the
10:11:20 record, I will submit to City Council, and the design
10:11:23 will consider single-family detached conventional
10:11:25 single-family homes.
10:11:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sure the neighborhood will be
10:11:28 And just for clarification, typically, your
10:11:34 reconsideration would allow you to get a date, you
10:11:37 know, within the next three or four months with a new
10:11:43 site plan, PD site plan and that kind of thing.
10:11:47 Is that your intent?
10:11:48 That's your desire?
10:11:49 You don't want to --
10:11:52 >>> We don't want to have to wait a year.
10:11:53 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: It has been the rule of this council
10:11:56 if they redesign the project, it becomes a new
10:11:59 So, therefore, this is not a reconsideration.
10:12:03 I have the petitioner request a waiver of the one year
10:12:05 rule and then reapply to the PD site plan.
10:12:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about fees?
10:12:13 I'm asking the question.
10:12:14 What are we doing about the fee?
10:12:15 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: A PD site plan is $2100.
10:12:18 They will have to pay the full fee if the rule is
10:12:21 Every consideration is $300 fee.
10:12:25 But a reconsideration by this council is considered a
10:12:27 reconsideration of that site plan that was considered
10:12:30 at the February 9th hearing.
10:12:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: This is a new project.
10:12:36 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: A new project.
10:12:40 >>> So we have to pay.
10:12:43 >>KEVIN WHITE: Just like you get paid again.
10:12:47 So it's not all bad.
10:12:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:12:49 (Motion carried)
10:12:52 Would anyone else like reconsideration?
10:12:54 We go to our committee reports.
10:12:57 Public safety, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
10:13:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to move resolution number
10:13:02 8, please.
10:13:03 >> Second.
10:13:03 (Motion carried).
10:13:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Public parks and recreation, Mary
10:13:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move items 9 and 10.
10:13:13 >> Second.
10:13:13 (Motion carried).
10:13:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
10:13:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move items 11 through 18.
10:13:22 >> Second.
10:13:22 (Motion carried).
10:13:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
10:13:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move resolution number 19.
10:13:30 >> So.
10:13:31 >> Second.
10:13:31 (Motion carried).
10:13:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Mrs. Linda
10:13:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 20 through 29.
10:13:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
10:13:43 (Motion carried).
10:13:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 30 --
10:13:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We have already done that.
10:13:52 >> No, we didn't.
10:13:54 >> Yes, we did, we moved that.
10:13:57 >> Yes, we did.
10:13:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Mr. John Harrison.
10:14:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move items 31 through 33.
10:14:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 33 is the one that we wanted to
10:14:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Said she could do anything she wanted.
10:14:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move 31 and 32.
10:14:16 >> Second.
10:14:16 (Motion carried).
10:14:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 33.
10:14:19 Is anyone here --
10:14:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Defer to next week?
10:14:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It doesn't matter.
10:14:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What I'm saying, it don't matter today
10:14:35 or tomorrow or next week.
10:14:37 Because --
10:14:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to finish the consent
10:14:40 docket and see if somebody shows up by then?
10:14:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's got to be done.
10:14:44 Let's go ahead and move it and then we'll ask somebody
10:14:47 to come and explain to us why.
10:14:50 >> Second.
10:14:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:14:52 All in favor say Aye.
10:14:54 Opposed, Nay.
10:14:56 (Motion carried) Mr. Harrison.
10:14:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to set -- well, hang on a
10:15:02 Are we moving -- 34 through 36 in my committee?
10:15:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
10:15:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move 34 through 36.
10:15:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:15:12 (Motion carried).
10:15:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, on 34, this is a
10:15:17 project that's going to be hugely beneficial to my
10:15:19 district in New Tampa.
10:15:22 I'm pleased to see this finally on the agenda.
10:15:24 And I know I have a lot of happy neighbors about this
10:15:27 road finally being moved up.
10:15:29 So thank you.
10:15:31 Madam Chair, move to set items 37 through 41.
10:15:37 And 42 through 47.
10:15:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
10:15:42 (Motion carried)
10:16:02 Through 45.
10:16:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mrs. Alvarez request with regard to
10:16:06 the item 33, did you want item 33 a specific time, or
10:16:10 on the agenda?
10:16:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: A staff report.
10:16:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A staff report.
10:16:15 Thank you.
10:16:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We go into our readings for second
10:16:19 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
10:16:21 item 46 or 47?
10:16:23 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
10:16:27 We need to open items 46 and 47.
10:16:30 >> So moved.
10:16:31 >> Second.
10:16:31 (Motion carried).
10:16:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:16:35 wants to speak on item 46?
10:16:38 >> Move to close.
10:16:39 >> Second.
10:16:39 (Motion carried).
10:16:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Madam Chair, move to adopt the
10:16:44 following ordinance on second reading, an ordinance
10:16:47 authorizing the construction and erection of
10:16:48 encroachments decorative canopies by 17th Avenue
10:16:53 Ybor City LLC over a portion of the public
10:16:56 rights-of-way known as 4th Avenue and 17th
10:16:59 Street as more particularly described herein subject
10:17:01 to certain terms, covenants conditions and agreement
10:17:05 as more particularly described herein providing an
10:17:07 effective date.
10:17:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
10:17:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
10:17:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
10:17:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
10:17:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
10:17:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
10:17:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
10:17:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:17:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that would like to
10:17:20 speak on 47?
10:17:22 >> Move to close.
10:17:23 >> Second.
10:17:23 (Motion carried).
10:17:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance
10:17:27 upon second reading, an ordinance amending ordinance
10:17:30 number 2005-328 which made lawful the sale of
10:17:32 beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic
10:17:35 content, beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP-R), for
10:17:37 consumption on premises only in connection with a
10:17:40 restaurant business establishment on that certain lot,
10:17:42 plot or tract of land located at 250 Westshore
10:17:45 Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, correcting a scrivener's
10:17:47 error, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
10:17:50 conflict, providing an effective date.
10:17:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
10:17:52 Roll call vote.
10:17:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
10:17:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
10:17:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
10:17:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
10:17:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
10:18:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
10:18:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
10:18:02 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:18:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public going to
10:18:05 speak on items 48 through 55?
10:18:08 Anyone going to speak on 48 through 55?
10:18:10 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
10:18:12 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
10:18:16 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
10:18:20 Thank you.
10:18:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.
10:18:23 I ask that all written communications that have been
10:18:26 received and have been available relative to today's
10:18:29 hearings that have been available in council office be
10:18:31 received and file into the record at this time.
10:18:32 >>THE CLERK: I have not received any.
10:18:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to any ex parte
10:18:39 communications, if there have been any by council
10:18:43 members, please disclose prior to the vote the
10:18:45 identity of the person or entity with whom the verbal
10:18:48 communication occurred, the substance of that verbal
10:18:51 A reminder for those people who are going to testify,
10:18:55 please reaffirm that you have been sworn for the
10:18:58 Thank you.
10:18:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 48.
10:19:01 >> So moved.
10:19:02 >> Second.
10:19:02 (Motion carried).
10:19:02 >>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
10:19:15 I have been sworn.
10:19:15 Run a request to vacate an alley oh, alley running
10:19:22 from 28th -- do we have the Elmo?
10:19:27 Thank you.
10:19:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are not there yet.
10:19:34 >>> Petitioner's property is highlighted in red.
10:19:35 It's 28th street.
10:19:37 Unimproved 30th street.
10:19:39 To the south Durham street to the north.
10:19:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, do we have prints of
10:19:47 It's a little hard to see.
10:19:48 >>> You should have received that in your packet.
10:19:50 It's a doc agenda.
10:19:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't see it in our packet.
10:20:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Cook, will you go back two
10:20:47 photographs, please?
10:20:51 The couple of photographs you are showing clearly show
10:20:54 tire tracks and activity up and down the alley.
10:20:56 >>JAMES COOK: From this end it's not being used.
10:21:00 30th street is heavily overgrown.
10:21:04 This property right here, you can't even get through
10:21:06 I had to jump a little hedge to get this picture.
10:21:11 Shot from the other end, though, I believe the
10:21:13 property a vehicle in here when I was taking the shot.
10:21:17 I believe they were loading something out of their
10:21:22 You can drive until you get to the middle.
10:21:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you go back to the aerial shot,
10:21:46 go back and reference who appears to be using it from
10:21:51 what direction.
10:21:52 >>> I believe at this time third lot in on the north
10:21:54 side of the alley.
10:21:55 I believe they were driving in from 28th.
10:21:58 I do not believe they accessed the rear of the
10:22:01 I believe they were loading stuff out of a shed.
10:22:03 They do have access off of Durham Street.
10:22:06 >> That didn't look like one isolated incident of one
10:22:09 single tire track.
10:22:10 It looked like it was packed down.
10:22:12 >>> It looked like it was recently maintained.
10:22:14 I don't know fountain was tire tracks from a mower.
10:22:17 And it looks pretty run down.
10:22:19 You can tell somebody had been driving over it.
10:22:22 >> Exactly.
10:22:23 So if each individual person puts up fences all the
10:22:25 way to the back, whoever is using it in the middle
10:22:27 will no longer be able to use it.
10:22:29 >>> That's correct.
10:22:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, do you have anything to
10:22:38 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: No, ma'am, nothing further.
10:22:40 The ordinance that we prepared in anticipation
10:22:43 includes the two easements, the city utility easements
10:22:45 and the Verizon easement.
10:22:47 That is all.
10:22:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a follow-up on Mr. Santiago's
10:22:52 He had prepared a memo for the council in October 2005
10:22:55 relating to the criteria being used on petition to
10:22:58 There are several petitions to vacate today.
10:23:00 I did photocopy of copy of that memo to refresh
10:23:03 council's recollection and put a copy in front of each
10:23:07 of you.
10:23:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank you, Mr. Shelby,
10:23:11 for doing that.
10:23:11 And I think a question that I have for staff is, when
10:23:14 we get a request from the petitioner where petitioner
10:23:22 owns property adjacent but not the entirety, how is
10:23:26 this communicated to the other property owners along
10:23:29 the alley?
10:23:29 >>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
10:23:33 Petitioner is required by the city code to notify all
10:23:36 the abutting owners by letter that they are
10:23:38 petitioning to vacate.
10:23:40 Sometimes we get calls from abutting owners either
10:23:44 questioning what they are doing or objecting to the.
10:23:46 Sometimes they will e-mail you and write in or show up
10:23:48 in person to object to the vacating.
10:23:50 I have not received any calls on this alley.
10:23:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is it written in a way -- sometimes
10:23:56 letters from government are confusing.
10:23:58 Is it written in a way that people can understand
10:24:00 what's going on?
10:24:01 >>> I believe all that's required under the city code
10:24:03 is that petitioner mails out a copy of the resolution
10:24:06 that sets out the hearing and has on therein that they
10:24:08 are vacating the alley.
10:24:11 >> I would really like to work on that language.
10:24:13 Because I don't think sometimes -- I'm not talking
10:24:15 about this case specifically necessarily.
10:24:17 But I think sometimes people may not realize how
10:24:20 that's going to impact their access.
10:24:21 It sounds to be me like if I heard that my third
10:24:24 neighbor down wanted to vacate something I wouldn't
10:24:26 necessarily understand it.
10:24:27 It's going to -- their vacating is going to impact my
10:24:30 So I would really like you to work with the
10:24:33 neighborhoods department, who do a very good job of
10:24:37 stating things in language that everybody can
10:24:40 >>> We would also have to work with legal to amend the
10:24:42 city code of what's required to notice right now.
10:24:44 >> I think that's really, really important.
10:24:47 I really think oftentimes folks don't understand the
10:24:51 implications of the request.
10:24:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just make it a user friendly
10:24:55 letter, in addition to whatever legal requires.
10:24:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right.
10:25:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was always under the impression that
10:25:04 when you vacate an alley that you had to have all the
10:25:08 owners wanted to vacate it.
10:25:10 Is that not the case anymore?
10:25:13 >>JAMES COOK: No, ma'am.
10:25:14 That's only when the city is the petitioner.
10:25:16 We tried to get 100% of support when the city is a
10:25:19 petitioner on the alleyway.
10:25:20 It's very hard to do that.
10:25:21 But there can be one owner on the alley.
10:25:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Maybe we ought to amend the code
10:25:28 because it seems -- I don't know why we never thought
10:25:30 of it before.
10:25:31 I was always under the impression that have been in
10:25:36 the alley needed to weigh in on it.
10:25:40 >>> They are notified and have the opportunity to show
10:25:44 >> But to be cognizant.
10:25:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mrs. Alvarez, I think it is confusing,
10:25:52 and they have to come, but Jimmy, correct me if I am
10:25:55 Somebody has to come in and ask to vacate the whole
10:25:58 And then if some of the people abutting the alley
10:26:03 don't want to vacate it, and we don't impair them from
10:26:08 using it, then we can close a partial part of the
10:26:13 That's where the confusion is.
10:26:14 Because if it doesn't bother the people, and the south
10:26:18 end needs it for some sort of security reason, then
10:26:21 they come to us with a petition to vacate the alley,
10:26:23 if it interferes with anybody else's goings on then
10:26:29 they can vacate.
10:26:30 So we need to look at that again.
10:26:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe legal can speak to. This
10:26:35 we have set up an opportunity to have a workshop on
10:26:38 alley, but I believe council has deferred it.
10:26:41 Maybe we need to get it back on our agenda to talk
10:26:44 about it.
10:26:47 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I believe it was reset for March
10:26:53 If I could briefly address two points that were
10:26:55 raised, with regard to the notice.
10:26:57 Way would like to suggest is perhaps maybe I forward
10:27:01 to you a copy of the let theory has been drafted, let
10:27:03 me get that to you so we can see it and maybe once you
10:27:06 have read it and seen what we tried to explain on that
10:27:08 letter, I can tell you it's fairly comprehensive,
10:27:12 actually two pages, not double spaced, throws a lot of
10:27:15 info on it that may or may not accurately convey.
10:27:18 Maybe once you see that letter, you can bet area sees
10:27:20 if we are doing a good job of putting folks on notice.
10:27:22 So if you will a allow me leave to do that, because it
10:27:27 may not be necessary.
10:27:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's hear from petitioner.
10:27:32 >>> If I could on one second point.
10:27:33 On the alley there was some information that was
10:27:37 discussed and I can refer you to the Elmo.
10:27:37 City code section 22-36 addresses the issue of
10:27:40 vacating alleys.
10:27:43 I would like to note too that by code the entire alley
10:27:45 must be vacated or to avoid a dead-end situation on
10:27:51 cul-de-sac situation.
10:27:52 So by city codes there are limits how to vacate an
10:27:58 And again City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter
10:28:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In other words, you're saying that
10:28:06 we should either do all or nothing.
10:28:08 You're not saying that we have to do all.
10:28:13 >>> Yes, sir, the code actually states that the entire
10:28:15 alley must be vacated.
10:28:18 >> Or not do anything.
10:28:19 Or not vacate it at all.
10:28:20 >>> That's correct.
10:28:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
10:28:34 >>> I'm Shirley Teijelo and this is Carlos Teijelo.
10:28:41 We have been sworn in.
10:28:46 >>> Carlos.
10:28:46 The reason I'm here is because my lots are not
10:28:49 conforming to the 5,000 square foot that the city
10:28:53 And please pardon my voice.
10:28:55 I had a cold a few weeks ago and my vocal cords are
10:29:00 still not recuperated but I am going to try.
10:29:03 I am a builder.
10:29:04 I own Morris construction incorporated.
10:29:07 Like I said the only reason we are here is because the
10:29:09 80% rule was abolished and we need a portion of that
10:29:13 alley in order to build three homes on those lots.
10:29:16 Currently, we are RM-16 which we can build a number of
10:29:21 things there or even go for a planned development.
10:29:24 This particular alley -- this particular alley is
10:29:32 overgrown, from my three lots all the way to 30th
10:29:37 street, which 30th street does not exist, is only
10:29:41 a right-of-way.
10:29:43 Currently, the neighbor behind me, one of them is
10:29:49 using the alley.
10:29:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which lot would that be, sir?
10:29:58 >>> That would be lot 12.
10:30:00 >> Did you point to it?
10:30:02 >>> Yes, sir.
10:30:02 See it up there?
10:30:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
10:30:06 So he's using the alley?
10:30:08 >>> He use it is alley and goes through my property in
10:30:10 order to pull out so that he wouldn't have to butt up.
10:30:13 This alley happens to be 15-foot in width, I believe.
10:30:17 >> Which lots do you own?
10:30:18 Can you point to that?
10:30:20 >>> 14, 15 and 16.
10:30:23 And from my lots, as you can see there, were
10:30:30 It's overgrown.
10:30:32 To the east.
10:30:38 Right now, as it stand, he pulls in every now and
10:30:43 He does have access to his property from the front.
10:30:45 And I think probably there is no pickup there at all.
10:30:52 There is an active sanitary sewer around in there.
10:30:56 I do have a letter from Mr. Charles lynch of the City
10:30:59 of Tampa sewer department, which has no objections to
10:31:02 what I'm doing.
10:31:05 I would like to introduce it into the record, if I
10:31:20 If this petition is granted, this alley happens to be
10:31:24 15-foot in width.
10:31:27 This homeowner back here, the only thing to have
10:31:31 access to this alley, and they are all three
10:31:34 relatives, these three homes right here, they will
10:31:38 still have access, too, because we will only be
10:31:40 getting seven and a half feet from this alley for our
10:31:44 So he would still have seven and a half to eight feet
10:31:48 in there and back up if he wanted to
10:31:56 Shirley: And we have spoken to the owners and they
10:31:58 have no objection.
10:32:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The seven and a half feet you would
10:32:03 be getting, would that give you enough land to build
10:32:05 on your lots?
10:32:07 Carlos: Yes, ma'am.
10:32:08 My lots happen to be 95 feet in width.
10:32:12 According to the City of Tampa you must have 5,000
10:32:14 square feet.
10:32:16 Since the 80% rule was abolished, and we would have
10:32:19 gone this way, you know.
10:32:22 Our only objective is to close this, which really does
10:32:26 nobody any good, this alley.
10:32:32 I can use my seven and a half feet in order to make my
10:32:35 lots confirm.
10:32:36 And also he could use his seven and a half feet to
10:32:42 gain access to his property.
10:32:45 And since they are all three related that would
10:32:47 continue to be open.
10:32:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:32:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of questions.
10:32:52 When did you buy this property?
10:32:55 >>> Carlos: We bought that two, three years ago,
10:32:58 something like that.
10:33:00 >> Was it the same shape when you bought it?
10:33:02 >>> Yes, sir.
10:33:02 Was in the same shape, was overgrown and has never
10:33:06 been open through and through.
10:33:07 >> Was it the same dimension when you bought it?
10:33:10 >>> Yes, sir, it was.
10:33:11 >> Did you realize at the time you bought that the
10:33:12 there was -- that it was short the five feet?
10:33:15 >>> I believe at the time I bought it, the 80% rule
10:33:18 was still in effect and I wasn't too concerned with
10:33:20 that at the moment.
10:33:22 >> Have you talked to staff, our zoning staff, about
10:33:26 the possibility of using a PD, a planned development
10:33:31 as a vehicle to get the zoning that you need to build
10:33:35 those three homes as opposed to vacating the alley?
10:33:38 >>> I spoke to galore what one time and she told me I
10:33:40 could pursue the planned development, and possibly
10:33:43 build some town homes or something there.
10:33:47 >> Or even single-family with a PD.
10:33:49 >>> Or even single-family with a PD, right.
10:33:53 As it stands right now, like I said, we are RM-16.
10:33:56 We really don't need, you know, to come up here and go
10:34:00 through this process, because we can build duplexes
10:34:04 there, you know, we can build probably four or five
10:34:07 units in this piece of land there, and we don't need
10:34:11 to go through this.
10:34:13 My sole objective is to get away from the duplex
10:34:17 things, build homes, residential homes, single-family.
10:34:20 >> But you can do that through the PD?
10:34:22 Is that what Gloria told you?
10:34:24 >>> I don't think that we can do that since the 80%
10:34:27 rule doesn't exist anymore.
10:34:28 I think she's here.
10:34:29 Maybe she can answer that for us.
10:34:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Marty.
10:34:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you understand my question?
10:34:40 Can he use the PD to facilitate the single-family
10:34:42 homes that he's talking about?
10:34:44 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
10:34:47 I didn't get to hear the first part of it because I
10:34:50 was going over some wet zone cases.
10:34:53 >> He's five feet short on each lot.
10:34:55 >>> Five feet short?
10:34:56 It would be an alternative to go through the planned
10:34:58 development process.
10:35:00 It's well within -- I would have to look at his future
10:35:03 land use to see what that is.
10:35:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: RM-16.
10:35:08 >>> That's the zoning.
10:35:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:35:12 would like to be speak on item number 48?
10:35:17 Motion and second to close.
10:35:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Before we close I want to ask staff
10:35:22 a question.
10:35:23 I know that -- the reason for vacating the alley is to
10:35:27 allow this gentleman to put something on the property.
10:35:31 The reason for asking, do we have -- it appears that
10:35:35 there are a number in this area, do we have any kind
10:35:40 of map about the percentage of alleys that have been
10:35:43 vacated versus those that haven't been?
10:35:45 >>JAMES COOK:Dy a quick look before I came over.
10:35:47 There's only four or five other alleys that have been
10:35:51 previously vacated.
10:35:52 I believe those were done for the Crosstown.
10:35:55 >> My feeling is that generally speaking alleys ar
10:35:57 good thing and I would really like you to see to
10:35:59 develop not with duplexes but single family houses but
10:36:02 I think the PD would give you that opportunity.
10:36:05 So what I would like to do rather than going ahead
10:36:07 with this vacating is I would like to move to waive
10:36:10 the filing fee for this gentleman but to allow him
10:36:13 rather than applying for the alley to apply for a PD.
10:36:17 That would be my motion.
10:36:18 >>JAMES COOK: Can I add on top of that?
10:36:21 Every alley in this whole subdivision is nonconforming
10:36:24 as far as depth goes.
10:36:25 95 by 50.
10:36:26 So any vacant property that's in this subdivision
10:36:29 that's in single loaner -- owner are Rership will have
10:36:33 to come before you to vacate the alley or do a PD.
10:36:37 Way suggest is vacate ten foot which is the average
10:36:41 size of most alleys in the city anyway.
10:36:43 This helps them.
10:36:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Better.
10:36:47 I move what Mr. Cook just suggested.
10:36:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, do you still have a
10:36:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, I think that's a great
10:36:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
10:36:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Do we want to can ask the petitioner
10:37:01 if that's okay with him too?
10:37:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: He just wants to be able to build.
10:37:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you understand what Mr. Cook was
10:37:08 Carlos: Closing, what, five feet off the alley?
10:37:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It gives you the five feet.
10:37:15 Then it gives what you want and leave the alley open.
10:37:19 >>> That yeah, that would give me 100 which is
10:37:22 conforming lots. The three neighbors would still have
10:37:25 access to the.
10:37:26 But the way we were going we would have still had
10:37:29 seven feet.
10:37:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a win-win, I think.
10:37:33 >>> Yeah, nine feet, ten feet.
10:37:37 Even five.
10:37:37 I'll settle for anything.
10:37:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:37:41 We need a motion to close the public hearing.
10:37:43 >> So moved.
10:37:44 >> Second.
10:37:44 (Motion carried)
10:37:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe you would have to direct
10:37:48 legal to craft the ordinance that would allow for
10:37:51 >> So moved.
10:37:52 >> Second.
10:37:52 (Motion carried).
10:37:53 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 49.
10:38:00 >> So moved.
10:38:00 >> Second.
10:38:01 (Motion carried).
10:38:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the future as part of our
10:38:08 reports, I know we are going to talk about the process
10:38:10 and all that jazz but it would be really helpful to
10:38:13 know if all the alleys in the area are vacated or not
10:38:18 >>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
10:38:21 I have been sworn.
10:38:22 Petitioner requested to vacate an east-west alley
10:38:28 south of Ivy street, north of core Delia street, east
10:38:33 of Matanzas, west of MacDill Avenue.
10:38:37 The alley is highlighted in yellow. It runs from
10:38:40 Matanzas to MacDill.
10:38:43 It's a ten-foot alleyway.
10:38:49 Petitioner owns property.
10:38:52 The east lot is now vacant.
10:38:54 They want to build on that.
10:38:57 This is the alley looking east from Matanzas, already
10:39:01 fenced off.
10:39:02 Trees in it.
10:39:02 Already overgrown.
10:39:05 Alley looking west from MacDill.
10:39:06 It's the only portion that's actually open.
10:39:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The 80% rule would not put us in
10:39:16 this sub -- in this situation.
10:39:18 >>JAMES COOK: There are a couple of alleyways that are
10:39:24 not sub standard.
10:39:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You push one way and something
10:39:29 >>> This is the alley continuing across MacDill.
10:39:31 This was previously vacated in '99.
10:39:35 This is a shot of petitioner's property, already sold.
10:39:42 This is the lot they wish to build on.
10:39:43 Staff has moo no objections as long as drainage and
10:39:46 utilities are adhered to.
10:39:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
10:40:02 >>> I'm Jeff O'Neal.
10:40:03 I own the vacant property on Cordelia. And we are
10:40:07 vacating the alleyway.
10:40:08 I live at 341 Leona street.
10:40:14 >> I'm Richard Bush, right now living at 3145 Cordelia
10:40:20 >>> Jeff: When Mr. Bush bought the property we
10:40:22 weren't aware lots were nonconforming and the 80% rule
10:40:25 had been abolished.
10:40:28 So we actually got permit to build the house on the
10:40:31 lot, and when we went to get the CO, city told us,
10:40:36 oops, we made a mistake and you have to get the
10:40:38 alleyway vacated.
10:40:41 The house is already built, completed, everything but
10:40:44 the CO because we can't get the release for the
10:40:46 nonconforming lot on his house.
10:40:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sue the city.
10:40:58 They made a mistake.
10:41:02 >>> It's pretty interesting but the alleyway has
10:41:05 already been taken over.
10:41:06 We can see by the pictures that Mr. Cook showed.
10:41:09 Nobody had objections from the city.
10:41:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you two been sworn in?
10:41:15 >>> No, ma'am.
10:41:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you raise your right hand,
10:41:19 (Oath administered by Clerk).
10:41:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:41:23 would like to speak on item 49?
10:41:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
10:41:35 Mr. Cook, if you could put up two of those pictures,
10:41:38 it says alley looking west from MacDill, alley
10:41:41 continuing across Matanzas.
10:41:44 >>JAMES COOK: That's continuing across Matanzas.
10:41:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Slide that up a little more, if you
10:41:59 corks Mr. Cook.
10:42:00 Are there any gates that indicate -- clearly somebody
10:42:03 is maintaining that.
10:42:03 >>JAMES COOK: Well, approximately the first 100 or so
10:42:09 feet, as you see into the alley you can see overgrowth
10:42:12 starting to happen right here, makes it impassable.
10:42:16 You need to go to the other side.
10:42:17 And then the other one is a shot across MacDill
10:42:19 which was already vacated.
10:42:24 >> There's another shot that says looking west from
10:42:26 Is that looking at the subject alley?
10:42:29 >>JAMES COOK: Looking at the subject alley, yes, sir.
10:42:31 >> So that also shows --
10:42:33 >>> It's open for about the first -- actually the
10:42:36 first lot.
10:42:37 This first lot coming west on MacDill.
10:42:40 You start to see fences start to intrude in that lot.
10:42:43 So you can really only access the first 50-some feet.
10:42:47 >> So those are illegal fences?
10:42:49 >>> Yes, sir.
10:42:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question for myself just to
10:42:55 follow up.
10:42:56 This I think is your district.
10:43:04 I think as these neighborhoods are redeveloping, we
10:43:07 ought to save as many useful alleys as possible.
10:43:10 Just like they have -- just like they did in Hyde Park
10:43:13 and now the alleys are wonderful in Hyde Park.
10:43:16 I'll defer to your wisdom on this one.
10:43:18 But maybe you're more familiar with it than I am.
10:43:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I'm looking at the pictures that
10:43:24 they have here, too.
10:43:26 And I kind of like the idea of the alleys are being
10:43:29 used over here.
10:43:30 And you're right.
10:43:32 I don't feel like we need to close this alley.
10:43:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we give the two feet, under
10:43:40 these unusual circumstances, can we give them the two
10:43:42 feet without violating the ordinance?
10:43:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think for the sake of Ms. Alvarez, I
10:43:52 don't know if you had the opportunity to hear it, I
10:43:57 agree, and I live in Hyde Park and I love that my
10:44:00 alley is open, et cetera.
10:44:01 But the city said do it.
10:44:02 Now we are not going to give him the CO because they
10:44:05 are short two feet.
10:44:06 That's the craziest thing I ever heard of.
10:44:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's why I said, can we give him
10:44:11 the two feet?
10:44:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: I know what you said, Mr. Dingfelder
10:44:14 but I am just repeating it so she knows the whole
10:44:17 Whether we agree about conceptually we want all the
10:44:22 alleys open in West Tampa, that was something --
10:44:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't like the idea of closing the
10:44:26 alleys in West Tampa unless you really have a good
10:44:30 reason for it.
10:44:31 But in this case --
10:44:34 >>: A pretty good reason.
10:44:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We might carve out an exception if
10:44:40 we can give them two feet and Mott not close the
10:44:44 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: You may enclose Do a partial
10:44:46 vacating, yes, sir.
10:44:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: How wide is the alley?
10:44:51 >>> Ten feet.
10:44:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So we are taking to the eight feet.
10:44:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: For someone to go through, eight feet
10:44:57 is enough?
10:45:00 >>> Jeff: Only the first lot on each end being used
10:45:02 and that's it. The other ten lots have taken over the
10:45:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we give you the two feet you're
10:45:08 fine, right?
10:45:09 >>> Yes, sir.
10:45:09 You might want to think of one thing else.
10:45:11 There's ten other lots, for houses that are 50 years
10:45:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Might be grandfathered in.
10:45:19 >>> Yeah.
10:45:20 So that's all.
10:45:21 That would be great.
10:45:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
10:45:26 >> Second.
10:45:27 (Motion carried).
10:45:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to make a motion to
10:45:32 ask legal to draft an ordinance to give these folks
10:45:34 the two feet that they need and vacate only that two
10:45:38 feet, and then that way they're satisfied.
10:45:41 We'll deal with those other lots on another day.
10:45:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would respectfully disagree on that
10:45:51 and make a substitute motion we vacate the entire
10:45:54 If we have a ten-foot section here, we only have the
10:45:57 two feet, if this gentleman decides to put up a fence
10:46:00 later -- I don't know what you are going to do. You
10:46:02 might want to sell the house, the next person wants a
10:46:05 That's their prerogative.
10:46:06 You put a fence two feet in the alley it's going to be
10:46:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My truck is skinnier than eight
10:46:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to speak to why I seconded
10:46:17 this motion.
10:46:17 I think that as many resources ooh, we take it for
10:46:22 granted and then suddenly go, oh, my God, how could we
10:46:25 have given that away?
10:46:26 I maintain that an 8-foot alley is better than no
10:46:31 alley and I support this T motion to allow this
10:46:33 gentleman to legitimately build on this lot.
10:46:36 The only reason he wants this extra feet is so that he
10:46:38 can get his CO.
10:46:40 And if we do this today, then he gets to get his CO.
10:46:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't think we are doing any special
10:46:48 favors especially since the city messed up on it
10:46:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Exactly.
10:46:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Giving him the CO and --
10:46:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: It seems this is going to draw it out
10:47:00 two feet.
10:47:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: Or something of that nature.
10:47:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Some of it has already been closed.
10:47:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: That's why I said, close them all.
10:47:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Looking at pictures of this alley,
10:47:12 it's a perfectly -- it looks like it's perfectly
10:47:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm going to second Mr. White's
10:47:20 substitute motion.
10:47:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:47:21 We have a motion.
10:47:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: Which is what, to do the -- two feet?
10:47:30 >> No, the whole thing.
10:47:30 >>KEVIN WHITE: What they petitioned for to begin with.
10:47:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a substitute motion on the
10:47:42 Mr. Shelby?
10:47:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I am going to have to rule that
10:47:56 motion out of order.
10:47:57 It's in effect a new motion because it supersedes the
10:48:01 maker of the original motion.
10:48:02 And I believe if that motion fails, then Mr. White's
10:48:05 motion will be ripe.
10:48:06 But I don't believe as a substitute --
10:48:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: Go back to the original motion.
10:48:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: This is seven years worth of
10:48:15 substitute motion we can change with one ruling.
10:48:18 So I think if we are going to accept that by Robert's
10:48:24 Rules of Order we need to clarify.
10:48:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
10:48:29 Rather than slow up the extra, let me confer with
10:48:32 Robert's Rules of Order.
10:48:33 If that's the way council has done it traditionally --
10:48:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: A motion and second supersedes.
10:48:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a substitute motion to grant
10:48:44 the petition and what he has filed for.
10:48:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The reason I support that is because
10:48:49 this petitioner has done everything that they thought
10:48:52 that they were supposed to do correctly, and now they
10:48:54 have come in based on the recommendation of staff and
10:48:59 asked us to vacate this alley.
10:49:02 Staff didn't come in and ask us for a partial vacating
10:49:04 of the alley.
10:49:06 What we are doing is we are going to give them two
10:49:08 feet and everybody else's fences are illegal, they are
10:49:12 out in the middle of this alley, no one is using it.
10:49:15 So I don't see why we wouldn't go ahead with not only
10:49:19 staff recommendation, but with what they are asking us
10:49:21 to do.
10:49:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena.
10:49:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what council is providing
10:49:28 today is new policy direction.
10:49:30 I think if the staff didn't recommend the two feet
10:49:32 because they didn't realize that it's the new policy
10:49:37 direction of council to respect and maintain alleys,
10:49:39 but also accommodate the needs of the petitioner, and
10:49:41 I think that if that is indeed our direction, we'll be
10:49:47 doing something good for the community.
10:49:48 And we heard testimony today that the property owners
10:49:51 on either end of the alley are in fact using it.
10:49:54 Therefore, I will not support the motion before us.
10:49:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:49:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, I mean, the pictures speak,
10:50:02 Mr. Harrison, with all due respect.
10:50:04 The two or three lots on either end, you know, have it
10:50:07 wide open, it's no fences in the way, you know --
10:50:11 >>JAMES COOK: Wrong one.
10:50:17 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
10:50:18 >>JAMES COOK: It is fenced off.
10:50:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then what is that picture you said
10:50:23 looking west?
10:50:25 >>JAMES COOK: Looking across the street.
10:50:27 This is the other end.
10:50:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So one end --
10:50:31 >>JAMES COOK: We vacated it two years or three years
10:50:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
10:50:36 We are going to vote on the motion.
10:50:38 All in favor of the substitute motion say Aye.
10:50:40 Opposed, Nay
10:50:47 Mr. White, would you read it?
10:50:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance vacating, closing,
10:50:50 discontinuing, a certain right-of-way all of that
10:50:53 alleyway lying south of Ivy street east of Matanzas
10:50:57 Avenue West of MacDill Avenue map of John drew's
10:51:01 first extension to north-West Tampa a subdivision in
10:51:04 the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the
10:51:06 same being more fully described from N section 2
10:51:10 providing an effective date.
10:51:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby gave us criteria.
10:51:15 And Mr. Santiago also gives us this criteria
10:51:21 And we are not supposed to vacate alleys unless it
10:51:24 meets the criteria.
10:51:25 So I guess I would ask -- I guess I would ask which
10:51:28 part of that criteria does this meet?
10:51:30 Because it says, for example, will alleviate or
10:51:33 relieve the public from the cost of maintaining the
10:51:36 alley, no longer useful, will alleviate a public
10:51:40 nuisance such as dumping or foster redevelopment of
10:51:42 abutting properties.
10:51:45 I think clearly, you know, there is a solution that
10:51:51 didn't hinder these gentlemen.
10:51:52 We were trying to help these gentlemen and give them
10:51:54 only the two feet that they were looking for.
10:51:56 They get their CO.
10:51:58 They walk away.
10:51:58 Everything would be fine.
10:51:59 We are now giving away city property to everybody on
10:52:03 both sides of that alley, we are giving away the city
10:52:06 right-of-way, just because of this one isolated
10:52:09 And I think that's bad policy.
10:52:10 And I think that's a mistake and I can't support it.
10:52:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:52:14 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:52:15 >>THE CLERK: Dingfelder and Saul-Sena, no.
10:52:19 >>GWEN MILLER: It passed, sir.
10:52:22 You're okay.
10:52:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Go get your CO.
10:52:28 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 50.
10:52:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
10:52:35 >> Second.
10:52:37 [Motion Carried]
10:52:41 >>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
10:52:43 I have been sworn in.
10:52:43 Petitioner is requesting to vacate east-west alley
10:52:46 from Fremont Avenue to Rome Avenue, between Cypress
10:52:49 Street and State Street.
10:52:51 A portion of this alley is the east 80 feet has
10:52:55 already been vacated, dead-ends into this ^ warehouse.
10:52:59 Petitioner is requesting to vacate the rest of the
10:53:02 They own everything shaded in red -- Cypress to the
10:53:11 And I would like to state this is in the West Tampa
10:53:14 overlay district.
10:53:15 Historically there's 391 alleys in the district which
10:53:20 124 have already been vacated.
10:53:26 This is the alleyway looking east from Fremont.
10:53:29 Petitioner owns property on both side.
10:53:34 >> There's a tree in the way there.
10:53:35 >>JAMES COOK: A tree.
10:53:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's a grand tree, too.
10:53:43 >>JAMES COOK: This is the alley looking east.
10:53:47 The alley looking west from the dead-end.
10:53:51 Once again petitioner owns property on both sides.
10:53:56 Shot of the alley looking east.
10:53:57 This is a portion that's previously been vacated.
10:54:05 This is the alley looking west across Fremont.
10:54:08 You see the alley is being used like an alley.
10:54:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The alley -- the picture in front
10:54:15 of us, is that where they are asking --
10:54:18 >>JAMES COOK: No.
10:54:20 That alley is this alley over here.
10:54:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That alley is being used and no
10:54:28 reason in the in the world to vacate that one.
10:54:31 We need to stick with the pictures that -- I just
10:54:35 don't want anybody to be confused about which one we
10:54:37 are being asked to.
10:54:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What is that?
10:54:42 >>> A shot of the petitioner's property abutting
10:54:44 property on the south.
10:54:46 Petitioner's property abutting property on the north.
10:54:49 Petitioner's property abutting on the south.
10:54:54 One more shot of petitioner's property abutting
10:54:56 property on the south.
10:54:58 Staff has no objections as long as utility easement is
10:55:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
10:55:07 >>> Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of council.
10:55:09 My name is James Alfonto, represent George Peterson,
10:55:14 and I have been sworn.
10:55:16 My client is seeking obviously to close -- initially,
10:55:23 when I went to land development council to have my
10:55:26 client's petition reviewed, we had asked only to -- we
10:55:31 were going to ask only to close that portion of the
10:55:35 alley abutting my client's property.
10:55:37 The gentleman I met with at land development
10:55:40 requesting that I rework the petition to take out or
10:55:46 to ask to vacate the rest of the alley eastward of my
10:55:50 client's property.
10:55:57 My client had been experiencing some vandalism and/or
10:56:02 dumping in the alley and as you see put up a chain
10:56:06 link fence, which is probably illegal at this point.
10:56:10 And seeking to get legal.
10:56:17 My understanding is the only requirement from the
10:56:20 various city agencies that reviewed this petition is
10:56:23 from weight water, requesting easement be maintained,
10:56:29 because there is the sewer line on the alley, or in
10:56:34 the alley.
10:56:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Question, Mr. Dingfelder.
10:56:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:56:41 On the one hand, because this alley dead-ends into the
10:56:44 warehouse, I guess, you know, it doesn't necessarily
10:56:48 go anywhere.
10:56:49 But what I'm wondering about is, it appears from the
10:56:53 aerial that there's only your client owns property
10:56:56 that maybe has, what, two or three houses on it right
10:57:02 >>> Those are commercial.
10:57:03 >> Those are commercial?
10:57:04 >>> Correct.
10:57:05 >> What is the long-term plan for this property?
10:57:06 I mean, from your clients' perspective.
10:57:11 >>> He owns numerous parcels in that area, and other
10:57:15 areas, and they are all commercial.
10:57:18 >> Is that his desire to probably keep it commercial?
10:57:21 >>> He keeps it -- commercial by nature but he owns a
10:57:26 great deal of warehouse space, and that's primarily
10:57:29 what he maintains.
10:57:33 >> So why wouldn't he want to keep access down the
10:57:36 middle as an alternate mode to get in and out of that
10:57:45 >>> He doesn't need access as such.
10:57:47 He's more interested in being able to block it, to be
10:57:52 able to park on it if he would like to -- that sort of
10:57:59 Temporary uses that could be removed in the event that
10:58:03 wastewater needs to do anything to get in there to do
10:58:06 anything to the sewers.
10:58:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:58:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
10:58:11 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
10:58:13 on item number 50?
10:58:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
10:58:16 >> Second.
10:58:16 (Motion carried).
10:58:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance vacating, closing,
10:58:30 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way
10:58:33 all that alleyway located south of Cypress Street,
10:58:36 west of 19th Avenue, north of orange street and
10:58:39 east of 20th -- this is not the right one.
10:58:45 >>> That's the way the streets were platted.
10:58:50 They have been renamed.
10:58:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: Who is the petitioner?
10:59:03 That's the same one, yeah.
10:59:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Make sure we are on the right one.
10:59:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: North of orange street and east of
10:59:13 20th Avenue in Benjamin's 5th addition?
10:59:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: That's not right.
10:59:24 Not for West Tampa.
10:59:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think they transposed one
10:59:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It is Benjamin's 5th addition.
10:59:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to send to legal to correct the
10:59:47 >>> I think the only thing wrong is east of
10:59:49 2920thth should have been east of -- no, it is
10:59:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It does show 19th Avenue,
10:59:55 20th Avenue, orange, lemon, lime.
10:59:59 It's an ancient plat.
11:00:00 >>GWEN MILLER: If that's correct, read it against,
11:00:04 Mrs. Alvarez.
11:00:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance vacating, closing,
11:00:07 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way
11:00:11 all that alleyway located south of Cypress Street,
11:00:13 west of 19th Avenue, north of orange street and
11:00:16 east of 20th Avenue, in Benjamin's 5th
11:00:19 addition, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
11:00:21 Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more
11:00:23 fully described in section 2 hereof providing an
11:00:26 effective date.
11:00:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:00:29 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:00:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
11:00:32 (Motion carried).
11:00:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to open 51.
11:00:38 It passed, so you're okay.
11:00:56 >>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
11:00:58 I have been sworn.
11:00:58 Petitioner is requesting to vacate north-south alley
11:01:04 between Franklin and Tampa streets, this is a weird
11:01:07 This is the free library, where the neighborhood
11:01:13 services office is located.
11:01:14 We already vacated the south part of the alleyway but
11:01:17 there is an open east-west that runs behind the
11:01:19 The north 98 feet has also been vacated with this
11:01:23 alley so all that remains is approximately 100 feet.
11:01:26 That's what they are requesting to vacate.
11:01:28 Petitioner owns everything in red.
11:01:32 This is a shot of the alleyway looking north towards
11:01:37 oak from the east-west alleyway.
11:01:40 Shot of the alleyway from south towards the east-west
11:01:43 alley and those the neighborhood services building in
11:01:45 the background.
11:01:49 This is the alley looking north towards oak.
11:01:53 North 90 feet of this has already been vacated.
11:02:00 Shot of the alley looking south.
11:02:03 The part they are asking to vacate is approximately
11:02:07 this fence line right here, and then dead-end.
11:02:11 Line between these two buildings.
11:02:14 This alley has not been vacated.
11:02:16 The shot from the east-west alley looking west from
11:02:19 Franklin Street.
11:02:20 Petitioner owns property on the north side of the
11:02:23 City owns property on the south side.
11:02:25 This is the same alley looking east from Tampa street.
11:02:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How wide is that alley?
11:02:33 >> It's only ten feet.
11:02:35 Narrow with the buildings on it.
11:02:39 And I have a couple of shots of petitioner's property.
11:02:43 Properties running east.
11:02:46 Alley on the other side of these cars.
11:02:50 Another shot from petitioner's property, abutting
11:02:53 property on the east.
11:02:58 Property abutting property on the east.
11:03:01 Neighborhood services offices to the south.
11:03:08 Another shot of petitioner's property abutting the
11:03:13 A couple more.
11:03:14 Petitioner's property, shot of petition property.
11:03:19 Staff has no objections as long as utility easement is
11:03:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Question from council members?
11:03:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.
11:03:27 There is a plan for this area.
11:03:28 I believe it's the East Tampa plan.
11:03:31 And I wondered how this -- what if anything the plan
11:03:34 addresses, alley vacations.
11:03:37 >>JAMES COOK: East Tampa plan?
11:03:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, Tampa Heights.
11:03:41 I'm sorry.
11:03:43 >>> This is just outside the Tampa Heights historic
11:03:45 The district is a couple hundred feet away.
11:03:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:03:52 would like to be speak on item 51?
11:03:53 Petitioner, come on.
11:04:01 >>> Scott dents and I have been sworn in, her on
11:04:05 behalf of the LLC.
11:04:09 >>> My name is Richard Dell Rosal.
11:04:16 I represent the property.
11:04:22 >>> The reason we are vacating, that petitioner has
11:04:25 the alley vacated is because it's no longer used.
11:04:29 There's an east-west alley at present.
11:04:33 It dead-end to the north side.
11:04:36 The alley which was previously vacated years ago.
11:04:40 There has been recurrent vandalism in the past.
11:04:44 And that's why the fences are up at this point.
11:04:47 So the property owners feel they are in a better
11:04:52 position to try to prevent that in the future.
11:04:55 I have spoken with the neighborhood association, the
11:04:58 president of the neighborhood association, and she
11:05:00 informed me that they in general did not have any
11:05:04 opposition to this vacation.
11:05:08 Apparently they have a general opposition to vacatings
11:05:10 in the historic district, but after seeing the reasons
11:05:14 and speaking with her, has no opposition today.
11:05:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak
11:05:20 on item 51?
11:05:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:05:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
11:05:24 (Motion carried).
11:05:28 We don't have it.
11:05:30 Move to send to legal to draft the ordinance.
11:05:32 (Motion carried).
11:05:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:05:36 We have a motion and second to open 52.
11:05:38 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:05:39 Opposed, Nay.
11:05:41 [Motion Carried]
11:05:45 >>> Rebecca Kert, legal department.
11:05:48 This is the research and development park.
11:05:50 This is an amendment which will increase the cap on
11:05:52 the hotel rooms from 350 to 700.
11:05:54 There is currently a hotel on-site.
11:05:57 Staff and the reviewing agencies had no objection to
11:06:00 this amendment based on the fact that it actually
11:06:02 reduce it is impact in the area by reducing the trip
11:06:06 generation and encouraging capture of traffic on-site.
11:06:10 I'm available for questions.
11:06:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner is coming.
11:06:19 >> Which hotel?
11:06:21 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Which brand hotel?
11:06:23 Dave Mechanik, by the way, 305 south Boulevard.
11:06:25 I'm not sure I know.
11:06:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you been sworn in?
11:06:29 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I have been sworn in.
11:06:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's a hotel but no one knows which
11:06:34 >>DAVID MECHANIK: No.
11:06:34 I mean, I don't know.
11:06:36 I'm sure my client knows but I. Been told.
11:06:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
11:06:41 >>DAVID MECHANIK: We have nothing to add from this
11:06:42 staff report.
11:06:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:06:47 would like to speak on 52?
11:06:51 >> Move to close.
11:06:51 >> Second.
11:06:52 (Motion carried).
11:06:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to direct legal.
11:07:01 >> Second.
11:07:01 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:07:03 Opposed, Nay.
11:07:04 (Motion carried).
11:07:06 >> Move to open 53.
11:07:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open 53.
11:07:09 (Motion carried).
11:07:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
11:07:20 This is an existing DRI.
11:07:21 When we increase the density on something like this,
11:07:24 are we allowed to capture any fees for allowing this
11:07:34 increase in density?
11:07:34 I mean, we need money to improve everything out there.
11:07:37 So I'm just wondering.
11:07:41 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I have been sworn.
11:07:43 The analysis we are doing, we are actually reducing
11:07:48 research and development space in exchange for
11:07:51 increasing the hotel rooms.
11:07:52 So we are really not adding density.
11:07:54 But the impact fee ordinance does allow you if throws
11:07:58 a differential in the fees between one use and another
11:08:02 that you can -- you can charge those fees.
11:08:04 And we will be paying impact fees for the project.
11:08:07 There are credits, because we have done transportation
11:08:11 improvements, as part of the DRI requirements, so
11:08:13 there are credits that are offset against impact fees.
11:08:17 But we will be paying impact fees.
11:08:21 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
11:08:22 Ms. Boyle.
11:08:37 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
11:08:38 I have been sworn.
11:08:39 I ask for your patience.
11:08:40 My first time doing wet zoning reports.
11:08:49 This petition is wet zoned 06-03.
11:08:52 The petitioner's name is TGF South Tampa.
11:08:55 The property owner is passer, Inc.
11:09:04 The request is for 2(COP).
11:09:06 The petitioner is requesting to wet zone at 1617 West
11:09:10 Platt street in order to sell beer and wine, alcohol
11:09:14 sells are incidental use according to the petition.
11:09:17 The site is zoned CI.
11:09:19 And the current use is retail warehouse.
11:09:23 On the Elmo, you will see the -- I need to apologize.
11:09:28 I included the parking lot that is associated with
11:09:30 this, not included in the wet zone on the legal
11:09:36 There is within a thousand feet additional wet zonings
11:09:42 and those the Hyde Park cafe and the rack.
11:09:46 Under section 378-3 of the code it allows City Council
11:09:49 to weigh the separation requirements in the wet zone
11:09:54 when the sale of alcohol is incidental to the
11:09:56 principal function establishment.
11:09:58 Within 1,000 feet there is residential property.
11:10:05 The same is allowed if understand dental.
11:10:08 There is institutional uses.
11:10:10 There is a church within 774 feet under the same code
11:10:15 of provision, it can be waived based on it being
11:10:20 incidental to the use.
11:10:22 Staff has note of concern.
11:10:26 The alcohol sales aren't in association with the
11:10:28 restaurant use, and incidental to that use.
11:10:33 Therefore, land development suggests to petitioner
11:10:35 change the classification request to 2(COP-R), thus
11:10:40 requiring semiannual reports of sales per section
11:10:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Officer.
11:10:52 >>GENE HAINES: Tampa police.
11:10:53 I have been sworn.
11:10:54 We have no objection to this wet zoning.
11:10:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
11:11:03 >>> My name is Stephen Finelli, I have been sworn in,
11:11:08 manager, and basically we are a family Tex-Mex
11:11:14 restaurant, 5% of our sales are alcohol as incidental
11:11:19 We have three other restaurants in Hillsborough
11:11:22 They are all family style restaurants.
11:11:24 Never had any problem with the state with any of our
11:11:28 And the sole purpose of the restaurant is to create
11:11:32 family atmosphere.
11:11:33 It's a fun place.
11:11:35 We are not open late.
11:11:35 We are not a late-night establishment.
11:11:39 Our restaurants in Hillsborough County close at eleven
11:11:41 on the weekend and when would probably maintain
11:11:45 similar hours to that. We open for lunch he have day
11:11:47 at 11:00 o'clock.
11:11:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Staff recommendations that you change
11:11:53 Do a problem with that?
11:11:55 >>> Naive problem with that.
11:11:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:11:58 would like to speak to item number 53?
11:12:01 >> Move to close.
11:12:02 >> Second.
11:12:02 (Motion carried)
11:12:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Wait a minute.
11:12:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, we need to reopen the public
11:12:13 >> So moved.
11:12:15 >> Second.
11:12:17 >>> I'm Sonya Watson.
11:12:19 I have been sworn in.
11:12:20 And I have an objection.
11:12:23 I am actually hear on behalf of the next door
11:12:40 neighbors of the petitioner, Bob freeman, P.A., ad
11:12:45 Woodson, P.A. and 1116 Platt partners, also here on
11:12:52 behalf of Irene McGriff, 207 South Dakota, less than
11:12:56 250 feet away from the petitioner.
11:12:58 And I'm here also on behalf of mount Zion AME church
11:13:02 which is approximately less than 800 feet away from
11:13:07 the petitioner
11:13:34 >> Did K you see what I'm pointing to?
11:13:36 It's kind of hard to tell from here.
11:13:37 But the next door neighbors of the petitioner, 1611
11:13:43 Platt Street, there are no neighbors, next door
11:13:46 neighbors on Rome.
11:13:47 So this would be the next door neighbors to the east.
11:13:54 And this is McGriff.
11:13:57 She's around the corner.
11:13:58 >> Can you show us where?
11:14:02 >>> South Dakota.
11:14:03 She would around the corner here, less than 250 feet
11:14:09 away from the petitioner.
11:14:13 And the mount Zion AME church, you have to cross
11:14:19 Cleveland, and on South Dakota.
11:14:26 It's less than 800 feet away from the petitioner.
11:14:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
11:14:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And what we are -- we are looking at
11:14:36 your written response.
11:14:39 What petitioner agreed to is go to an "R"
11:14:41 classification so it going to be a restaurant.
11:14:44 >>> And that was our concern.
11:14:46 We were concerned that the petitioner could actually
11:14:50 open up a tavern or package store or something other
11:14:55 than a restaurant.
11:14:55 We were concerned that the primary use would not be a
11:14:59 And --
11:15:01 >>GWEN MILLER: It will be a restaurant.
11:15:03 >>> Yeah, our concern that that would not be the
11:15:04 primary use.
11:15:05 >>GWEN MILLER: It will be a restaurant.
11:15:07 >>> And it will be a restaurant.
11:15:08 And we are pleased with that.
11:15:09 Thank you.
11:15:09 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
11:15:11 Would anyone else like to speak?
11:15:18 >>> I'm Claudia Washton, on the corner of Cleveland
11:15:26 and South Dakota.
11:15:27 I have seen lots of changes in that area.
11:15:29 I lived there for 50-something years, over.
11:15:33 I'm just about 60.
11:15:35 The place that I live next door to old Sedeu.
11:15:41 She's gone on now.
11:15:42 But in the area we have trouble of people parking all
11:15:45 in front of our houses.
11:15:49 Ms. Irene McGriff is on the right side of me, and
11:15:53 mount Zion on the left side of me.
11:15:54 We have another church, church of God of prophecy on
11:16:02 And we already have problems.
11:16:03 If this place gets there, we have problems with people
11:16:09 playing loud muss you can right now.
11:16:11 And not a place to park.
11:16:13 And they park in my yard sometimes.
11:16:16 And they need somewhere to park their cars.
11:16:19 Not just parking in anybody's yard.
11:16:22 In the back of me is a karate building in the back.
11:16:27 And on Platt Street, we got a church, everything in
11:16:30 that area.
11:16:31 And we don't want no -- everybody need their own
11:16:36 parking place.
11:16:37 And I appreciate it if we don't have no drinking.
11:16:40 We have enough bars all the way down Platt now.
11:16:44 For Platt -- from Rome -- the Fremont all the way down
11:16:49 to Howard.
11:16:51 Bars on both sides.
11:16:52 And they have a problem parking even on Fremont.
11:16:58 People, houses down there on Fremont.
11:17:00 And they park on people's sides on both sides of the
11:17:06 You can hardly go to Kash N' Karry.
11:17:08 So we have a problem of people, they need to have a
11:17:11 parking place for the people to park, instead of
11:17:14 parking in people's yards and parking on both side of
11:17:16 the street.
11:17:17 We can't get in and outgoing to our houses.
11:17:20 Thank you.
11:17:21 Have a good day.
11:17:22 >>GWEN MILLER: This is not a bar, it's a restaurant.
11:17:24 But I am going to find out how many parking spaces
11:17:27 they have.
11:17:28 Petitioner? How many parking spaces do you have?
11:17:36 >>> We will have at least 32 spots and with the
11:17:38 ability to add more.
11:17:39 69 and how many does it seat, the restaurant?
11:17:42 >>> It will seat 84 inside.
11:17:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that enough parking spaces, Ms.
11:17:51 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
11:17:57 Part of the wet zoning review, I do not typically
11:18:00 review it for the parking.
11:18:01 We have to look at code real quickly to see how many
11:18:04 seats are required for restaurant use.
11:18:07 And I didn't bring my --
11:18:11 >>GWEN MILLER: On second reading you can do it for us?
11:18:16 Is there anyone else that would like to be speak?
11:18:20 If you want to speak, would you all please come up if
11:18:22 you are going to speak?
11:18:24 >>> My name is Ben Morris.
11:18:27 I'm vice-president of ADF and TD enterprises.
11:18:30 I have been sworn.
11:18:33 We have the property that is next to this property
11:18:38 that is used by -- it's leased to law offices, and
11:18:43 to -- a process serving.
11:18:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you point it out?
11:18:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: Can you point to your property?
11:19:00 The bottom square.
11:19:12 You're way up there.
11:19:15 >>> Platt is at the bottom.
11:19:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Where is the restaurant?
11:19:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On Cleveland street?
11:19:20 >>> On the corner of Rome and Cleveland.
11:19:23 And Dakota.
11:19:25 We run from Dakota to Rome on Cleveland.
11:19:29 And the building runs on down then, and we have
11:19:35 parking that abuts the parking lot that they propose
11:19:37 to use.
11:19:39 We were most concerned when we thought we were COP 2.
11:19:43 Less concerned with the R addition.
11:19:46 However, we still have concerns about bleed-over
11:19:50 parking, and trash.
11:19:55 And I want to be sure that we protect our tenants from
11:19:59 bleedover parking and the other two parking lots.
11:20:03 And I ought to point out that Mr. Balari who is the
11:20:07 owner of the property has been very cooperative with
11:20:10 us in the past with regard to using parking back and
11:20:15 But it's going to be difficult to control bleedover
11:20:22 parking, that abuts their usage.
11:20:26 That's our concern.
11:20:27 Thank you.
11:20:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:20:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask you a question, sir?
11:20:31 Is your parking like fenced, or have some kind of
11:20:38 >>> No.
11:20:39 We have an alley that runs --
11:20:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're on the top.
11:20:47 The top.
11:20:48 Cleveland is at the top of the picture.
11:20:50 >>> Okay.
11:20:51 There's an alley that runs from Cleveland to Platt.
11:20:55 And what our parking lot is on that alley, and theirs
11:21:02 is across the alley from ours, so all you have to do
11:21:05 is drive across the alley to get into one of the two
11:21:11 parking lots.
11:21:11 The other parking lot, there's a house in between with
11:21:15 But it's an easy walk.
11:21:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:21:22 Can I ask a quick question of staff?
11:21:23 When there's commercial parking next to residential
11:21:26 isn't there supposed to be some kind of buffing?
11:21:28 If you have buffering you wouldn't have to worry about
11:21:30 somebody else parking there.
11:21:35 It commercial tenants.
11:21:36 It's a law office.
11:21:37 He's worried about they these other folks parking at
11:21:41 his place.
11:21:41 I'm saying if he had some kind of thing around it.
11:21:47 >>KEVIN WHITE: It has nothing to do with this one.
11:21:49 His parking lot is right here.
11:21:51 It has nothing to do with it.
11:21:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Gotcha.
11:21:56 I'm sorry.
11:21:58 It not abutting.
11:22:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
11:22:05 >>> Good morning.
11:22:06 My name is David Sherr.
11:22:09 I have been sworn in. I am one of the owners of
11:22:11 this property.
11:22:11 Wanted to say that we support the petition.
11:22:14 As owners of the property, to our knowledge there is
11:22:17 sufficient parking.
11:22:18 And there has been cooperation between the legal
11:22:22 tenants behind us and the other tenant that occupys
11:22:27 that space. In fact they have been using some of our
11:22:29 parking, and we have been using some of theirs for
11:22:31 many years now.
11:22:32 And it's worked very well.
11:22:34 Thank you.
11:22:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:22:35 Would anyone else like to speak?
11:22:38 >> Move to close.
11:22:39 >> Move to close.
11:22:39 (Motion carried).
11:22:40 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
11:22:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Send to legal for 2(COP-R).
11:22:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:22:48 >>> Rebecca Kert, legal department.
11:22:51 I don't know fits the pleasure of the council to have
11:22:52 it come back tonight.
11:22:53 >>GWEN MILLER: You can bring that tonight.
11:22:56 Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder?
11:22:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to support the motion
11:23:02 based upon the testimony.
11:23:03 However, I have great concern about bars and
11:23:08 restaurants in this neighborhood.
11:23:09 And the reason being is that I have attended -- last
11:23:13 night I happened to attend two different meetings
11:23:15 related to Courier City.
11:23:17 One has to do with the Bahasa bar which is over on
11:23:21 Kennedy and what sort of impact that's having on its
11:23:24 surrounding residential, and then the other extra had
11:23:27 to do with something that's, rose, familiar to you
11:23:31 because you brought it up to our council's attention
11:23:33 many times which is McGiddens and what impact that's
11:23:36 having on the surrounding neighborhood.
11:23:38 I'm very concerned about this, if staff is saying that
11:23:42 there's adequate parking here, and this is a rather
11:23:45 small restaurant -- I think it's rather small, isn't
11:23:52 84 seats.
11:23:53 And that there is a restaurant component to it that we
11:23:56 are going to strictly enforce, I'll hesitantly support
11:24:00 But I'm extremely concerned about what we are doing,
11:24:03 because we have a lot of potential
11:24:04 commercial/residential impacts in this neighborhood.
11:24:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I would agree with Mr.
11:24:12 Dingfelder except for the fact that the attorney that
11:24:15 came up representing some of the surrounding
11:24:17 neighborhoods was certainly concerned that this was
11:24:19 going to be a 2(COP), but because of the fact the
11:24:22 liquor sales have to be incidental there is a watch on
11:24:25 that, in addition to which, the testimony by Mr. Sherr
11:24:30 seems to indicate to me, and I trust that
11:24:32 wholeheartedly, that there is a relationship there.
11:24:35 In the event they were not additional parking -- and I
11:24:37 believe that there probably will be, and we will
11:24:40 review that again, and I think you understand that,
11:24:42 ma'am, at second reading.
11:24:43 So again finance this were the caliber of McDinton and
11:24:47 the problems at McDinton seems to exacerbate down
11:24:53 Howard, I think this will be good and obviously it
11:24:55 cannot be converted to a bar without coming back to
11:24:57 whoever the existing council is at the time.
11:25:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
11:25:02 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:25:04 Opposed, Nay.
11:25:04 (Motion carried).
11:25:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like, in the future when we
11:25:08 get requests for liquor zonings, to get a concurrent
11:25:12 report on the adequacy of the parking facility.
11:25:15 I think that's really germane to our conversation.
11:25:18 And we haven't done it in the past but it doesn't mean
11:25:21 we can't do it in the future and I think it would be
11:25:23 helpful for to us evaluate these requests.
11:25:27 Marty, do I need to make this in the form of a motion?
11:25:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The answer, I guess, would be whether
11:25:35 that is a valid provision for council to weigh under
11:25:37 the code for the determination of whether or not to
11:25:39 grant a wet zone.
11:25:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I think that's most of what
11:25:44 we hear from neighbors about and is something that I
11:25:47 think we -- I think we should have that information,
11:25:53 as a way it is part of our general information.
11:25:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I guess it would go to public safety
11:25:57 or sanitary conditions.
11:25:58 I don't have the code right now.
11:25:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it speaks to neighborhood
11:26:03 >>MARTY BOYLE: You mean for reviewing it as part of
11:26:06 the review?
11:26:07 It not part of our standard practice.
11:26:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm saying I think that should be
11:26:14 and Ms. O'Dowd is coming up.
11:26:18 Aren't we going to have a workshop on the group
11:26:20 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Yes.
11:26:20 Legal department.
11:26:21 An issue that you came up with wet zoning petitions in
11:26:23 the past two weeks is the stormwater issue, and there
11:26:26 are certain issues that come up with commercial site
11:26:28 plan review that are not part of the wet zoning
11:26:31 approval process.
11:26:32 And what I offered at that time was when we do
11:26:35 workshop, it's something Cathy Coyle is going to
11:26:39 request a workshop I believe in March, that we look at
11:26:43 what is appropriate for conclusion in the wet zoning
11:26:45 approval process.
11:26:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not to jump too much on the
11:26:50 workshop, but has there been a conclusion in terms of
11:26:54 can we do that under state law?
11:26:55 Can we look at some of those other factors,
11:26:59 stormwater, parking, under state law?
11:27:03 >>> Under state law this jurisdiction is allowed to
11:27:05 look at the hours of operation, the location of the
11:27:06 business establishment and the sanitary regulations
11:27:09 associated with that.
11:27:10 So I think when it comes to the location, there are
11:27:12 many issues that council can consider.
11:27:14 Just currently they are not in the code as part of the
11:27:17 approval process.
11:27:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So we have the discretion to
11:27:20 revisit them.
11:27:23 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: I believe so.
11:27:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to open number 54.
11:27:27 >> So moved.
11:27:28 >> Second.
11:27:28 (Motion carried)
11:27:44 >>MARTY BOYLE: land development.
11:27:46 I have been sworn.
11:27:46 This is wet zone 06-08.
11:27:52 B&B cash grocery stores.
11:27:54 Current zoning CG and the request is for a 2(APS).
11:27:58 The petitioner is requesting actually an extension, a
11:28:01 one-year extension to wet zone by ordinance 1730-A
11:28:08 which granted a 2(APS) on the site.
11:28:10 The petitioner is requesting extension in order to
11:28:13 continue the wet zoning during the exchange of
11:28:17 If you look on the Elmo, the site of what was
11:28:20 previously U-save, chain grocery store.
11:28:27 Under section 3-91, it allows for the reversion of
11:28:31 property status generally and the exception, as long
11:28:36 as the petitioner files a written petition with the
11:28:39 City Council requesting an extension of the time,
11:28:42 within which to commit selling alcoholic beverages on
11:28:45 the property.
11:28:45 It is a discussion of City Council as to whether or
11:28:48 not to grant the extension based on the petitioner's
11:28:50 statement as justification.
11:28:58 >>GENE HAINES: Police department.
11:28:59 I have been sworn.
11:29:00 We have no objection to this extension petition.
11:29:07 >> Petitioner.
11:29:07 >>> Don Bleigh.
11:29:09 It's not a change in ownership.
11:29:11 We are moving in a new tenant.
11:29:13 Ownership will stay the same.
11:29:15 Since the filing of the petition, we have signed a
11:29:17 lease with the fresh markets which is an upscale
11:29:20 grocery score.
11:29:22 If you have been along Henderson you see the
11:29:24 substantial work taking place.
11:29:25 I think everyone in the community, people we talked to
11:29:28 are excited.
11:29:28 My clients are excited.
11:29:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And it is the fresh market that is
11:29:33 going to be selling the alcohol?
11:29:36 >>> That is correct.
11:29:39 They will be the tenant in the building owned by my
11:29:41 And the wet zoning area here is actually not the
11:29:45 entire parcel but rather the southern half of the
11:29:48 building because it's an oval, and they will be
11:29:51 selling alcohol within that area.
11:29:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's supposed to be beer and wine,
11:30:02 In sealed containers?
11:30:03 >>> Correct.
11:30:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: A question.
11:30:04 I know that it's dried up now.
11:30:06 But that's the site that was adjacent to the --
11:30:12 >>> Formerly a U-save.
11:30:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Henderson and -- it's the one at
11:30:17 Henderson at the apex across the street from church's?
11:30:22 >>> That's correct.
11:30:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, Kentucky Fried Chicken.
11:30:26 My question, these plans then don't also include the
11:30:30 portion that was -- because it's wet zoned, too.
11:30:35 So it not the footprint of the whole strip?
11:30:38 >>> No.
11:30:38 It is the southern half of that building which was
11:30:40 formerly ABC.
11:30:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are you doing anything about
11:30:49 >>> Not that I'm aware of.
11:30:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is catter-corner from the
11:30:53 Publix that talked to us about their liquor last week
11:30:58 and we said what are you all doing about stormwater,
11:31:00 and their answer was, not much either.
11:31:02 This is where the city is spending $20 million for
11:31:05 I just feel --
11:31:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Actually, this is an extension of the
11:31:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's
11:31:13 really -- anyway.
11:31:14 >>> To be accurate, I don't know whether they are or
11:31:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe Mr. Awad knows because it is
11:31:21 an interesting question.
11:31:21 >>ALEX AWAD: Stormwater department.
11:31:26 The site is not going to be torn down so they are just
11:31:29 renovating the building, and repaving the parking lot.
11:31:32 So we are not making them do anything for stormwater.
11:31:36 Had they decided to tear down the parking lot or the
11:31:39 building, then we would have asked them to provide
11:31:42 stormwater for the site.
11:31:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know what definition of
11:31:46 teardown is.
11:31:47 There's a picture that shows the whole facade being
11:31:50 ripped off.
11:31:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Awad, remind me again.
11:31:59 There was $27 million worth of new stormwater projects
11:32:00 that were being proposed out of that fee that we just
11:32:05 passed, and 20 million of it was going to go to
11:32:07 Morrison Avenue and Henderson.
11:32:08 >>ALEX AWAD: I believe the estimate for that project
11:32:12 for Henderson, Dale Mabry, Neptune, Dale Mabry and
11:32:15 Palma Ceia drainage system, is around $20 million
11:32:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: My question is, I know that this is an
11:32:23 existing structure that's going to be renovated.
11:32:25 But in regards to her question, not directing to you
11:32:29 but just verbalizing, in response to her question, it
11:32:33 was my understanding, I guess Cate O'Dowd is not here,
11:32:36 perhaps somebody else from legal can answer.
11:32:39 That's not the criteria of wet zoning.
11:32:42 Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't see you back there.
11:32:44 It's probably a good thing, huh?
11:32:46 But you come up here constantly and tell us what the
11:32:50 criteria is.
11:32:51 Stormwater consideration is not anything to do with
11:32:54 wet zoning, is it?
11:32:57 >>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: That's correct.
11:32:58 Currently the code doesn't allow council to look at
11:33:00 those issues that are more site plans, DSC site plan
11:33:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Rose hours of operation.
11:33:08 >>> Location and sanitary regulations associated with
11:33:10 the location.
11:33:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
11:33:15 If anything I am going to remember when I leave it's
11:33:19 You have said it a hundred times.
11:33:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Unless we change it and then you
11:33:22 have to remember something else.
11:33:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then I'll be gone.
11:33:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the public to
11:33:27 speak on item 54?
11:33:30 You have to be sworn.
11:33:38 (Oath administered by Clerk).
11:33:43 >>> Joe Robinson, president of services, Inc., and I'm
11:33:49 sorry, I had another extra on something else.
11:33:51 But the issue came up, City Council is getting
11:33:55 involved with stormwater issue.
11:33:57 I want to say as a member of the basin board,
11:34:00 northwest Hillsborough basin board with SWFWMD, just
11:34:05 as two weeks ago, more specifically on this site area,
11:34:10 Henderson and Dale Mabry, the city has submitted a $16
11:34:15 million project to improve that drainage problem.
11:34:18 And actually my basin board, northwest Hillsborough
11:34:21 basin board, to committee $8 million to master city's
11:34:25 $8 million.
11:34:26 And I believe the stormwater engineer can explain to
11:34:31 you what they plan on doing to alleviate that problem,
11:34:34 make it run to the east instead of running to the
11:34:38 I'm here to say that has got to SWFWMD on our basin
11:34:43 board, as vice chair.
11:34:46 I'm hear to tell you I'm trying to support that
11:34:49 I have been asking for the city to submit something
11:34:51 like that for at least two to three years.
11:34:53 They have submitted it.
11:34:56 We are going to take a hard look at it and see how
11:34:59 staff recommends it when we come out with the
11:35:01 But I have made it a point that I want to make sure
11:35:06 that if we front this $8 million to resolve this Dale
11:35:09 Mabry, Henderson Boulevard stormwater issue, through
11:35:13 our basin board, that those dollars are also stamped
11:35:18 with some minority vendors and contractors, because we
11:35:21 have in our agreements, our cooperative agreements, we
11:35:25 have if we are going to give grant money to any
11:35:30 municipality or any entity that they have some type of
11:35:33 minority utilization.
11:35:35 And I know the city is trying to do a good job.
11:35:37 But I'm here to tell you, I think they can do a better
11:35:40 So I am going to be looking at the cities because it
11:35:44 relates to all of these zonings coming up especially
11:35:46 over this area.
11:35:47 If they are going to want stormwater dollars and they
11:35:50 want our board to be receptive, I am going to tell my
11:35:53 board I don't have a problem with that.
11:35:54 But we need to make sure that whatever money we give
11:35:58 the city that they make sure they have the minority
11:36:00 business utilization, that we require.
11:36:02 You we just say report back, do something, because
11:36:07 we're talking mills millions of dollars of capital
11:36:11 improvement projects.
11:36:12 So I'm in favor of the stormwater as long as the
11:36:15 government keeps me on board and I am here to say we
11:36:18 did receive that request from the city and hopefully
11:36:20 if this can go through it will be a major break in
11:36:22 resolving that Dale Mabry, Henderson Boulevard, event.
11:36:27 And that's all I want to say.
11:36:29 Just coincidence, I knew about this but I didn't know
11:36:33 you were going to talk about stormwater and people
11:36:36 called me and said make your move, go down to City
11:36:41 >> Move to close.
11:36:42 >>> So petitioner knows there is some relief.
11:36:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close
11:36:46 the public hearing.
11:36:46 (Motion carried)
11:36:49 Mr. Dingfelder, what did you want to talk about,
11:36:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, I just wanted to pay Mr.
11:36:58 Robinson the courtesy since he's going to board for
11:37:00 the stormwater project, we thank you for your hard
11:37:03 work on that board.
11:37:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: And Mr. B and B grocer, this has
11:37:11 nothing to do with your petition.
11:37:16 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move the resolution.
11:37:18 >> Second.
11:37:18 (Motion carried).
11:37:20 >> Motion to open number 55.
11:37:22 >> Second.
11:37:22 (Motion carried).
11:37:23 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
11:37:50 This is wet zone 06-21.
11:37:52 Petitioner's name is Tampa Westshore associates
11:37:55 limited partnership, property owner is Hillsborough
11:37:57 County aviation authority.
11:37:59 The petitioner is requesting a wet zone at 2223 North
11:38:04 Westshore Boulevard, units 216 and 217.
11:38:08 It is the International Plaza.
11:38:10 In order to sell wine in association with a retail
11:38:13 wine store and restaurant use.
11:38:15 Alcohol sales are nonincidental according to the
11:38:20 The site is zoned PDA.
11:38:23 As I have previously stated it's in the International
11:38:24 Plaza, shown on the Elmo.
11:38:29 Within a thousand feet.
11:38:31 There are several listed on your staff report.
11:38:36 Establishments be.
11:38:37 They also have a wet zone designation.
11:38:40 There are no residential uses within a thousand feet.
11:38:44 And there is an institutional use, Tampa International
11:38:46 Airport, within 1,000 feet.
11:38:52 Under section 3-70-A-6 they can get a waiver of this
11:38:58 thousand feet because it is a shopping center of a
11:39:01 size in excess of 75,000 square feet.
11:39:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Officer?
11:39:12 >>GENE HAINES: Police department.
11:39:15 I have been sworn.
11:39:17 We have no objections to this wet zoning.
11:39:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
11:39:24 >>> Ann POLAC, mechanic news improvement this is going
11:39:30 to be a small cafe and little wine store on Bay Street
11:39:34 in International Plaza.
11:39:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to
11:39:37 speak on item 55?
11:39:39 Motion and second to close.
11:39:40 (Motion carried)
11:39:44 Mr. Harrison?
11:39:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance making lawful the
11:39:54 sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1%
11:39:56 by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines
11:39:59 regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(COP)
11:40:02 for couples on premises and in sealed containers for
11:40:05 couples off premises at or from that certain lot, plot
11:40:07 or tract of land located at 2223 Westshore Boulevard
11:40:11 unit B-216 and 217, Tampa, Florida as more
11:40:15 particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving
11:40:17 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
11:40:20 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
11:40:22 conflict, providing an effective date.
11:40:23 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:40:25 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:40:27 Opposed, Nay.
11:40:27 (Motion carried).
11:40:28 Is there anyone in the public going to speak on item
11:40:30 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
11:40:38 Everybody has been sworn?
11:40:40 Need to open number 56.
11:40:42 >> So moved.
11:40:43 >> Second.
11:40:43 (Motion carried).
11:40:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.
11:40:47 This is an appeal hearing.
11:40:49 And under the recently adopted standards of review
11:40:51 under section 27-373 of the code, I provided for you
11:40:56 the standard of review.
11:40:57 It is a certiorari standard where the board's decision
11:41:01 is supported by competent, substantial evidence, where
11:41:04 the due process was accorded, and, three, whether
11:41:07 essential requirements of law have been observed.
11:41:09 The essential requirements of law, the application of
11:41:13 the code, section 17.5-74, the application of the
11:41:18 variance power, I have a copy for each of you in front
11:41:24 of you.
11:41:24 Thank you.
11:41:24 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination. This is
11:41:28 an appeal of VRB 551.
11:41:31 Petitioner's representative is represented by Steve
11:41:33 Michelini for property at 5151 west San Jose street.
11:41:37 The petition was first heard October 11th of this
11:41:40 past year.
11:41:41 At that hearing, after much board discussion there was
11:41:45 a 3-3 vote which resulted in automatic continuance.
11:41:49 Following Mr. Michelini had an illness in the family,
11:41:54 had a continuance, they were heard in December.
11:41:56 The vote was a 5-2 vote to deny.
11:42:00 The board found a hardship and the petitioners are now
11:42:06 appealing that decision.
11:42:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
11:42:24 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Good morning.
11:42:25 Steve Michelini here on behalf of the Wichman's who
11:42:34 petitioned for setbacks on their property.
11:42:36 They are located at the end of a cul-de-sac, 5151 San
11:42:40 Jose street.
11:42:41 And I have outlined in red which is also in the
11:42:43 transcript that their property line takes an abrupt
11:42:48 It is straight here and then it jogs back in this
11:42:50 direction along the cul-de-sac line.
11:42:54 And I have highlighted on this site plan areas from
11:43:02 the set back which normally would have been 25 feet.
11:43:04 At the closest point, it's a little more than 16 feet.
11:43:08 It's 17 feet to this feature here and then this front
11:43:14 over here is 20 feet.
11:43:17 And the red line that you see here is indicating
11:43:20 25-foot setback off of the property line.
11:43:24 This yellow line indicates the wetland setback line
11:43:28 off of the sea wall.
11:43:30 And we had indicated to the VRB that we had a unique
11:43:38 mission here because of the irregular shape of the
11:43:41 lot, we have one of the north property line here is
11:43:44 running 130 feet, and the south property line runs 90
11:43:51 feet which means it is not -- it jogs on the front,
11:43:56 and it's skewed shorter on the south than it is on the
11:44:00 So in order to present a reasonable design for a home
11:44:06 and have the orientation of the home remain consistent
11:44:09 with the other properties on the cul-de-sac, we
11:44:13 proposed having the front face San Jose in this
11:44:19 manner, so that it was consistent with the rest of the
11:44:24 It's a two-story not, not a three story home.
11:44:27 I will have pictures to show you about another
11:44:29 property that's within about three houses from this
11:44:33 It's a three-story home, granted numerous variances
11:44:36 which we pointed out in the presentation.
11:44:42 The basic appeal focuses on the ability to use the
11:44:49 property in a manner consistent with the rest of the
11:44:52 development in the area.
11:45:01 If you will look on your Elmo, you see that one.
11:45:04 Again it was highlighted in yellow.
11:45:11 The homes along the cul-de-sac have basically the same
11:45:16 Most of them are set within 15 feet from the property
11:45:19 line and not the 25.
11:45:21 It does range from 15 to about 18 feet.
11:45:24 All of that was placed in the record at the original
11:45:27 public hearing.
11:45:31 Also, there was a lot of discussion with the board
11:45:33 about a bay window versus a window that went all the
11:45:36 way to the ground.
11:45:38 And the owner agreed at the hearing to remove the bay
11:45:41 There was a lot of discussion from the board members,
11:45:43 and they were in support of that.
11:45:47 One provision of the hearing that Eric did not point
11:45:50 out was that we actually left the hearing, went
11:45:54 outside the hallway, we were told we were approved and
11:45:56 then called back in and said they disapproved when
11:45:59 they did another head count.
11:46:03 I'm reading from both my presentation and our
11:46:07 identifiable -- I'm reading from a board member's
11:46:12 This is my presentation.
11:46:13 The minimal consideration, the size of the lot, the
11:46:16 fact that it's on the water, it's a cul-de-sac, you
11:46:19 can see right here, the property line, pushes
11:46:22 everything back.
11:46:23 That's on page 2.
11:46:25 I'm starting on page 3.
11:46:26 The property line sits anywhere from 8 to 15 feet for
11:46:32 each of these other homes on the cul-de-sac.
11:46:34 It's a common problem in this particular area.
11:46:36 I'm not sure why it happened that way.
11:46:38 But that's the way the development occurred along the
11:46:43 Again, on page 3, anywhere from 15 to 16 feet is where
11:46:47 the cul-de-sac causes that irregularity.
11:46:53 Now, there are only two properties where this jog
11:46:57 comes in like this.
11:46:57 The rest of them, if they are on the cul-de-sac, they
11:47:00 have the curved property line that runs all the way
11:47:04 This property and the one directly across the street
11:47:07 has this very unusual sort of jog that comes back in
11:47:14 the property.
11:47:16 The commissioners noted in their discussion, on page
11:47:30 8, I think you have certainly got some issues down
11:47:35 there where the cul-de-sac occurs.
11:47:39 One of the commissioners indicated he had a problem
11:47:41 with one of the windows.
11:47:43 We agreed to move the window back or create a bay
11:47:46 window, which technically would not have been subject
11:47:48 to a setback variance anyway.
11:47:53 On page 9,
11:47:55 This is one of the commissioners speaking:
11:47:58 Now you understand the front property jogs abruptly
11:48:01 and at least you presented us with a plan that tries
11:48:04 to address that and we are talking about a very small
11:48:06 percentage of what's there.
11:48:08 Whether it's a large massive structure or not.
11:48:12 Where it's not it would somehow bother us.
11:48:14 I don't know, but it's clear that they made an attempt
11:48:16 to at least diminish any kind of encroachment.
11:48:20 Going on to say that: I see a very small piece, and
11:48:25 if you are coming out in front, when we could have
11:48:27 been asking for a much larger section.
11:48:30 Technically if we were trying to maximize relief under
11:48:33 the VRB.
11:48:35 On page 12, this is me again: We have a property line
11:48:38 that jogs.
11:48:39 You have this in your file.
11:48:40 We have a wetland setback that reflects the placement
11:48:43 building an we were trying to, based on the irregular
11:48:46 shape of the lot, minimize the impact.
11:48:48 On page 13, we are talking about irregular shape of
11:48:54 Then one of the commissioners saying later on, I see
11:48:58 where you have unique and singular issues here.
11:49:03 I understand one of the commissioners on page 14, I
11:49:06 understand my vote hinges on. This I think it
11:49:09 necessary the bay win oh.
11:49:11 I support the variance from the front.
11:49:13 Seems we discussed this before.
11:49:17 And then the owner says if the window is an issue
11:49:20 we'll give it up.
11:49:21 And then when start focusing on something that's not
11:49:23 even part of our petition, the rear development that's
11:49:29 back in here.
11:49:31 This portion of the property was never part of the VRB
11:49:35 discussion in terms of our petition.
11:49:37 It wasn't part of our presentation, except for the
11:49:41 fact that the wetland setback line was here, and it
11:49:43 created the development envelope that was causing the
11:49:46 problem in front.
11:49:49 Regardless of what you have back here, that wetland
11:49:52 setback loin doesn't move.
11:49:54 We didn't ask for relief from that.
11:49:55 We asked for relief from the front because of this
11:49:58 irregularity up here on the side.
11:50:02 We also pointed out that because of all the properties
11:50:06 have unique positions along the cul-de-sac, that we
11:50:09 didn't want to have a house, because of the short leg,
11:50:14 didn't want to jog to a different direction than all
11:50:19 the others houses in the cul-de-sac.
11:50:21 We wanted it to be consistent.
11:50:26 So we go on for three or four pages, we are talking
11:50:29 about the back, the back, the back, which was not part
11:50:31 of that.
11:50:38 On page 22, this is one of the commissioners talking.
11:50:43 But on a cul-de-sac when you try to apply a city-wide
11:50:46 code that's fairly unique and singular and something
11:50:50 across the T street to be a similar case, they are
11:50:53 both unique and singular.
11:50:55 This is the property owner directly across from this
11:50:58 property has a similar problem.
11:51:02 And one of the discussions was that because there were
11:51:04 two, it wasn't unique.
11:51:06 They are both unique.
11:51:08 When you try to find an overlay and you try to apply
11:51:11 standards in properties like this to present to the
11:51:14 square foot find encroachments to be minor I'm really
11:51:17 concerned about the consistency that we have regarding
11:51:20 And I think we got a pretty good job trying to avoid
11:51:23 it and I haven't seen any on the cul-de-sacs that have
11:51:26 the kind of kink where you start your circular
11:51:28 section, and I have only seen three fairly small
11:51:30 places where they encroach.
11:51:34 There were a couple of different votes that were taken
11:51:38 based on the removal or the placement of the bay
11:51:43 I think that based upon the consideration that we have
11:51:47 a very minor area that we are asking for.
11:51:51 We are not asking for a lot of space.
11:51:54 It does have to do with the entry features of the
11:51:58 I'll show you some more pictures of some of the homes
11:52:01 along the cul-de-sac.
11:52:05 This is a side view.
11:52:06 And this also was presented here.
11:52:10 A side view of another structure, that's about 15 feet
11:52:14 off of the property line.
11:52:20 I presented this which shows --
11:52:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can't see that.
11:52:25 >> Maybe they can zoom in a little.
11:52:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have copies of that?
11:52:34 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm not sure how to zoom this in.
11:52:45 The subject property is on this lot.
11:52:52 You can see the other houses are basically in the
11:53:00 We were asking for relief and it is in line.
11:53:05 If you just extend those curves around it is pretty
11:53:09 much in line with the other homes.
11:53:18 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We went back to the variance review
11:53:29 board after the second extra, and we were asked what
11:53:34 was the procedure, because the membership on the board
11:53:38 had changed from the first extra to the second extra.
11:53:42 And we were concerned about having first -- the
11:53:47 advantage of having made the presentation and the
11:53:48 discussion that occurred in front of certain board
11:53:52 When we went back the second time the mix was entirely
11:53:56 We were asked what was our presentation going to
11:54:00 consist of?
11:54:02 And when I talked to city staff and I talked with the
11:54:04 city attorney's office, there was basically no
11:54:06 procedure there. Was an ability to either open the
11:54:09 hearing for discussion among the board members, or
11:54:12 have a small presentation, or a full-blown
11:54:19 And basically the chair indicated there was 15 minutes
11:54:24 to do whatever we wanted to do.
11:54:25 No direction about what the board wanted.
11:54:27 So we gave an abbreviated presentation that went into
11:54:32 some very brief overview of what we just presented
11:54:35 hear with you this morning.
11:54:38 In addition to that, there was a lot of discussion
11:54:41 about whether the bay windows should be included,
11:54:44 excluded, whether that was a true hardship on that
11:54:48 side or not.
11:54:49 And what they were referring to was this section here
11:54:54 on the site plan, and not these sections over here.
11:54:57 And so there was discussion that there was clear
11:55:00 hardship that was here, and they were wondering about
11:55:03 whether or not there was anything here that was
11:55:05 forcing that to happen.
11:55:08 That was basically the design system that was supposed
11:55:12 to make the front of the house look symmetrical.
11:55:15 It's only about three or four feet wide and that was
11:55:18 presented to the board.
11:55:19 This is for the area that we are talking about making
11:55:22 the bay windows so it doesn't touch the ground, and
11:55:25 then it would be approved without a variance.
11:55:28 We didn't have any problem with that.
11:55:30 So we went back to the board, asking them that there
11:55:35 were discussions and motions on the floor regarding a
11:55:37 continuance that were never acted upon.
11:55:40 And basically the response was, point of order,
11:55:46 effectively is asking the city attorney for
11:55:48 reconsideration, rules don't allow reconsideration,
11:55:51 the next thing would be to rescind your existing vote,
11:55:54 and then vote again.
11:55:56 The city attorney said, I would strongly recommend you
11:55:58 do not do that.
11:56:01 Any parties that were here that departed.
11:56:04 The same thing happened to us.
11:56:06 We departed and were essentially called back in, when
11:56:08 we were told that the vote had changed from 4 to 3
11:56:11 approval to 5-2 opposed.
11:56:14 I think that we have certainly met the hardship
11:56:17 I think there were clearly some issues of due process
11:56:21 that we were not afforded.
11:56:23 And I think that we have demonstrated that this was a
11:56:26 unique and singular condition.
11:56:27 It was not adversely effecting anyone else.
11:56:30 In fact, we had neighbors show up in support of the
11:56:32 petition, and letters that were submitted are in the
11:56:35 file to that effect, also.
11:56:38 One of the neighbors that was notified both in the
11:56:40 previous -- in the first hearing showed up at the
11:56:42 hearing and received a notice on the appeal.
11:56:44 And is here this morning to reaffirm their support for
11:56:49 this petition.
11:56:51 Since we are in the remanding stage of the VRB appeal
11:56:58 process, we would respectfully request that you
11:57:01 remained this to the VRB, and indicate that they
11:57:04 should focus clearly on the front setback and whether
11:57:07 or not that creates a hardship for development for
11:57:10 this particular petition.
11:57:12 That concludes my presentation.
11:57:14 There are other people here that want to speak on
11:57:17 And I will certainly be available for questions.
11:57:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:57:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple questions for staff, for
11:57:23 legal staff.
11:57:28 We have changed procedures, and this and that, but Mr.
11:57:32 Shelby advises us this is a certiorari procedure.
11:57:34 In other words, we are here in our appellate capacity
11:57:38 to review. This and the standard that we have been
11:57:40 given was, was the board's decision supported by
11:57:43 competent, substantial evidence was there due process
11:57:46 accorded? And were central requirement of law
11:57:50 Is that correct?
11:57:50 >>> Yes, sir.
11:57:51 >> Were through that nature or for all these
11:57:54 >>> That's correct, sir.
11:57:55 >> Mr. Michelini indicates some confusion about the
11:57:59 A vote was taken, then it was clarified, et cetera,
11:58:01 et cetera.
11:58:02 That's a little -- you know, that creates some concern
11:58:06 in all of us, because, you know, nobody should ever
11:58:09 have any confusion about a vote.
11:58:11 You know, can you clarify that a little bit?
11:58:13 Because if there's a procedural issue, and they need
11:58:16 to go back for clarification to make sure the vote is
11:58:19 a vote is a vote, then maybe that's what needs to
11:58:22 But can you clarify that from your perspective?
11:58:25 Does that create, in your opinion, a due processor
11:58:29 essential requirements of law concern?
11:58:32 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I understand your question.
11:58:34 Procedurally for this hearing today, the petitioner
11:58:37 has presented the city effectively has an opportunity
11:58:39 to rebut.
11:58:41 I was going to address that when I went down the
11:58:43 sequential line of addressing all the issues of law
11:58:46 that are subject before you today.
11:58:47 I can answer this question now.
11:58:49 I want to defer to you to let me know.
11:58:51 I can answer this unique singular question or --
11:58:55 >>: I didn't know you were going to get up. If you
11:58:57 are going to get up and make that part of your
11:58:59 presentation, that's fine.
11:59:00 >>> If you will allow me that.
11:59:01 >> Whenever you're ready.
11:59:03 Another question for Mr. Michelini, if I could.
11:59:07 Mr. Michelini, I'm a little confused on this.
11:59:11 This is a vacant parcel now, right?
11:59:14 >>> No.
11:59:15 I think when we started --
11:59:17 >>: I thought the aerial you showed us --
11:59:20 >>STEVE MICHELINI: No, the house is there.
11:59:22 Or they just tore it down.
11:59:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
11:59:26 So we have got a vacant, now a vacant parcel.
11:59:31 >>> It's not entirely vacant.
11:59:33 The rear portion was not demolished.
11:59:35 Sea wall, dock.
11:59:37 The whole back end was not removed.
11:59:40 And it was not removed because the supports, the tie
11:59:44 backs --
11:59:45 >> The house is gone.
11:59:47 >>> The house is gone.
11:59:48 >> That's my question.
11:59:49 >>> From here this way.
11:59:51 I understand that.
11:59:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
11:59:53 So my question is this.
11:59:54 You have a vacant lot.
11:59:56 Your client has given this survey to his or her
12:00:00 architect, correct?
12:00:03 To build the new house.
12:00:05 >>> Yes.
12:00:06 >> Okay.
12:00:06 And did the architect have the survey?
12:00:10 Did the architect know what they were building on?
12:00:15 >>> I can't testify to the architect.
12:00:18 I assume they knew what the basic constrictions were
12:00:22 >> Okay.
12:00:23 So the architect designed a house that was beyond the
12:00:27 buildable area of the legal -- the legally buildable
12:00:32 area as of today without the variance, they designed
12:00:34 it beyond the boundaries of the lot line, correct?
12:00:40 >>> Yes, they designed the house that has these
12:00:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Rolando, if we decide we do not want
12:00:52 to send this back to the VRB but simply grant the
12:00:57 variance --
12:00:58 >>> I defer that to Mr. Shelby.
12:01:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, you don't.
12:01:06 Or may remand the board to the commission or board
12:01:10 with direction on how the board or commission failed
12:01:12 to comply with the above standards.
12:01:15 And then again if it comes back a second time then you
12:01:17 have the option.
12:01:18 But the first time it has to be remanded.
12:01:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that what we've done?
12:01:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't understand why our staff
12:01:32 doesn't speak before the petitioner.
12:01:35 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm asking if he wants to speak.
12:01:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually the appellate goes first and
12:01:43 the appellee, who in this case it would be city.
12:01:46 >> Eric speaks to date, just to frame it for the
12:02:01 Then the appellate, it's customary they go first and
12:02:04 then we go to rebuttal.
12:02:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, I remind that we are at
12:02:11 the noon hour.
12:02:12 What is council's pleasure with regard to its rules?
12:02:21 >> Move to continue.
12:02:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to go to lunch.
12:02:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 15 minutes at least.
12:02:30 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I can be very brief.
12:02:32 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ladies and gentlemen, let me take a
12:02:34 quick point of privilege.
12:02:36 Madam Chair, and Mr. Santiago.
12:02:38 We break for lunch at noon.
12:02:40 I just would like to see how many people are planning
12:02:43 to speak on this because it has to be unanimous.
12:02:45 And if there's a lot of people to speak on this, we
12:02:47 are going to be going to lunch.
12:02:49 So I would just like to see how many -- see how many
12:02:51 people are going speak on this petition.
12:02:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Just raise your hand.
12:03:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Can people speak at this that didn't
12:03:09 speak at the original hearing?
12:03:11 It's not part of the original record we are taking
12:03:13 additional testimony.
12:03:14 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: The question is whether the person
12:03:17 is going to speak and I don't know who the person is,
12:03:20 if it's a person that spoke or submitted a letter.
12:03:22 The way we treat this, if you were at the hearing or
12:03:24 you submitted a document, e-mail let theory was read
12:03:27 into the record or said into the record, that
12:03:28 effectively acted as though you were there.
12:03:31 And were within the ambit of that.
12:03:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
12:03:38 You want to speak first?
12:03:40 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I have in a problems with
12:03:41 listening to the citizen here.
12:03:44 And then I can submit it.
12:03:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: I am going to move to broadcast our
12:03:51 rules and continue for an hour.
12:03:53 I'll stay.
12:04:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to
12:04:02 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
12:04:03 (Motion carried).
12:04:05 >>STEVE MICHELINI: The only thing I was going to tell
12:04:07 you was this is one of the neighbors that was going to
12:04:09 show up in support of the petition and weighed to
12:04:11 notify them because they were a party of record.
12:04:14 And they have come down to say whatever they wanted
12:04:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The evidence that you are about to
12:04:26 give us needs to pretty much match what you had
12:04:30 provided to the VRB previously.
12:04:31 So you can't give us new evidence.
12:04:33 But anything you told the VRB you are welcome to tell
12:04:36 juice my name is Julie Curtis.
12:04:40 I live in Sunset Park.
12:04:42 And I am here to support the Wichman's and their
12:04:52 He was to -- I'm speaking on behalf of my husband
12:04:55 because he was unable to come today so I just wanted
12:04:57 to know if I can go ahead and speak as well.
12:04:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If she was --
12:05:03 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: If she was not one of the people.
12:05:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Then you can't speak.
12:05:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We don't want to taint the
12:05:11 >>STEVE MICHELINI: But they are a party of record and
12:05:15 I challenge what you said because we had to notify
12:05:17 them at their property address for both people, not
12:05:21 And I don't think you can single out whether it's a
12:05:23 husband and wife or who comes and appears.
12:05:26 The husband clearly appeared at the hearing and
12:05:28 clearly said exactly what she just said.
12:05:31 But you got the message.
12:05:34 >>GWEN MILLER: It's on the record.
12:05:38 69 we got the message.
12:05:39 >>> Can I speak, please?
12:05:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
12:05:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But we got the message.
12:05:46 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
12:05:47 Mr. Santiago, let's hear yours.
12:05:51 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department on behalf of the
12:05:53 variance re vow board.
12:05:54 Madam Chair, City Council, there are three standards
12:05:57 of review before you.
12:05:59 And that is whether the due process was accorded, with
12:06:04 whether essential element of law were applied and
12:06:06 competent evidence to support the decision.
12:06:08 I ask you to up hold the decision of the VRB.
12:06:11 There was due process afforded.
12:06:13 Due process is generally considered notice and an
12:06:16 opportunity to be heard.
12:06:18 There clearly was notice.
12:06:19 They were there. They had an opportunity to be heard
12:06:21 as you have seen by the lengthy transcripts.
12:06:24 There's also a question as to whether or not due
12:06:26 process was accorded with regard to those -- what has
12:06:31 been portrayed to you as an irregularity.
12:06:36 I would like to point out, yes there, was a tie vote
12:06:36 at the first hearing and carried over.
12:06:37 At the second hearing there was a vote taken which was
12:06:41 erroneously, because there was not a written vote or
12:06:44 roll call vote but generally an oral vote, and there
12:06:47 was some mistake in how the Ayes and Nays were heard,
12:06:51 which resulted in Mr. Wichman -- the chairman saying
12:06:58 yes, it was approved, 4 to 3.
12:06:59 There was a question.
12:07:00 I would cite it was very quick.
12:07:02 You might have seen the video.
12:07:04 It was an almost instantaneous there was a second vote
12:07:08 taken, and there was a 5-2 vote to deny the petition.
12:07:11 So the span in time between those two votes was so
12:07:15 minor that I would ask you to just take it into
12:07:18 consideration as being extremely de minimis.
12:07:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that in the written record?
12:07:24 >>> It is not.
12:07:25 You would not be able to tell it in the written
12:07:27 Would you be able to tell in the DVD that was provided
12:07:30 for everybody.
12:07:31 The written record doesn't reflect the time in those
12:07:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On page 25 it appears it makes
12:07:37 clarification and says 5 to 2 for denial.
12:07:41 So it's clarified on the record.
12:07:44 >>> Yes, sir, that's correct.
12:07:45 Then there was a question as to whether or not later
12:07:47 when the reconsideration came folks had left.
12:07:49 There you have the completely different scenario.
12:07:51 A great deal of time span between when Mr. Michelini
12:07:55 came back and the other vote.
12:07:56 So you have that distinction of whether or not it was
12:07:58 five second and happened a half hour later.
12:08:01 When the reconsideration came truly folks left which
12:08:03 is why you see that recommendation from council, yours
12:08:05 truly, to not consider the reconsideration.
12:08:11 Then the question of whether the essential
12:08:12 requirements of law were met. The essential
12:08:14 requirements of law were the five hardship criteria.
12:08:17 They are consistently addressed throughout the
12:08:19 They are the criteria in which the board applied.
12:08:21 I would submit to you that also was satisfied.
12:08:24 And then whether or not there's substantial, competent
12:08:26 evidence on the record.
12:08:27 I would like like to cite to you page 8 and page 9 in
12:08:31 both John wise and board member Seth Nelson identified
12:08:35 that they did not find the hardship criteria was met.
12:08:39 I would like to point out to you when the 3-3 vote was
12:08:41 held Mr. Nelson who at that time -- I believe it's
12:08:44 page 9 -- Mr. Nelson, on the middle of page 8,
12:08:55 identified that there was no hardship.
12:08:57 However, he later recognized maybe he had been swayed
12:09:00 by some of the points made by another board member,
12:09:03 Mr. Catalano.
12:09:06 In that vote he voted in favor of approving the
12:09:10 petition but it was a tie so it carried over.
12:09:13 That's very important to point out because when the
12:09:14 second hearing came there was that opportunity to
12:09:17 readdress the substance and points of the petition,
12:09:20 which is why Mr. Michelini, the petitioner was granted
12:09:24 great leave, entire 15 minutes to readdress the point
12:09:28 of the petition, because it did have a new
12:09:31 That's something that happens from time to time with
12:09:33 these types of boards.
12:09:34 Mr. Nelson was at that hearing.
12:09:36 Again, there was considerable discussion about whether
12:09:38 or not the hardship was met.
12:09:40 You will note that there was a motion at the end, 5-2,
12:09:43 substantive motion before you today, to deny.
12:09:46 And you will notice you have got two members who
12:09:52 voted -- let me rephrase that. It's a 5-2 vote to
12:09:56 Amongst those voting to deny was, for example, Mr.
12:09:59 The board itself moved, and in their motion recognized
12:10:03 that the hardship criteria had not been met.
12:10:05 There was a great deal of discussion about how to
12:10:08 redesign the home, about the fact that was a blank and
12:10:12 it could have been defined within the confines.
12:10:16 There is substantial competent testimony, that they
12:10:20 found there was no hardship. In fact board members
12:10:23 who previously voted against it had been swayed back
12:10:25 to that side.
12:10:26 And that is sufficient grounds for me to ask you to
12:10:28 find that all three were met and to up hold the
12:10:31 decision of the variance review board.
12:10:33 That is all.
12:10:33 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Santiago, thank you.
12:10:35 I appreciate your explanation.
12:10:36 But in reviewing the testimony, et cetera, I am going
12:10:41 to tell you, it may be competent, substantial
12:10:44 But if I were on that side of that podium, I would
12:10:46 think that, yes, it's passed, no, it's not, 5-2, 3-4.
12:10:51 I think there's some question about due process.
12:10:53 And whether the conversation was awhile ago, okay, so
12:10:56 the owners of the property decided to have the
12:10:58 architect build it as though and as if this was going
12:11:01 to get approved.
12:11:02 That would be a gamble on that their part and maybe it
12:11:05 was going to be approved and maybe it wasn't but I
12:11:08 can't fault them for that.
12:11:11 They tried and maybe the plans were going to have to
12:11:11 be remodified.
12:11:11 But my concern is in terms of that vote about yes and
12:11:14 then no, whether it was five second or five minutes or
12:11:16 whatever, I just think there's some kind of an issue
12:11:19 about due process that makes me feel real
12:11:22 uncomfortable supporting what the variance review
12:11:25 board did.
12:11:26 And I don't know how my colleagues feel but I would
12:11:29 suggest in terms of a motion that we remand it back to
12:11:33 Din dung so they can vote again?
12:11:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, that's our only choice here.
12:11:37 We can't override.
12:11:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For clarification.
12:11:40 If you remand says, now what?
12:11:43 It appears a little confusing.
12:11:45 We want to you clarify the confusion and vote on this
12:11:48 again just so there's no confusion.
12:11:50 Or are we remanding because we disagree with their
12:11:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm asking that you support me because
12:11:57 I disagree with their decision but I don't know what
12:11:59 our choices are based on our conversation with you,
12:12:02 Mr. Shelby and tell me again and I'll pick the reason
12:12:05 why I'm remanding in terms of what we have to go from.
12:12:08 I don't agree with their decision.
12:12:10 So if my only choice is to remand it back so they look
12:12:13 at it again in the hope that they consider it a
12:12:15 hardship or they change their decision, then that's
12:12:18 Tell me what our choices are.
12:12:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, again, number one, is to refer
12:12:23 today, or to remand with specific direction --
12:12:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Today to --
12:12:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To affirm their decision.
12:12:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't want to do that.
12:12:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The other options would be to remand
12:12:34 it with direction.
12:12:35 Now, the directions are further proceedings with
12:12:40 direction how the board or commission failed to comply
12:12:44 with standard.
12:12:44 Now if council, using council member Ferlita's
12:12:47 position, has a question whether due process was
12:12:50 afforded, you can remand it back to ask, I believe the
12:12:56 appellant can ask for a motion to reconsider, to have
12:12:59 the motion to reconsider heard.
12:13:01 And I believe that was his request specifically to
12:13:04 remand that for that purpose.
12:13:05 >>STEVE MICHELINI: No, what I asked for was since we
12:13:09 have to remand, I was asking that you direct the VRB
12:13:12 to focus on the irregular property line and the jog on
12:13:16 the front, which was the petition that was before
12:13:19 them, not whether or not the wetland setback was part
12:13:24 of this issue because those structures still remain on
12:13:27 the property.
12:13:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Michelini, and I think Mr.
12:13:31 Santiago will stop me if I'm talking out of line here,
12:13:34 but I agree with you.
12:13:35 And if that's one of the ways that we can ask them to
12:13:38 remand it, to reconsider it, I'm very familiar with
12:13:41 the property.
12:13:42 I lived on that block for 25 years and it appears it
12:13:44 could be a hardship.
12:13:46 So if we have the option based on the new rules of
12:13:48 council, as opposed to overriding their opinion, we
12:13:51 can ask them to reconsider it for the reasons you just
12:13:56 stated, and I'm certainly comfortable with making that
12:13:58 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I would object to what Steve is
12:14:02 asking as being beyond what's provided for you to be
12:14:05 able to do.
12:14:06 What he's asking for you is basically step into the
12:14:09 shoes of the variance review board and decide this
12:14:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then what choices do we have?
12:14:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt, council
12:14:18 You can remand with direction to rehear this,
12:14:22 affording the opportunity for full due process.
12:14:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then okay, we are back to my original.
12:14:29 I make a motion we remand it with direction --
12:14:33 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: If I may, Ms. Ferlita.
12:14:35 I'm in agreement that you can clearly make the motion
12:14:37 how you want.
12:14:38 I want to ask you, though, to please be very specific
12:14:40 because the rules require to you remand it back, and
12:14:43 pointed out the fault in either, A, due process, or,
12:14:46 B -- which one of the essential requirements is not
12:14:49 properly applied, or C, whether there was not
12:14:53 competent, substantial evidence.
12:14:54 So I would ask you to kind of point it.
12:14:56 Because the board is going to ask for that direction.
12:14:58 The board is very differential to council and say what
12:15:02 did they find that we did wrong?
12:15:04 Because that's what we need to address.
12:15:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: Remand for reconsideration to look at
12:15:10 it again.
12:15:12 >>> If that is how you want to word it then what I
12:15:13 will advise the board is you don't rehear this case,
12:15:16 you just revote on it.
12:15:17 That's what they would do.
12:15:18 That's why I give you direction -- that you give
12:15:22 directions is very important.
12:15:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: When did we change this be?
12:15:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is not a council rule of
12:15:28 procedure. This was an amendment to the code.
12:15:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because the judge told us we had to
12:15:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is prior to my coming to the
12:15:38 This was as a result of the late Judge Simms court
12:15:42 decision and this required an amendment to the code,
12:15:48 which was discussed by council and handled by the
12:15:48 legal department.
12:15:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to move on.
12:15:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It was to be -- we were supposed to
12:15:59 hear it de novo?
12:16:03 I don't remember we saying we were going to remand it.
12:16:07 This doesn't make any sense.
12:16:08 We are sending it back because we heard it here?
12:16:11 What are we doing?
12:16:12 Just because we are affirming?
12:16:15 It doesn't make sense.
12:16:16 It's either the buck stops here or it goes back.
12:16:19 I don't understand.
12:16:20 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: It has nothing to do with this
12:16:23 case, to be honest, but is a great segue to what is
12:16:26 going to be coming before you in about six months.
12:16:28 Let me quickly remind you all, because there was a
12:16:31 time when we had these standards.
12:16:32 And we applied them.
12:16:33 But it was very loose.
12:16:34 When I first came to the city it was very loose.
12:16:37 It came before you and we would advice you about these
12:16:39 essential requirements -- I'm sorry, about the
12:16:41 But yet you had a lot of latitude to make any decision
12:16:44 you wanted.
12:16:44 And you exercised those latitudes.
12:16:46 And then we kind of got burned on that one time where
12:16:49 we went before Judge Simms and said no, you have to
12:16:54 afford a de novo review and until you amend your code
12:16:57 to provide a procedure for a second review, I'm going
12:16:59 to require you do that de novo.
12:17:02 For a long time we were holding the de novo and
12:17:05 council, quite honestly, you were very uncomfortable
12:17:08 with that because I recall some of you said you're not
12:17:10 lawyers, and really don't feel like applying that.
12:17:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Exactly.
12:17:15 I didn't think we changed -- (multiple conversations).
12:17:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was there a second?
12:17:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have my --
12:17:28 >>GWEN MILLER: John, are you going to make a motion?
12:17:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just two quick questions before we
12:17:32 move to a motion.
12:17:34 And I'm okay with the motion so we can get this off
12:17:36 the dime.
12:17:37 But number one, as part of the evidence, Roland, as
12:17:41 part of the evidence, there seemed to be a reference
12:17:43 in here to the Sunset Park neighborhood association
12:17:47 sending an e-mail D.that e-mail become part of the
12:17:50 Or was it just a reference to it in the dialogue?
12:17:54 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I believe it is part.
12:17:56 >>STEVE MICHELINI: It is part of the record.
12:18:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So Sunset Park association objected
12:18:02 to this, number one.
12:18:03 Number two, when I look at this drawing, the on the
12:18:06 thing I don't understand is, why couldn't the entire
12:18:09 building be slid back three or four feet toward the
12:18:13 water, the entire building, because it appears to me
12:18:17 that you can go three, four, or five feet before you
12:18:20 hit your wetland setback.
12:18:22 So that's a question to you, Mr. Michelini.
12:18:24 I don't understand that at all, why that couldn't have
12:18:27 been done.
12:18:28 And then they wouldn't be looking for the variance at
12:18:30 >>STEVE MICHELINI: It's an engineering question but I
12:18:34 know the answer.
12:18:35 I'm not an engineering but I'll tell you why it can't
12:18:39 There are what are called deadmen that are driven back
12:18:42 into the ground, and they have tiebacks on them.
12:18:45 They have cables that hold the sea wall.
12:18:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we are going to move it on.
12:18:51 We said two questions.
12:18:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two questions and one comment
12:18:53 because the comment is important.
12:18:55 You know what?
12:18:56 If I was still sitting on the variance review board
12:18:59 like I used to be I would have absolutely voted with
12:19:01 these people.
12:19:01 I think it's not a big deal.
12:19:02 But here's the problem. The problem is we have
12:19:04 created this procedure, and now we are supposed to be
12:19:06 sitting in an appellate capacity to say, to review
12:19:11 their decision, not to second guess their decision but
12:19:13 just to review it based upon the three very strict
12:19:17 standards that Roland identified.
12:19:18 We have sort of put ourselves in this bind and this
12:19:21 But my problem is having sat on the VRB and those
12:19:24 folks work very, very hard just like A.R.C. and
12:19:27 Barrio, they go till midnight.
12:19:29 They put their hours in as volunteers.
12:19:31 I feel very, very uncomfortable imparting my judgment
12:19:35 and replacing my judgment for theirs.
12:19:37 Because the message we are sending to them is, we
12:19:40 don't respect your judgment, we don't respect the fact
12:19:42 that you just spent an hour of your life working or
12:19:45 listening to all this testimony, and for whatever
12:19:47 reason they made a different decision.
12:19:49 If we are going to put them in that capacity let's
12:19:51 respect their decision.
12:19:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I agree with that and
12:19:59 paid or unpaid we spend a lot of time because we are
12:20:02 dedicated and I certainly respect the hours they
12:20:05 However, on the flip side I want to make sure that due
12:20:08 process has been afforded so I think there's nothing
12:20:10 wrong with remanding it back just to be sure
12:20:12 respectful of their time, respectful of sunset's park
12:20:16 opposition, respectful to everything in terms of this
12:20:18 But I don't think that it's any kind of a slap in the
12:20:21 face or an insult to them to that we ask that this be
12:20:27 remanded to make sure that due process was afforded
12:20:28 the petitioner.
12:20:29 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I could ask for one point of
12:20:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No, no, we're done.
12:20:35 >>STEVE MICHELINI: You gave direction before to the
12:20:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's what I'm about to do.
12:20:39 We cannot remand it back without -- just to say make
12:20:43 sure they are afforded due process.
12:20:46 We can't do that because all they are going to do is
12:20:48 reopen the hearing and say, all right, everybody had a
12:20:50 chance to talk, fine, we are going to reclose it and
12:20:52 So, Rose, if you would amend your motion to remand it
12:20:56 back to the VRB, to find that, number one, that we
12:20:59 find that due process was not afforded and number two
12:21:03 whether requirement of law have not been observed with
12:21:06 the specific instruction to review this based upon the
12:21:10 pattern of development on the cul-de-sac and the
12:21:13 surrounding properties, and the de minimis intrusion
12:21:17 into the front setback, if they review it based on
12:21:20 those criteria, then I think that we'll have a result
12:21:24 in the VRB, then makes a recommendation, we will then
12:21:27 have the ability to overrule that recommendation when
12:21:30 it comes.
12:21:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: I will be happy to do that as long as
12:21:34 I don't have to repeat that.
12:21:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, did we get a second?
12:21:38 Somebody second.
12:21:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
12:21:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
12:21:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to compliment our
12:21:45 staff, specifically Mr. Santiago.
12:21:47 I thought he was eloquent today.
12:21:49 I thought he was very specific and very clear.
12:21:52 I think that this was handled properly by the VRB.
12:21:56 And I don't see that council needs to intrude upon
12:21:59 this so I will not be supporting the motion.
12:22:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
12:22:02 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
12:22:04 Opposed, Nay.
12:22:05 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Thank you very much.
12:22:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, before we move off of
12:22:12 this, how we got ourselves into a position where we
12:22:15 cannot overturn the VRB or any other board, I suppose,
12:22:20 we have to get ourselves out of that position.
12:22:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council has directed me to prepare a
12:22:28 blueprint of opportunities for council to remove
12:22:30 itself from this certiorari process and allow appeals
12:22:33 from the VRB to go directly to the circuit court.
12:22:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But let's assume we don't ever get
12:22:40 Way want to do is change this code provision to say we
12:22:42 have the option, at this first hearing, overturning
12:22:45 the VRB decision, and granting the variance.
12:22:48 That's how we used to be able to do it.
12:22:50 We didn't -- we didn't always have to simply remand it
12:22:53 And I don't know how it got changed to this.
12:22:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I have to defer to the legal
12:22:58 department on the process of how it got to council.
12:23:00 But if that's a specific motion of council --
12:23:03 >>: Just asking it to come back?
12:23:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY : If you want to discuss this I can
12:23:08 ask legal to meet with you about this.
12:23:10 And maybe you want to bring it back to council.
12:23:12 I don't know how you want to handle it.
12:23:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't think we can be in an
12:23:17 appellate capacity to change the rules.
12:23:19 That's the common law criteria. I think if we want to
12:23:22 change the rules we have to go back to a de novo
12:23:24 situation and revisit it which apparently council
12:23:26 didn't want to be in.
12:23:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't agree with that.
12:23:29 An appellate body can't overturn the lower court's
12:23:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby and Mr. Harrison will work
12:23:39 it out.
12:23:40 We go to information by council members.
12:23:41 Mr. Dingfelder.
12:23:43 We are going to get to you.
12:23:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nothing.
12:23:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Briefly, Ms. Alvarez and I met last
12:23:49 week on the Platt and Columbia street bridges.
12:23:54 Columbus, thank you, street bridges. The city has
12:23:56 come up with a recommendation that jives with all the
12:24:01 support groups to spend about $10,000 for a bridge and
12:24:03 basically keep it running but not do anything too
12:24:06 So one of the other core lawyers to that is that the
12:24:14 preservation people wanted to ask council to submit
12:24:20 the Platt Street bridge for historic designation.
12:24:23 And I don't remember hearing about the Columbus street
12:24:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think they were both --
12:24:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I you this they were both.
12:24:35 I would like to ask council to take a look map for the
12:24:39 bridges for historic designation.
12:24:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
12:24:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What impact will that have on the
12:24:45 plans to refurbish or rebuild those bridges?
12:24:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what we check out at this
12:24:53 hearing, the math extra we went to. What the city is
12:24:55 supporting is the proposal to basically keep it
12:24:58 It not to rebuild it from scratch.
12:25:01 It too expensive.
12:25:02 It's just to renovate.
12:25:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to put on the work
12:25:10 >>THE CLERK: I believe council has already continued
12:25:12 the public hearing on historic bridges.
12:25:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On those two?
12:25:17 >>THE CLERK: Several bridges that you have continued
12:25:18 the public hearing.
12:25:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe I'll just get with
12:25:24 Mr.--Dennis and find out where it is.
12:25:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Linda, from what the county said was
12:25:34 that they were the ones that were going to come to us.
12:25:38 We had nothing to do with it because it wasn't our
12:25:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right.
12:25:42 They are going to fix the bridges but ware the ones
12:25:43 who control the historic process.
12:25:45 I'll check --
12:25:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's right.
12:25:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
12:25:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
12:25:53 Secondly, we had two meetings on chapter 27.
12:25:55 We are not quite there yet.
12:25:56 I tried to figure out a time that would be acceptable
12:25:58 to people.
12:25:59 I know that no times are really good but I have come
12:26:01 up with Friday, February 24th, from 12:00 to 1:30
12:26:05 in the Mascotte room.
12:26:07 So we'll continue our discussions of chapter 27.
12:26:12 That's next Friday, from 12:00 to 1:30.
12:26:15 That's my motion.
12:26:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
12:26:20 (Motion carried).
12:26:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Lastly, last Thursday and Friday,
12:26:23 there was a great workshop on sustainability.
12:26:28 Went into the Friday session and I'm hoping people
12:26:30 involved in this building council will come to council
12:26:34 in a few months and share their ideas.
12:26:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
12:26:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, I did remember one thing.
12:26:42 About two, three years ago I had mentioned very
12:26:45 briefly, casually, about honoring Mayor Greco in some
12:26:49 And I don't think that we have been able to do that
12:26:54 As a city, I guess we have been busy.
12:26:56 And I have been speaking to some people, that I spoke
12:27:00 to the mayor about it.
12:27:03 Mayor Iorio is currently on board.
12:27:05 I have spoken to some members of the Greco family and
12:27:08 some of his friends about some appropriate places.
12:27:11 And I would -- I don't want to just go out there on my
12:27:14 own without the council's blessing to at least
12:27:18 continue to organize this.
12:27:20 And then obviously will bring it back to council and
12:27:25 anyplace that it need to go.
12:27:27 If I could, I would just ask for your blessing to be
12:27:30 your point person on this usual you.
12:27:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So blessed.
12:27:35 Dub dung I'll move it.
12:27:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
12:27:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: I certainly don't have any objection
12:27:40 to honoring Mayor Greco but I think Mr. Dingfelder's
12:27:43 biggest obstacles and hurdle is going to be talking to
12:27:48 Dick a couple times after that he doesn't really care
12:27:50 and he's not going to be very couldn't tiff because he
12:27:52 doesn't like the fan fare.
12:27:55 Good luck.
12:27:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll drag him there.
12:27:58 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
12:28:02 (Motion carried) Mr. Harrison, anything?
12:28:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: In a.
12:28:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.
12:28:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: A couple things real quick.
12:28:08 I certainly agree this is a worthwhile effort in terms
12:28:11 of faith based initiatives.
12:28:16 I think some of the faith based leaders got this
12:28:19 notice on the third.
12:28:20 There was no CC to us.
12:28:21 And Ms. Curry laid things out the mayor's office is
12:28:27 asking today whether we will be attending the extra
12:28:29 tomorrow morning.
12:28:31 Just got notification of it today.
12:28:34 Let me read it.
12:28:36 February 16th we received a notice -- I'm going to
12:28:39 try to Rae configure because I think it's certainly
12:28:42 But again as always I would ask that the
12:28:43 administration notify us a little bit earlier than the
12:28:46 day before.
12:28:47 Mr. Shelby, did you know about this?
12:28:49 I see.
12:28:49 Well, dated February 16th.
12:28:53 The second thing I want to point out is, Alan Wright,
12:28:57 a constituent who came to my store a few days ago came
12:29:00 in to ask if I could distribute some of these save our
12:29:03 river town hall extra noses that's going to be held
12:29:06 And I think we just got notice as well.
12:29:10 But in the process, he said he's certainly very
12:29:13 passionate about our water issues as we all should be.
12:29:15 And coincidentally enough, I know that on March
12:29:18 2nd we were going to have a presentation, and we
12:29:21 received a memo from David Smith saying that they
12:29:24 would like to complete that, perhaps maybe in another
12:29:26 60 to 90 days.
12:29:27 But at the request of Alan Wright -- and I don't know
12:29:31 about the rest of you but I don't think we can ever
12:29:33 know enough about the water issues and augmentation
12:29:36 and oxygen concentration, et cetera.
12:29:38 So he suggested, and I thought it was very God and I
12:29:41 thought I would bring back that suggestion to you in
12:29:43 terms of a motion -- that we -- I'll read it.
12:29:46 In light of the importance of -- in light of the
12:29:51 importance of the establishment of minimum flows and
12:29:54 water bodies in the state particularly Hillsborough
12:29:57 River I make the motion that City Council address a
12:29:59 brief presentation, five minutes, from Southwest
12:30:01 Florida Water Management District staff to conform to
12:30:04 council simply for information, not to take any
12:30:07 direction on anything, about the flow process and the
12:30:12 minimum flow for the river downstream at the city dam
12:30:15 to be implemented in relation to the city's ability to
12:30:17 preserve water supply in the reservoir.
12:30:22 I would also ask that the water department staff be
12:30:24 available for comments and questions.
12:30:27 That would be my motion.
12:30:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
12:30:29 Question on the motion.
12:30:32 Mrs. Saul-Sena.
12:30:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you so much for bringing that
12:30:33 On Saturday, to which the public is invited.
12:30:35 I just have to say knowing a little bit about this,
12:30:38 it's really complicated, and I think we need to set it
12:30:42 at like 11:00 because it's going to take more than
12:30:45 five minutes.
12:30:45 Don't think we can address it under unfinished
12:30:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the motion?
12:30:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Hear from SWFWMD on the downstream
12:30:55 It's really complicated.
12:30:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have a pending --
12:31:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: They are changing.
12:31:03 With everything that's going on in terms of oxygen
12:31:05 concentrations, nitrogen concentrations, augmentation.
12:31:09 Even if we just minimized it.
12:31:11 Just to give us in-service.
12:31:13 And it would be great, in anticipation of what will
12:31:16 come in 60 and 90 days.
12:31:18 But I think it wouldn't hurt us to know a little more
12:31:21 about it.
12:31:21 And we can either do it that way, or if you want to
12:31:24 make it a little longer that's fine, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
12:31:27 You're right, five minutes is tough.
12:31:29 But knowing something is better than than not knowing
12:31:31 >>GWEN MILLER: If we just listen to dialogue from
12:31:35 council members --
12:31:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we have to have a balanced
12:31:38 presentation from the various folks who want to give
12:31:42 us input, including our own staff, our own water
12:31:45 staff, and I think Tampa Bay water is involved in
12:31:49 this, and SWFWMD.
12:31:52 I'm not trying to make it bigger than it needs to be.
12:31:55 But we need a balanced approach so we can get informed
12:31:58 from all sides.
12:31:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's put that at the end of the extra
12:32:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion though is specifically for
12:32:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: For SWFWMD, to find out information.
12:32:10 And it is kind of in concert with what's going to go
12:32:13 on here.
12:32:13 I forget who the representatives, department that send
12:32:17 out but just a brief overview -- go ahead.
12:32:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to do that.
12:32:21 But would also like to give some time, three minutes
12:32:24 or whatever to friend of the river who are very
12:32:26 involved in this.
12:32:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I suggest we put it at the end of the
12:32:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: This already included an than
12:32:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you do it for the end of the
12:32:39 agenda be?
12:32:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.
12:32:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Same day, March 2nd?
12:32:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.
12:32:46 Depending on the schedule.
12:32:48 They postponed that for 90 days?
12:32:50 >>THE CLERK: We have not officially postponed that
12:32:53 I just thought they were delivered this morning to he
12:32:58 That's still in your calendar for 1:30. March
12:33:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's keep that --
12:33:04 >>THE CLERK: Legal department, Tampa Bay, to discuss
12:33:10 the downstream augmentation and beautification of the
12:33:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: We could just go ahead and approve
12:33:18 putting this on March 2nd and depending what
12:33:20 happens in the next 60 or 90 days they can come back
12:33:24 for follow-up just from the standpoint of information
12:33:26 and not taking any kind of a position.
12:33:29 I just think that if the public is going to be
12:33:33 informed on Saturday about things that I think are
12:33:35 very important -- and it is hosted by friends of the
12:33:37 river, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
12:33:39 I don't think there would be any harm with limiting
12:33:41 the presentation and just hearing something about it.
12:33:44 And in 90 days, the presentation would be matured.
12:33:48 >>GWEN MILLER: On March 2nd at the end of the
12:33:52 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
12:33:54 Opposed, Nay.
12:33:54 Anything else?
12:33:58 I'm sorry.
12:33:58 >>GWEN MILLER: They can still come within 90 days.
12:34:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Use the same date to use this motion.
12:34:04 >>THE CLERK: As far as what was already set?
12:34:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think the administration wants 90
12:34:09 >>THE CLERK: I will need a motion to postpone that for
12:34:14 90 days then.
12:34:17 >> So moved.
12:34:17 >> Second.
12:34:18 (Motion carried).
12:34:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a comment.
12:34:25 If multiple council members attend a public hearing be
12:34:28 mindful of the public extra law when more than one
12:34:33 council member is present.
12:34:37 >>THE CLERK: Several items.
12:34:38 The first item is on Monday, February 20th at 1:30
12:34:42 you have a special discussion extra set for discussion
12:34:45 of the Channel District plan in the Mascotte room.
12:34:49 We have received a request to have it moved into the
12:34:53 I need to have a motion to move it.
12:34:56 >> So moved snow second.
12:34:57 (Motion carried).
12:35:00 >>THE CLERK: I also have a request from James Evans.
12:35:06 He would like to speak to council, city thank the City
12:35:10 of Tampa for the opportunity he's had over the last
12:35:12 two years to serve on the City of Tampa
12:35:14 African-American advisory board, and no longer serving
12:35:19 on the council.
12:35:19 Did he not give a date or a time.
12:35:22 I'm presenting his request.
12:35:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move to put him on the agenda for
12:35:28 next week.
12:35:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question.
12:35:31 Normally if it's something that's not on the agenda,
12:35:34 or it's something that council wishes to request from
12:35:36 the public, what they do is you ask them to come at
12:35:39 the end of the extra rather than give them a place on
12:35:43 the agenda.
12:35:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think he just did.
12:35:44 Instead of coming he just wrote it.
12:35:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: But he's requesting to be heard by
12:35:50 Normally, what council entertains, when council
12:35:53 entertains the request they ask them to come such as
12:35:55 this one here today to discuss it at the end of the
12:35:59 extra rather than placed on the agenda.
12:36:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'll certainly allow him to come and
12:36:03 speak in the extra three minutes like every other
12:36:06 citizen has the right to, whenever he wants to do
12:36:09 He doesn't even have to have our permission to do it.
12:36:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a second?
12:36:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:36:13 (Motion carried).
12:36:14 >>THE CLERK: The other items to receive.
12:36:20 >> So moved.
12:36:21 >> Second.
12:36:21 (Motion carried).
12:36:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?
12:36:24 Now we go to our audience portion.
12:36:40 (Tampa City Council extra adjourned at 12:39 p.m.)